Balance: System, Session, or what?

[James Holloway]

I mean... one of the things that defines a person, is the sum of his memories and experiences, things that show up on the character sheet as skills and abilites.  To change those around from one game session to the next... it doesn't seem to me that it would be the same character.

Those exceptions I mentioned?  They're important here.  

Let's say I'm making a character for DnD.  He's an ex-marine... a fighter trained to fight aboard ship.  I give him a few cross-class ranks in perform (sea chanties)... not because I want for an adventure to, at some point, revolve around that ability, but because it's just something he might know, and it helps define the character.

I think that's one of a wide variety of ways that character sheets are used in the game, all right. I'd find trying to translate the "same" character between a number of different systems/sheets more rewarding as a sort of exercise in understanding system than as a play experience, myself -- I'm right there with you.

But I do think the idea raises a whole slew of interesting questions about the relationship between the character, the character sheet, and the experience of play, and that your reply touches on a bunch of them (is the character sheet a descriptive document about the imaginary character or a catalogue of the character's system components? Both? Neither?). I wonder if John Kim's "role of the character sheet" thread would be a good place to explore them, or if we could maybe start a new one, because I'd love to talk about them.

[Vaxalon]

I'll start a new thread.

[contracycle]

I mean... one of the things that defines a person, is the sum of his memories and experiences, things that show up on the character sheet as skills and abilites.  To change those around from one game session to the next... it doesn't seem to me that it would be the same character.

Ah, but first of all, I didn't say from one session to the next, becuase if situation = game then game = plot, so one would expect this game to complete as a whole entity first, and secondly, the idea is precisely to carry those nuances over to the next system.

Let's say I'm making a character for DnD.  He's an ex-marine... a fighter trained to fight aboard ship.  I give him a few cross-class ranks in perform (sea chanties)... not because I want for an adventure to, at some point, revolve around that ability, but because it's just something he might know, and it helps define the character.

This paragraph runs to 67 words, so its well within the HW limits for a starting character.  On that basis this character has something like Combat Style: Marine 5w, Sing Sea Shanty at 17, etc.

I mention this because it was Hero Wars that drew clearly for me the idea that the character, as conceptualised, was distinct from the mechanical implementation of that character.  That system does not in fact need a character progression mechanism, because you could stop play on a given date, resume play at a later date (game dates these) and simply write a new 100 words for the character to represent them at that later date.

So where v1.0 of the character is a "young bravo", v2.0 might be the "established carl".  While HW does this easily, because it is built with the 100 words system, the principle of the 100 words is far reaching.  If you had a 100-word description of any character, you should be able to fill out a charsheet for them in any system, roughly.   I agree that it is seldom the case that two systems carry exactly the same balance of system over, and hence articulating a character in a new system does not always feel exaclty the same.  But with a step back, perhaps a modular system could be developed to allow such re-writing.

What I like about the charsheets like those of WOD, with a fixed list of skills, is that the 'arena of conflict' of the game is drawn right there in front of you.  Now I agree that this seldom works in practice becuase of the Finance problem mentioned, but I still like the principle.  I would propose the propblem be solved by drawing the arena of conflict even more tightly - focussing down to 10 situation-relevant abilities, say.  Then you take your character definition document in one hand (on which the history and anecdotes are recorded), and the character representation document in the other, and fill in the numbers for those necessarily relevant skills.

The idea is not to define the character - the idea is to define the situation the character finds themself in, and how that character interacts with the situation.  The situation demands only certain measurable inputs, and can only be affected by those inputs.  The character's actual IDENTITY is a wholly separate set of information.

Another comment in this direction is that I think Xenopulses Power/Evil is a good starting point for this sort of approach.  That is becuase it is very spare, architectural minimalism, I feel.  Becuase Colour has been obviated, and only Situation remains hard-coded in the rules, it is a game that accords to a particular situation and mandates the necessary inputs to the situation.  Colour is external, like the character identity.

[James Holloway]

Now I agree that this seldom works in practice becuase of the Finance problem mentioned, but I still like the principle.

Yeah -- maybe I was just complaining. The fact that there are some skills or sets thereof that aren't much use in some campaigns in one particular instance doesn't necessarily invalidate the idea, and the problem vanishes with a little rudimentary tightening on the part of the GM.

Here's a question: how does "balance" relate to who gets to implement the mechanic? I was thinking about how in most systems, players can initiate combat or magic-type actions, but it's usually the GM who calls for skill checks and so forth. Does the player's ability to directly contribute through certain mechanics make them more "valuable?"

[Vaxalon]

...Then you take your character definition document in one hand (on which the history and anecdotes are recorded), and the character representation document in the other, and fill in the numbers for those necessarily relevant skills.

This sounds like a refinement on my character inventory/play sheet idea upthread, except that instead of an inventory, you have a character concept.

In practice, though, I think this will have problems.  For one thing, what if little in the character concept is relevant to the situation, a la bankers in the amazon?

[James Holloway]

This sounds like a refinement on my character inventory/play sheet idea upthread, except that instead of an inventory, you have a character concept.

In practice, though, I think this will have problems.  For one thing, what if little in the character concept is relevant to the situation, a la bankers in the amazon?

If situation precedes character, don't create characters that don't fit the situation. If character precedes situation, don't create situations that marginalize the characters. And if they are created simultaneously, make sure they work together well.

Et voila!

[contracycle]

In practice, though, I think this will have problems.  For one thing, what if little in the character concept is relevant to the situation, a la bankers in the amazon?

Then they had better have good friends.

I have not specifically addressed balance yet, because that is indeed going to be complicated.  But I suggest it will be less complicated than balancing a game that is intended to apply to all situations equally.  For example, the "useless git we have to drag around the jungle slowing us down" could be codified as an established role with certain specific mechanisms.

I think this would allow more players to make use of non-optimised characters, because appropriate optimisation will change with situation.  Some characters would occassionaly go outside their comfort zone, perhaps, but that strikes me as a good thing.

[Vaxalon]

Hm.

It strikes me, that characters have three possible tracks for any given... not "situation" because that's already got a forge meaning... encounter.

A character can either drive conflict, resolve conflict, or observe.  A character driving conflict could be a saboteur, but he could also be a bumbler who, for example, stumbles into quicksand.