[LUNA] Simplifying Traits. Is it necessary?

[Keith Sears]

Luna uses a semi-freeform Trait system for in character creation. In order to give them some kind of structure, I've got it so that a Trait is assigned one of three different tiers, based on how flexible it is:

*Narrow: The Trait has one or two tightly related effects. Costs 1 Plot Point per die.

*Broad: The Trait has several tightly related effects. Costs 3 Plot Points per die.

*Package: A very flexible Trait with many loosely related effects, usually tied together by a theme. Costs 5 Plot Points per die.

In the interest of simplification, I've been considering reducing it to two tiers, getting rid of the Package tier. The two remaining tiers would be loosened up so that Narrow Traits would have the same current definition of Broad, and the Broad tier would take the place of Package. Narrow Traits would cost 1 Plot Point, and Broad Traits would cost 3 Plot Points.

Normally, I wouldn't worry about this so much, except that not every Trait can fall neatly into the cost structure. For example, if someone were to attempt to reproduce the magic system from D&D, which has the use of magic limited to x number of times a day, one could easily argue that something like that should cost less than if Magic had limitless uses. A two-tier system would be easier, but should I bother? Opinions?

[Andrew Martin]

Opinions?

As you point out, the plot points system is all ready easy to break. Have you considered discarding it? It would have the benefit of allowing players to play a wider and more diverse selection of characters and remove the incentive to min-max characters.

[Keith Sears]

Opinions?

As you point out, the plot points system is all ready easy to break. Have you considered discarding it? It would have the benefit of allowing players to play a wider and more diverse selection of characters and remove the incentive to min-max characters.

I would consider that, except that Plot Points are the currency of the game. During a game, they would allow the players some ability to author their own details into the adventure, either to give them an advantage during a Conflict, or filling in the gray spaces in the adventure with their own creations.

On the other hand, there is no law that says that I MUST use Plot Points to allow the players to create their characters. It would be possible to create some format schemes whereby the beginning number of Traits the character possesses and what score they are at is already determined before generation. However, this limits the choices of the players severely. A point-generation character generation system has always seemed to be the best compromise between freedom and regulation.

[Knarf]

What you need to do is give people a firm guide as to what traits go in which level. Come up with a decent, but not overwhelming, list of sample traits and where they fit into the scheme of things. This should help keep things under control.

[GreatWolf]

Normally, I wouldn't worry about this so much, except that not every Trait can fall neatly into the cost structure. For example, if someone were to attempt to reproduce the magic system from D&D, which has the use of magic limited to x number of times a day, one could easily argue that something like that should cost less than if Magic had limitless uses. A two-tier system would be easier, but should I bother? Opinions?

No, you shouldn't bother.   Just make everything a Trait and go with it.

In the case of D&D magic or similar limited-use abilities, just allow the Trait to be used as a justification for Plot Point expenditure for additional rerolls.  "I burn a Plot Point for a reroll, because my wizard casts....Magic Missile."  It has been pointed out that, in the original source material for D&D magic (Vance's Dying Earth), the spells often seem just a little too conveniently matched to the situations that the protagonist faces.  Why not allow Luna characters to do the same?  This works well for any other "trick up my sleeve" ability, like a hidden weapon or convenient escape route.  

"I swallowed the handcuff keys on Thursday."

"You knew that you would need them?"

"I swallow the handcuff keys every Thursday."*

Also remember that no universal system can simulate *everything*.  For example, you will not be able to map D&D over to Luna completely.  Can't be done.  You are building certain assumptions into your rules system that do not match the D&D assumptions.  That's okay, of course.  However, this also means that you should not base your design on "Will Luna be able to simulate D&D (or Alyria or Sorcerer or Vampire or {fill in the blank RPG}?"  Because the answer to that question is simple:  No, it can't.  It's like expecting to be able to simulate all battles using the rules for chess or any economic struggle with Puerto Rico.  Rather, you should say "Will Luna be equipped to handle a variety of genres?"  I think that you will best approach this goal by discarding a tiered approach to Traits and allowing Plot Points to handle one-shot powers.

*Bonus points to the first one who recognizes the source of the quote.  (PM me if you're curious.)

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, Seth, you know I disagree. You read my response on the Outsider list, right? :-)

I personally feel that two levels is good (more is only good if a specific funciton can be found for them). The reason is that the broad traits can be used as defaults, thus meaning that you can get much closer to "simulating *everything*". That is, by having the broad traits to fill in the cracks, you have a much tighter definition of character. Luna doesn't have the fortune to be able to ignore skill like Alyria does, so these things become pertinent. Can the character do math? I don't know, can he? There should be some stat that handles this. The easiest way to do this without having to have every character take Math skill is to have broad traits.

On the minmaxing point, what we had discussed on the list is simply having the GM assign certain types of broad abilities that every character should have. Like a culture and a profession, etc. I agree that the point method is problematic.

Note that Luna has a sorta Lifepathish sort of thing in it. I think this could be leveraged to provide a sensible limit on broad skills.

Mike

[GreatWolf]

Hey, Seth, you know I disagree. You read my response on the Outsider list, right? :-)

I'm actually not on the Outsider list, but Keith games with Ralph, Crystal, and myself.

I personally feel that two levels is good (more is only good if a specific funciton can be found for them). The reason is that the broad traits can be used as defaults, thus meaning that you can get much closer to "simulating *everything*". That is, by having the broad traits to fill in the cracks, you have a much tighter definition of character. Luna doesn't have the fortune to be able to ignore skill like Alyria does, so these things become pertinent. Can the character do math? I don't know, can he? There should be some stat that handles this. The easiest way to do this without having to have every character take Math skill is to have broad traits.

I hear you re: defaults.  However, I would take that as an argument for only one level of Traits.  In a sense, any Trait can be broad, but its breadth will cover different areas.  "Black Trench and Sunglasses" may not represent a definable set of skills, but it *could* be applied to any situation where "being cool" would give an edge.

On the other hand, I don't have the context of the Outsider list, so I don't know if this approach violates other design criteria.  Shrug.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Keith Sears]

On the other hand, I don't have the context of the Outsider list, so I don't know if this approach violates other design criteria.  Shrug.

If you want to check out the list archives, they can be viewed without joining the group. You can find them at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/outsider_chronicles/.

Actually, changing the tier structure isn't going to affect the rest of the game much. In fact, the changes would probably bring me closer to one of my goals.

The main reason I haven't simply jumped at the 1 pt. equals 1 trait idea before is because of the fear of munchkinism and rules lawyers. If everything only cost 1 pt. no matter how broad or narrow the trait is, some schmoe would come up with the bright idea of putting an impossible bunch of goodies under one trait. Like putting Agile, Sharp Senses, Unaging, Good with Archery, Resistant to Enchantment, and Immune to Sleep under the trait, "Elf." That, and concerned that races would be homogenized into tastelessness by such a practice.

However, the more I think about it, the more I realize that other forces can be brought into the game in order to maintain balance. One would be the Social Contract. I'm sure that peer pressure could be brought in to help keep that sort of thing from happening. There is also the possibility that I may allow individual traits to be targeted in combat. Then the character with the bright idea runs into a "All your eggs in one basket" situation.