a new way of dealing with Race & Sorcery

[Deliverator]

One thing I'm not that happy about in the core book is the way Race works.  It seems like playing a non-gifted Seelie, Unseelie, or Halfling is extremely underpowered.  What you get out of choosing one of those races seems no more powerful than what you can get from choosing a favorable national background (which is free).

Furthermore, it seems to me that it sort of "breaks the table" that there is no difference between D, E, and F in race.

In any case, for the epic fantasy game I'm planning, I want PCs to be able to choose their race freely, and simply have the benefits and drawbacks of racial packages be balanced with those of the human nations.  So, I need a way of dealing with Sorcery as a Priority, since Race is now not on the Priority table.  (Bear in mind I'm planning on using that alternate sorcery system Stephen posted a few days ago.)

What I was thinking of doing was, as usual, have F be "no magic at all."  Then maybe have E be something like "may only use Cantrips and may only have Schools (Vagaries) at level 1."  D would be "may only use either Cantrips of up to level 2 (and may only have Schools at level 2) or Spells of level 1."  C is "may only use Cantrips (all levels) or Spells (up to level 2)."  B is "may use Cantrips and Spells freely, but only up to level 2 Rituals."  And A is "full Magic use."

My problems with this idea are several:
1.  There may not be enough difference between some of the levels, particularly at the ends (between E and F and between A and B).  Or, the restrictions may be a tad nonsensical:  who wants to do a level 2 Ritual, anyway?  (Though I could be wrong about that.)
2.  I don't expect anyone to take anything other than "F" or "A."  That's not such a big deal, to my mind—unless I get alot more players than I'm expecting, there will probably be only one Sorceror in the party.  At least the option is there with this system for a dabbler if someone wants to take it, and it does solve the problem of having D, E, and F undifferentiated.

My other thought was to present options, allowing people to take magic items of various sorts if they choose something other than "F" or "A."

F:  Nothing
E:  One item of a very minor nature (ex: a candle which never burns down).
D:  One item of a minor nature (ex: a self-knotting rope [+2 dice to use the Climb skill]).
C:  One medium-powered item (ex: a canteen which never runs dry), or two minor ones.
B:  One major item (ex: a magic sword or bow, armor which is lighter than normal [CP penalty is 1 less], a magic carpet), or one medium and one minor item.
A:  Sorcery.

My reasoning here is that even a fairly good magic item is just not as useful in terms of its flexibility as actual sorcery.

Of course, I could combine the tables, to allow for people to dabble in Sorcery if they wish, or take magic items.

I don't intend for magic items to be at all common in my game—I want them all, even the most minor, to have an attached history and significance.  But I think it could help people choose interesting backstories and SA's to allow them to start with an item of power.

Adopting this idea would mean disallowing Artifact as a Gift, however.

Thoughts?

Matt

[Jake Norwood]

Hi Matt.

The table isn't set up by power structure, although it may seem that way. It's set up by priority of what's important to the player. In TROS, nothing, especially character creation, combat, and anything having to do with the SAs, has anything to do with character, really. It's about the player. How bad does the player want to play a seelie is the real issue, not any issue of balance, "making sense," or really even any indication of rareness in the game world (although that last one was on my mind when I put the table together).

Your approach looks good at first glance--it just accomplishes something different.

Jake

[Deliverator]

Hi Matt.

The table isn't set up by power structure, although it may seem that way. It's set up by priority of what's important to the player. In TROS, nothing, especially character creation, combat, and anything having to do with the SAs, has anything to do with character, really. It's about the player. How bad does the player want to play a seelie is the real issue, not any issue of balance, "making sense," or really even any indication of rareness in the game world (although that last one was on my mind when I put the table together).

Your approach looks good at first glance--it just accomplishes something different.

Jake

Thanks for your reply, Jake.  I definitely appreciate that your design philosophy with TROS is not entirely focused on traditional notions of "balance."  (Or "gamism" as the theory people put it.)  However, I must disagree with you somewhat in that the priorities table, in every column *but* race (and *maybe* social class, but I'll get to that), does reflect character "powerfulness."  Better skills help you succeed more often at doing non-combat stuff, more proficiencies make you either a better fighter or a more well-rounded one, and so on.  I would also argue that the Insight points system (which I think is awesome, btw) encourages one to equate priority letters with power.

Social class is a bit different because it is more of a story thing.  Obviously, having nice equipment to start out with is great, but TROS is a much less stuff-focused game than many others.  The real benefit of a high social class, it seems to me, is being able to boss others around, perhaps having certain legal immunities, etc.  But there are lots of players who would enjoy playing a slave or struggling peasant.  Even though that might be harder in some respects, it's an interesting challenge, and will be made up for by other things.  Whereas my complaint about the race table comes down to the fact that, if it's "important to you" to play a non-gifted member of a non-human race, which as far as I can tell at least in the published setting is a hard road to hoe, you're not getting much back.  And that would frustrate alot of players, making them less likely to take that option.

The out-of-gameness or meta-ness, for lack of better terms, of the SAs seems to me a different animal.  You obviously can't have SAs which will cover every situation, but so long as you have a vigilant GM, everybody's SAs will come up (or have the opportunity to come up).  Nobody "loses" anything for picking a particular SA, again with the caveat that it be well-picked at least.

Anyway, it's a relatively minor point, and I have no functional experience yet with the system beyond a few duels, so I definitely acknowledge that I could be "all wet" here.  I certainly agree with you that I am trying to accomplish something slightly different with the proposal I made in this thread, and I am glad you think it'll work.  I'm not even using the same magic system as the published one for this campaign I'm planning, so I guess it makes sense that I might want to tweak the part of the priority table related to magic.

Matt

[Ben Lehman]

So, Matt, when you picture playing your game, do you picture the group as a bunch of humans, essentially, with special-guest stars of various races?  Or do you picture a big melting pot of strangeness?

It seems to me that, by removing race entirely from the equation, you will end up with the latter.

In short, I would keep the category as Race and, knowing what I know about your setting, I would leave all "magic" until later in the game.

yrs--
--Ben

[Deliverator]

So, Matt, when you picture playing your game, do you picture the group as a bunch of humans, essentially, with special-guest stars of various races?  Or do you picture a big melting pot of strangeness?

It seems to me that, by removing race entirely from the equation, you will end up with the latter.

In short, I would keep the category as Race and, knowing what I know about your setting, I would leave all "magic" until later in the game.

yrs--
--Ben

Well, first and foremost, I picture relatively few players.  I'm thinking 3 or 4.  But your point is well-taken.  In any case I'll certainly redesign the Race table.

Matt