Quick CharGen Question

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings M. J. Young,

That was a very eloquent and informative introductory post.  So fine a post was it that, in my humble opinion, I think it could be excised from this thread and expanded upon to form an article cum guide to the basic principles of character generation.

A grade-A excellent effort!

Apologies for truncating it so badly.

I think that if you could find a way to get characters to define a character concept and identity and then translate that into game mechanics, that's the best way to get what you want--but it's a lot harder to do in a fantasy setting, because it's tougher to get the benchmarks for what's appropriate.

You make many interesting points...

Alas, and this in no wise is meant to malign your post, I do not think all your points fully apply to Pixies, at as the game stands at the moment.  But only because there currently is only the one character type extent; the Pixie.  For instance your remark, “There is inherent in the point-based approach this unstated assumption: all characters are created equal, not in law but in fact.” seems a bit extreme.  I realize that most players of our modern fast-food generation want everything two seconds ago and characters that are all that and a side of fries but, from what I recollect of most point allocation systems I have seen, wasn’t it more a matter of setting a common difficulty standard?

Of course some systems probably do leave the proverbial door wide open for potential abuse.  Then again if the system is designed to be a “combined randomized/point based system, in which the range of points to be made available is established”[/color], as you point out, is perhaps a better approach.  Too, I am intrigued as to why you feel that a CharGen system “worth pursuit is a sort of template and points system”[/color] for Pixies?

There is always room for expansion, especially in the ‘creation of non-player character’ types department, but that is perhaps a discussion best left for another thread.



Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[M. J. Young]

I'm pleased that my post was of some help. I can respond to most of your comments by saying that at no point was I intending for anything said to apply specifically to Pixies, but rather to be a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of point-based versus random character generation in the abstract. I perceive that you did ask for opinions related to the game, but save Ron's none seemed to consider that (and Ron's was that other elements of the game should be considered in that connection).

there currently is only the one character type extent; the Pixie. For instance your remark, ?There is inherent in the point-based approach this unstated assumption: all characters are created equal, not in law but in fact.? seems a bit extreme.

In this world there is only one character type extant: the human. Humans are equal in law, but would any argue that Stephen Hawking, Nolan Ryan, Donald Trump, President George W. Bush, Reverend Billy Graham, and Angela Lansbury are equal in fact? And even if after comparing strengths and weaknesses we decided that their abilities all came out to the same amount, would we then be willing to include ourselves and our friends on the same list? If all pixies are the same, then you don't need character generation--you just say, "Here's a one each pixie character sheet, please write your character's name at the top" and you're done. The game is made interesting because characters have differing strengths and weaknesses, but also to some degree because they have different total strength.

The idea of the template and points system was also "worth pursuing" in general. There are more games in progress at the Forge at any moment than I can fully learn, so I try to keep my investment in each limited to a very general understanding of what is being attempted and my comments to very general concepts. However, what a templates and points system allows you to do is devise character concepts, whether as strong as classes or as weak as primary areas of ability, and use them as a starting point. Thus you could have templates for the pixie who tends to use force, versus the one that tends to think, or negotiate, or outmaneuver.  Each of these could represent a core set of abilities, possibly associated skills (don't remember whether Pixies has skills) and a splash of points that would be used to customize them. But I'm not at all convinced this is "right" for Pixies; it's just an option tossed out to help you think of how to balance equality with inequality (which is in essence what point based seems to be about, Scattershot excepted).

Again, I hope this is helpful.

--M. J. Young