Flexible Priorities and Insight

[Lxndr]

Okay, I've searched and haven't found this - I've seen threads with people talking about making priorities more flexible, but I've yet to see anything concrete.  So, here's a short set of guidelines for a house rule that handles flexible priorities elegantly (imho):

1.  All players start with 15 "Character Points."  They get an additional CP for every 15 points, or fraction thereof, of Insight that they possess (this mimicks the TRoS advancement schedule very well until you break 100 Insight, at which point they diverge, but it still works).

2.  An F priority costs 0 points.  E is 1, D is 2, and so on up until A as 5.

Using these rules, one could have a CCCDDD character, or an ABCDEF character, or an AAAFFF character, or any other of a number of combinations.  Use as you will, or not, but it came to me during yesterday's TRoS session and I wanted to preserve it for posterity.

Edited to add the optional 3rd rule:

3.  If you don't want to allow characters who are too mundane or too outlandish, simply add this ruling:  all characters must pick one priority as their primary.  No other priority may be equal to or higher than this.

Thus, CCCDDD and AAAFFF are both out of the question.  But something like say ABBDFF could still be made.

[kidar]

I like the idea, but someone having 3 A's sounds scary... you could create a horrible fighter with attributes, profiences and skills as A priority. Ok, you'de be human slave with some major flaws but still it sounds pretty awesome..


kiD

[Lxndr]

Hopefully, my 3rd rule, which I edited in while you were posting, will solve those concerns.

But, on the other hand, an awesome fighter who's a slave/prisoner/outlaw with some horrible flaws to boot could be a great roleplaying opportunity, too.  I'm more concerned that players would want to make a character who's CCCCCF - totally average across the board, except for Race.  My god, that would be BORING.

[kidar]

at least I'd create that uber-fighter =)... Hight attributes, high profiencies, and low combat skills (such as Body language and Acrobatics, which may help a lot if you're good enough).

But the base idea is good, imo.

[Draigh]

I really like that idea...  have you had anyone design a character like that yet?

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Min maxers dream come true.... You could make a mini supp with this:
"Riddle of the Munchkin Min Maxer"

or would "munchkin min maxer" be more of conept? Or maybe philosophy?

Yeah, I balk at this idea but it may be great for other players. Let me know how it goes if anyone tries it.

[Lxndr]

Draigh>  I came up with the idea last night, and I'm a player in the game, so... no.  Nobody's created a character with it yet.

Ashren>  I'm not sure what the problem is, really.  As I mentioned earlier, the issue isn't with the AAAFFF character (which is, quite honestly, rife with GM hooks, and the most min-maxed in a technical sense), it's with the CCCCCF character (who's really dull and boring, and doesn't have anything to stand out).

In fact, I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone willing to take it:  Create a STARTING CHARACTER using this system, who you believe is mini-maxed beyond the point of playability in a TRoS game.  For an added bonus, make sure it follows the third, optional rule that was added specifically to discourage min-maxing.

[Ian Charvill]

It doesn't seem to me that the current Riddle character generation rules are overly concerned with balance in any case.  It'd be pretty easy to create a twinked character if you were inclined.  I'm not sure Lxndr's variant rule is any more prone to twinking than the current system.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

its not really balance, its real.

A character who is an academic sword master mage is too many hats. The character could be interesting but I am not gonna toss too much money on that bet. And you can't tweak a character in riddle of steel as is, each priorityyou choose has an opportunity cost that you must pay for choosing it, in otherowrds, the alternates you could have chosen.
This system lessens that cost, its there but in a different form. Softens it I guess.  I just forsee someone making a character that is not "real" enough for what I like to run.

playability is not an issue, everything is playable, its the "fun" that is weakened for me when a character is too, well, goofy. A character who is a slave, flawed up the ass, but a master swordsman who knows every language and history of the world better than the librarians at Barameir city and can use magic too is really lame and unbelievable. Could you play it? yes, you could also play a short green dude with his ass attached to his forehead and his genitals hanging from his chin. But that is not the kind of game I like to play. Thus my statement that if this is what you want, have fun, let me know how it goes, but I dont see it as being my game.

[Lance D. Allen]

Methinks you're overreacting just a little much...

Here's a hint to avoid the "unreality" of the master swordsman/sorcerer/world-class scholar/slave/severely flawed/human...

Seneschal approval! If the Seneschal thinks that the character is too much, all he has to do is say NIMBY.

Then there's them like me what don't care so long as there's an engaging and mostly plausible story behind it all. I once very specifically told a friend of mine that I'd never allow him to play a Life Slave character in my early Mage Blade playtests, so he took it as a challenge. One evening later, he pitched me the concept, I grinned and shook my head in defeat, and helped him through chargen.

If you don't like the idea, that's your right, so don't play with it. But your extreme euphemisms and examples are a bit out of line, methinks.

I am the Seneschal of the game in which Lx plays. I probably will not allow any characters to be made using this system in the current game, simply because I've not seen how it's of any particular benefit yet. I see no problems with it though I admit a tendency to prefer point-based systems, as well as being entirely aware of the min-maxing potential inherent in them.

Still.. Methinks the old axiom (slightly modified) is in order: If you can't say something nice (or at least constructive and polite) don't say anything at all.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Methinks you're overreacting just a little much...

Here's a hint to avoid the "unreality" of the master swordsman/sorcerer/world-class scholar/slave/severely flawed/human...

Seneschal approval! If the Seneschal thinks that the character is too much, all he has to do is say NIMBY.

Then there's them like me what don't care so long as there's an engaging and mostly plausible story behind it all. I once very specifically told a friend of mine that I'd never allow him to play a Life Slave character in my early Mage Blade playtests, so he took it as a challenge. One evening later, he pitched me the concept, I grinned and shook my head in defeat, and helped him through chargen.

If you don't like the idea, that's your right, so don't play with it. But your extreme euphemisms and examples are a bit out of line, methinks.

I am the Seneschal of the game in which Lx plays. I probably will not allow any characters to be made using this system in the current game, simply because I've not seen how it's of any particular benefit yet. I see no problems with it though I admit a tendency to prefer point-based systems, as well as being entirely aware of the min-maxing potential inherent in them.

Still.. Methinks the old axiom (slightly modified) is in order: If you can't say something nice (or at least constructive and polite) don't say anything at all.

wow, you think the extreme euphamisms are out of line eh? Sorry, I will restrict myself to the more conventional (read as "vulgar" in all senses of the word irronically enough) next time.

Let me guess, it was the chin thing wasn't it? Or was the green guy a bit on the racist side?

And yeah, I am just messing with you dude. Sorry you took it bad. I just find that those "extreme euphamisms" tend to generally get the point across well. All hyperbole aside, in the end, I guess you still missed my point though when I was trying to say WHY IT IS NOT A MOD FOR ME but BEST OF LUCK TO ALL WHO TRY IT AND LET ME KNOW HOW IT GOES.

If I can clarify any further, let me know.

[Brian Leybourne]

Seneschal approval! If the Seneschal thinks that the character is too much, all he has to do is say NIMBY.

NIMBY?

Neo-Industralised Mechanical Bioengineered Yaks?
Never Interview Mad Boris Yeltsin?
Nasty, Itching Marble-colored Bites that have gone Yellow?
Not In My BloodY campaign?

Nope, you've lost me.

Brian.

[Ingenious]

I accept your challenge to make a min/maxed character with the 3rd version of the rules.
And Brian... save the postulating of the acronyms for later...
Now then..
Let me go read the book and formulate a character.
I shall return with my findings later.

::edited to delete my use of Brian's name as an acronym to poke fun at him...
-Ingenious

[Ingenious]

Priorities.
A.(primary)Attributes
B. Proficiencies
C. Skills
C. Gifts/Flaws
F. Race
F. Social(PRISONER, not peasant) Big difference there.

STR5-1(4)  AG6+1(7)  TO5-1(4)  EN4  HT4
WP4  WIT6+1(7)  MA7  SOC2+1(3)  PER4
Bonuses: Character is from Picti. +1 AG, WIT, Soc; -1 TO, ST
Possible mathematical errors.
Drived skills: Reflex 7 Aim 5 Knockdown 5 Knockout 6 Move 7
Proficiencies: 9, 7 into one weapon. 2 into ranged weapon of some sort.
CP is at 14. If character is rapier-man, even more dangerous. 14 dice to throw at an ATN of 5....
Skills 7/7 doubled up on Thief... all skills points from MA go towards mastering some thievery skills.
Gifts/Flaws Major gift- either accuracy or quick healing Minor flaw is bad reputation(he IS a prisoner for a reason you know)

So there it is, my attempt at a min/maxed character. Playtest to see if it is so.
-Ingenious

[Lxndr]

NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard.  It's mainly an American term, and I'm not sure if it applies in this case.  NIMBYs are generally people who say "We need more jails/nuclearpowerplants/landfills/etc., but put them somewhere else!  Not in My backyard!"  So, since as Seneschal he's not saying "we need more imbalanced characters, but not in my campaign!" or something similar, it's not completely appropriate.  Still, now that you know the acronym, Lance's point should be clear.  :)

I talk too much.

Ingenious>  I'm seriously interested to see if you manage to create an egregiously abusive character.  Because honestly, I don't even see how an AAAFFF could be made as "more out of line" than an ABCDEF.  Those three Fs in the AAAFFF are killer.  And you're using rule #3, so in terms of sheer priority-letters the "best" you can do is ABBDFF.  

Added because Ingenious posted his first entry while I was writing this.  Yay for "Preview" before posting!  So your entry into the "most min-maxed" is ABCCFF instead of ABCDEF?  That's it, one minor letter change?  Heck, that's basically a starting character, the only difference is that he's in prison rather than carting around a Major Flaw.  Note:  Soc is MINUS one, not +1, so your character's starting Soc is 1.  Ouch!  I started my character off that way and wow, it hurts.  And you're doubling up on Thief when you have 7/7 for your packages?  I'm not sure why, but that seems... um, well, I guess your thief skills will be good anyway, but you're narrowly focused.  Your character can sneak around, draw his rapier, but ask him to open his mouth... or do anything other than sneaking and rapier-fighting... well, just from glancing at this character, as a GM I don't see any problems.

Ashren>  Hrm.  A flawed slave master swordsman who can use magic and has big skills?  A: Proficiencies, B: Magic, C: Skills, D: Attributes, E: Gifts, F: Social Class.  Although believe me, I've got a sorcerer with an "A" proficiencies, and if you're doing both proficiencies AND magic, even with an "A" you're going to be hurting in both categories to split them.  (The charcter I'm playing now is A: Proficiencies, B: Magic, C: Social Class, D: Skills, E: Gifts, F: Attributes)

And if you do AAAFFF and put magic in the mix, you honestly don't have ENOUGH A's.  I think that's why the min/max that was actually suggested earlier, by kidar (using AAAFFF) was:

A: Attributes
A: Skills
A: Proficiencies
F: Gifts
F: Race
F: Social Class

So no magic, just huge attributes, skills, and proficiencies (the alternative would be to put an "F" in Attributes, and trust me when I say attributes that low won't let you be a master ANYTHING).  You're the only one who seems to be presupposing trying to make a master swordsman/academic/mage with this system, instead of just a master swordsman/academic.  To even try all three, you'd need a MINIMUM of 3 A's (attributes, skills, proficiencies) and a B (human magic-user) - so assuming you're willing to have "F" in the other two, that's 4 Insight Levels after being a starting character.  And like I said, even with "A" in proficiencies (hence 14 points) if you split them between sorcery and weaponry, you'll be hurting in one or the other.

In other words, my little five-minutes-to-think-up system already agrees with you, Ashren - magic and swordsmanship in the same character is too many hats, at least if you want to be a master in both (although being a master in either one of them and being well-skilled is not).  My system doesn't break Jake's priority table, so there's no way to get more than 15 points of proficiencies to start with (at least, I don't think any nationality gives more than +1 to proficiencies).

So, now that I've babbled far too much...  Ashren, if it's not your cup o' tea, so be it.  I'm not even sure if it's mine.  But I think you're slightly exaggerating what this change can do, which might be on purpose...  but it might not be, and I don't want you making your judgement based on an improper interpretation of the mechanic.