Party creation that favors specialization

[Simons]

I definitly hadn't considered some of those ideas.  Let me see...

So, the only place where 1 order / 2 orders would get messy is in group actions.  I have a system set up where if you want 3 characters to charge forward, you can do that with a single order (my theory was that this would be a good way to make squads realistic).  I mean, perhaps it could work, it would just need to be if any opposite characters were told to perform an action, it meant 2 orders instead of one.  Although, I'm not sure if that would be simpler or more complicated than just having the general get 4 or 5 orders (my worry is having to keep track of "oh, Kat's a rival character, but Jenny isn't"). 

I guess there's one thing about your skill tree system I don't get: let's say that Bob is a fighter, and Jill is a mage.  In game terms, what makes them different?  Does Bob gain bonus stats?  Does he automatically gain the "power attack" skill (or ability, which term would you use here?)?  Or, is it that he gain access to a variety of skills which Jill can no longer access?  What if Bob becomes a martial arts fighter, while Ulga becomes a barbarian-esque heavy fighter?  What's the difference? 

And I've been steering away from the race idea.  Basically, one of my original ideas for this game is that I wanted players to be able to base their party around any fantasy miniatures that they picked up off the shelf, or happened to have sitting around.  Because your party could be made of anything (my last game was Warhammer 40K figures vs. D&D minis), I wanted my char creation system to be very inclusive.  To some degree I wanted to avoid things like classes/templates for that reason, although it seems inevitable (or at least the better option).  The big difference though is that you can say, "I have this wicked-awsome giant piece I'd love to use.  I think I'll make it a fighter," but you couldn't say, "I'll make that giant piece an orc."  I guess it's that I don't want even try to cover every race-type imaginable (because I couldn't), and I don't want a person to not use a piece because there aren't rules for it. 

Although, that said, I did ponder at one point a mortal/undead/construct/beast template.  I'm not quite sure why I abandoned it.  I think just too many mortals.

And, to make sure I understand the Pirates reference (I haven't actually played the game myself), would that look something like this:
I have a Green/Nature party.  Each character has the basic stats, +2 hp.
My general is a Druid, she gets "Wild Form."
I have two elites who are Animals, they get +1 Power and +1 Toughness.
I have two cronies who are Green Knights, they get either "regenerate" or "parry."
I am not allowed to have a Paladin, a Tinker-Mage, or a Necromancer, but I could have had a Ranger on a Green Wizard.
Or, am I missing something here?

And, I guess another thing I have been reconsidering, do all of these specialization rules actually add to the game (by adding variety or some such thing), or do they just add confusion?

Simon

[Vulpinoid]

I've been toying with a generic wargame system for a few years, that's why I've got plenty to add to this topic. I've even lined up a few independant miniatures manufacturers and have offered to write specific supplements for my generic wargame which would specifically incorporate their product ranges...

...but that's an entirely different topic.

Since this is getting a bit further than the first thoughts point, I'll send you a private message about how I'd set up a few base game mechanics.

Maybe this topic can be further in a different part of the forum once you've laid out a few basics.

I'm not trying to shut down the topic, but neither am I wanting to get into complex discussions of inter-character dynamics in something that's meant to be "first thoughts".

Give me a day or two and I'll PM you some thoughts.

V

[Monkeys]

In terms of how complex individual characters should be:

if one player is controlling an entire team, then creating a team should take about as much time, be about as complicated, and have about as many options, as creating a single character in a normal RPG. The team as a whole is their 'character'.

Obviously there's a lot of range in how long it takes to create a character in a normal RPG.

[Monkeys]

If you wanted to have the players identify with their characters, but still have lots of characters, and yet not have character creation take too long, you could have one 'leader' or 'hero' per team, who is understood to be 'your character', and who has a more complicated and customisable set of statistics. And then the rest of the team are defined in simpler ways.

[Simons]

In terms of how long character creation takes, true, it can be a big range.  I don't know, right now a game takes about 2 hours, maybe 2 1/2-ish, to play.  Things might speed up eventually, once you take out the learning curve, but yeah, about that long.  I'm not sure yet if there will be continuing campaigns, I hope so, but we'll see.  So, there's something that seems ridiculous about spending more than 30 minutes creating your party.  Although, yeah, thinking that party creation should take the same about of time and creative energy as character creation is probably a good way of looking at it (although less wouldn't be bad either). 

And I have pondered a system like what you suggested, where the game is about a shining hero and her lackies.  I guess the worry with that though, is that the game would be about the heroes fighting, and too many battles would reduce down to everyone's dead except the two heroes.  Maybe this wouldn't happen, but my worry is that it would change the dynamics of my game in a direction I wouldn't like (not that it's a bad option, just that I'm envisioning something different).  I guess it's like, well, when you are playing Final Fantasy (or some computer rpg), and wandering through a dungeon, rats and muck-beasts are there, and fighting them provides some entertainment for you, but to a large degree they are just filler, and really what the game is about is fighting Sephiroth at the end.  Fine for that medium, but I want my game to be just as much about the rats as the final boss.

[Monkeys]

In terms of how long character creation takes, true, it can be a big range.  I don't know, right now a game takes about 2 hours, maybe 2 1/2-ish, to play.  Things might speed up eventually, once you take out the learning curve, but yeah, about that long.  I'm not sure yet if there will be continuing campaigns, I hope so, but we'll see.  So, there's something that seems ridiculous about spending more than 30 minutes creating your party.  Although, yeah, thinking that party creation should take the same about of time and creative energy as character creation is probably a good way of looking at it (although less wouldn't be bad either). 

And I have pondered a system like what you suggested, where the game is about a shining hero and her lackies.  I guess the worry with that though, is that the game would be about the heroes fighting, and too many battles would reduce down to everyone's dead except the two heroes.  Maybe this wouldn't happen, but my worry is that it would change the dynamics of my game in a direction I wouldn't like (not that it's a bad option, just that I'm envisioning something different).  I guess it's like, well, when you are playing Final Fantasy (or some computer rpg), and wandering through a dungeon, rats and muck-beasts are there, and fighting them provides some entertainment for you, but to a large degree they are just filler, and really what the game is about is fighting Sephiroth at the end.  Fine for that medium, but I want my game to be just as much about the rats as the final boss.

Ah, but the 'leader' or doesn't have to be more powerful than their 'hirelings' - they could be like the king in chess.

[Monkeys]

Another couple of thoughts for campaigns -

you could benefit from capturing enemies more than from killing them; perhaps like medieval battles where the 'object' was to capture nobles so you could ransom them, or like the Aztecs(?) who sacrificed captives taken in battle.