Hi Fang,

I have a number of Currency questions about Scattershot.

Here's one, admittedly from the basic grognard school of thought, but still genuine.

If starting character points are unlimited, then why are skills sensu stricto rated in cost according to their "difficulty" to learn?

As opposed merely to taking the abilities that seem just right for the character, case closed? That would seem to be the purpose of having no point caps. So ... why any cost to abilities at all? (Hero Wars, for instance, has no such thing in character creation, although it does come in regarding character development.)

The current construction implies that the "points themselves" are entities of note or worth or importance during play, but as far as I can tell, they aren't - after character creation, those points basically evaporate as game items.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, I get this a lot. "What's the point?" "Why have points with no cut-offs?"

Ron Edwards wrote: I have a number of Currency questions about Scattershot.

Ron Edwards wrote: Here's one, admittedly from the basic grognard school of thought, but still genuine.

If starting character points are unlimited, then why are skills sensu stricto rated in cost according to their "difficulty" to learn?

Ron Edwards wrote: As opposed merely to taking the abilities that seem just right for the character, case closed? That would seem to be the purpose of having no point caps. So ... why any cost to abilities at all? (Hero Wars, for instance, has no such thing in character creation, although it does come in regarding character development.)

Ron Edwards wrote: The current construction implies that the "points themselves" are entities of note or worth or importance during play, but as far as I can tell, they aren't - after character creation, those points basically evaporate as game items.

Fang

Thought I would ask this question again, as it probably got lost in one of my longer responses in a earlier. I agree with your assertion that no cut offs for typical Abilities is self-limiting, because of the diminishing returns gained in chance of Success, for each rating. That is for Ratings who measure your Acting/Opposing Ability.

However, this obviously doesn't apply to Powers and such where your Power is mapped to the UE, which provides a geometric increase in effectivness for each point gained. For example, what's to stop me to get a say a Power of 300 in my energy blast (able to vaporize the moon in one shot or whatever.), this could be pretty jarring when the other guy made Batman, or more cruely Hawkman:). The only solution would seem to campaign power limits?

Or to take a Geas spell that can 2.5 billion people, etc.

Rob Muadib

RobMuadib wrote: I agree with your assertion that no cut-offs for typical Abilities is self-limiting, because of the diminishing returns gained in chance of Success, for each rating. That is for Ratings who measure your Acting/Opposing Ability.

However, this obviously doesn't apply to Powers and such where your Power is mapped to the UE, which provides a geometric increase in effectivness for each point gained. For example, what's to stop me to get a say a Power of 300 in my energy blast (able to vaporize the moon in one shot or whatever.), this could be pretty jarring when the other guy made Batman, or more cruely Hawkman:). The only solution would seem to campaign power limits?

Or to take a Geas spell that can 2.5 billion people, etc.

Hi Fang,

I've been turning your point about group consensus over in my mind for a couple of days, and I keep coming a-cropper on this issue:

If standards are being set on point totals (either overall or toward individual abilities or sets of abilities) via group consensus, then we are still talking about point limits.

In other words, to say, "Scattershot does not use point limits during character creation" is not accurate. It certainly does not use them in the traditional fashion of text-set point-totals, but they are there via another method.

I suggest that the introductory text for character creation present this fairly and simply: "Point totals for character creation are set for specific instances of play and involve some interaction and decision-making among the members of the group."

Further, a larger issue does crop up, namely the problem with consensus decision-making in the first place - it does not resolve actual disagreements. Agreeing not to disagree universally fails, when the disagreement "matters" to anyone involved. Hence, what resolution mechanisms do you see being acceptable in Scattershot, beyond dissolving the group/play?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: If standards are being set on point totals (either overall or toward individual abilities or sets of abilities) via group consensus, then we are still talking about point limits.

In other words, to say, "Scattershot does not use point limits during character creation" is not accurate. It certainly does not use them in the traditional fashion of text-set point-totals, but they are there via another method.

Ron Edwards wrote: I suggest that the introductory text for character creation present this fairly and simply: "Point totals for character creation are set for specific instances of play and involve some interaction and decision-making among the members of the group."

Ron Edwards wrote: Further, a larger issue does crop up, namely the problem with consensus decision-making in the first place - it does not resolve actual disagreements. Agreeing not to disagree universally fails, when the disagreement "matters" to anyone involved. Hence, what resolution mechanisms do you see being acceptable in Scattershot, beyond dissolving the group/play?

Hi Fang,

Looking over that last post, I see a certain dance going on between what will ideally happen, what can be encouraged to happen, and what can reasonably be expected to happen. I think that in practice, to be useful, some things are just gonna have to be nailed down.

Perhaps I should clarify one point before going on - when I am talking about disagreements, I am talking about in reaching consensus. Therefore, the consensus itself cannot "prevent" disagreement, as it hasn't happened yet - and I submit, cannot happen just because it "should." Groups fizzle and break apart at this stage very easily.

Also, a group may share a common vision regarding modes of play (ie Narrativism, level of critical juncture, etc), yet members may still disagree strongly about such things as power-levels and competency-levels. It strikes me as very, very problematic to hand a group a set of point-cost rules, say, "Make up characters, oh, and there are no point limits," and expect that the default will be seamless - unless something else is going on: some kind of dialogue, some kind of discussion, some kind of establishing of "values" of play-components among the players.

Even people who are disinclined to say "I make Joe Bob with a bezillion points in everything!" may be uncomfortable with the idea that someone could do such a thing. I think that "rules" sensu lato that at least designate sensible ranges for abilities, given a setting or type of story, are there for a reason.

Let's go to the videotape. You've run Scattershot quite a lot, and here you are, with the last group you played with using the point-cost character creation method. What did you tell them before they started to play? Did you tell them the setting or type of story? (E.g. "A Robin Hood type adventure") If so, did they simply hop in and make up characters tuned to that scale and scope of play, with no further guidance or dialogue? If there was dialogue, did you act as final-arbiter? If the dialogue was with one another rather than with you as final-arbiter, what did it consist of?

Tell us how it happens, with players, in actual play. If there's a way that "no point limits" actually works, and if you as GM or designer are not providing a "personal approval stamp" on that way, then I'd like to hear about it in detail.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

I've heard people talk about playing GURPS or Hero with no limits--I've even run games where the point totals for different characters were vastly different. However, I'd have problems with using either of those systems in a limit-less fashion most of the time.

A few notes:

1. Anyone can drop points (and play Hawkeye in The Avengers)--some systems include meta-game effects (which cost points) that will do things to protect those characters (i.e. Hawkeye is just as hard to kill as Thor because he has purchased a clause which says only attacks which are likely to knock him out can be leveled at him). Under those conditions the characters are "equal."

2. Often I *like* playing low power-scale characters but I don't want to be overshadowed by the gamers in the group who like high-powered ones. Since their like for high-powred characters is just as legitimate what do we do to compromise? Each play medium characters netiher of us like?

3. In traditional point-based games (which I happen to count as my favorites) often where I've spent a lot of points may not have much to do with what I want my character to be doing. That is, it might be *misleading* to the GM.

4. Since you are using point costs and some concept of "balance" judging from the Shuriken example, I would wonder whether or not you're putting a lot or a little effort into play-balance? If you don't balance things carefuly then the limited point pools won't work well (i.e. you'll get certain limited types of preferred character designs from players almost regardless of their GNS preferences).

I'm interested in seeing how those problems got resolved in practice as well.

BTW: Your endeavor with Scattershot does sound very interesting and you have some very cool ideas.

Something that I feel is overlooked far too often are large lists of cool ideas--especially those that interlock in an interesting fashion. Free form character design like Over The Edge is great for some types of character realization (Risus might even be better) but the part of me that considers character genreation an art isn't satisfied by those systems.

-Marco

I considered responding point by point, but I respect Ron's disinclination towards how it can destroy an overall message. As far as I read his post he has basically three issues.

The first I believe arises from the misconception that Scattershot's mechanics are the bulk of it. Far from it, I consider the mechanics the least of the three parts we plan to include. Aside from the genre-dependant material, there is the yawning absence of Scattershot's techniques. By far the largest of the components of the system, the techniques answer most of the questions he poses in his article.

Unfortunately for as fully as I have fleshed out the mechanics, I am far behind it with the techniques. I am hoping that nearly all of the consensus difficulties he has raised will be addressed largely by Scattershot's technique section on 'starting' a game, and especially by the examples. I realize there is a mechanical solution to what he describes, but I do not believe that would be anything but unwieldy in the rigid components of this 'Generalist' system.

I believe much of his problem stems from the fact that the material he's asking for varies a great deal, from genre to genre. Like examples, the genre-dependant material is yet forthcoming. This is just the mechanics, nothing more.

One of the reasons I was originally reticent to put this stuff up in the first place is because it is so unfinished. The mechanics were the easiest part by far. The techniques I don't even have all in one computer, much less in a readable form; everyone will have to be patient. Soon I will begin discussing 'chunks' of the techniques, but at this point I am far from even an outline of what I want to cover. I invite everyone to participate in the discussion of these techniques, because I see that as probably the only way I will be able to put my thoughts into an easy-to-assimilate form.

Second, I believe I have had a fair degree of difficulty describing another side to the 'power shift' or sharing ideal of Scattershot gaming. With comments like "What did you tell them?" and "Did you tell them the setting or type of story?" it is clear that Ron is implying that the gamemaster starts the process, creates the setting, or chooses the type of story. While that is a fine way to play, I do not intend Scattershot to 'start' with that perspective. (Nor do I plan to make it even difficult, I want it all, baby.)

In comments like "did they simply hop in" and "with no further guidance or dialogue," it is clear that the implied gamemaster is a pedagogue. While that might work in a classroom setting, and does make up a significant portion of traditional gaming, I do not see it as impossible under the type of gaming I am outlining in Scattershot. But it would do an injustice to my idea of 'shared gaming' to use it as the form to start with. (This was one of the toughest decisions we made about the techniques.)

Control issues between the gamemaster and players are highlighted by comments like "final-arbiter," "designate sensible ranges," and "personal approval stamp." Looking over the whole of Ron's article, I must conclude I create my own personal games completely backwards.

You see; it is the rare occasion that I "tell them the setting or type of story." In fact, it's largely the opposite; they tell me the setting and the type of story. In Scattershot I am trying to formalize either party "telling" this to the other party. By publishing a background heavy with examples and containing explicit discussion of genre expectations for the "type of story," the people playing Scattershot will come together with a common starting basis. That way the players can come to the gamemaster and say, "We want to play Universe VI but with heavy noir trappings and story structure," and both will know exactly what is being proposed.

There have been a number of times when a player or two have come to me with fully completed characters, begging for adventure. I don't think it my place, even as gamemaster, to dictate "sensible ranges" or give my "personal approval stamp." To me gamemastering is about facilitating whatever they throw at me. That's why I am so fond of the Lois and Clark example; I never would have conceived of a game about reporters in a superheroic world, especially with the power inequity. But darned if I couldn't see twenty ways to make it work as a game. That's what I am talking about when it comes to sharing; I let the players 'make up the world' sometimes (I'm just the gamemaster).

While we're on the topic of leaving tradition behind....

Let's talk about one of Uncle Fang's old swayback nags, Scattershot's point system. Here's another one of those 'bait and switches' I have written into the mechanics. Sure, I calls 'em points, and sure they look like they work just like points, right up until you get to that nagging 'no point limits' thing. It just don' look right, do it?

That's because they're not really points. Sure, that's what I calls 'em, and that's how they look, but it's all smoke and mirrors. It's actually a class-based character generation system. Remember D & D, from waaayyy back? What was there, seven classes? Were they balanced? Not exactly; but many people began using informal methods to keep all their players feeling adequately efficacious.

Then people started 'enhancing' it. There were multi-classed characters (does anyone remember dual-classed humans?), there were secondary proficiencies and on an on. (I dropped out of A D & D around the time of Monster Manual 2.) Here you have 'more chunks;' a fighter/thief/magic-user could do a number of different things, but it didn't really do much for how the players were feeling, those same informal methods carried on.

So how is Scattershot a class-based system?

Around that time Champions really got going. The whole hero system, make your own character up, whole cloth. The efficacy grail in hand, right? Well, not quite. Every game of Champions I ever played in had a number of 'common' character types; the brick, the esper, the stealthy spy-type, were these a result of the rules? Not really, just another informal method (to classify characters as a tool) to keep players feeling 'effective.' It's funny how a class-based system has been slowly sliding towards interchangeable units of ability and a point-based system showed signs of archetyping.

What the players really needed was something that gave their characters a feeling of value.

I've seen, and been awed by, a lot of current 'garage' games that create 'screen time' and plot-influencing mechanics to help get all the players to feel that their characters had adequate 'value' in the game. As much as I'd like to pursue something like that, I see them falter when it come to reaching those 'old school gamers' that have been revealed as my "lurking desire."

So what does that have to do with Scattershot? Well, for one thing, every product will practically begin with Exemplars. These will (as best as we can) be the archetypes of genre for the book that they're in. Not only that, but in a fashion vaguely similar to Shadowrun, they will allow Scattershot to be picked up and played right away. (Let's not forget, Palladium has been doing this for years; heck theirs even come with equipment lists.) I'll be putting the Chapter List for Scattershot up here one of these days soon, but until then remember, the second time the book comes around to characters, it goes into some depth on how to create them from scratch.

Remember Scattershot's 'Fat Points?' In Champions, it takes five points to raise an attack one dice in damage (roughly equivalent to raising a Rating in Scattershot one point). In GURPS, if memory serves an initial one-point Stat increase costs ten points (to Scattershot's one). Why are Scattershot's 'points' so big? Because they're not points, they're 'particles' of character class.

Five points in any Stat makes your character superhuman in that respect. (Heck, it doesn't take more than six points in any Invoked Rating to raise it to superhuman.) As soon as you put hardly any points into a character you can already see what kind of character it might be, the same way that Champions characters had informal 'classes,' only quicker.

Marco talks about putting points 'where they might be misleading' because it didn't have much to do with 'what he wanted to do with his character.' Unless I am mistaken, would this be an example of the 'academic paradox' I see in a lot of other systems. (Ron, maybe you can help me out here, you have the real world experience.) Let's say Marco wants to play a character much like Marvel Comics' The Hulk. Scientist becomes super-powered Mr. (green-)Hyde.

In most games I have found, no matter how much value the player places on Bruce Banner's scientific knowledge, they'd be a fool to spend hardly any points there, but I would, and I think Marco would too. (This is where you can help, Ron, if you had to put your academic acumen on paper, would it be a) few points, b) more than a few, c) many; use whatever system you choose.) Sure, those points might look misleading to a gamemaster at the once-over, but who stops with the once-over? Me, I'd pull Marco aside and point out that he's spent like half of his total points on Banner's academic qualifications; does this mean he wants a collegiate game? "No," he might say, "they're just there 'in case.'"

This gives me, as the gamemaster, a whole legion of possibilities where I can instantly pull non-player characters out of, who are connected to Marco's character. This kind of connection enhances Banner's significance in the game whenever I choose to use it, so those points are far from wasted. (This would probably be overlooked if Marco had to be careful 'how he spent his points,' as he might if there were a limit everyone was shooting for.)

Now let's say Marco, said "hey, yeah, that'd make a great game," instead. Then I'd have to tell him to 'take it to the players.' If they all like college, I'm off. (Or maybe everybody likes Lois' player's idea of a journalism-based game for Lois and Clark, either way, it gives me a background that means something to the players.)

Ultimately with all the Exemplars in the front of the book, and all the sample characters in the genre-specific mechanics listings (Didn't I mention that? For example, in the superhero book's laundry list of powers, every one of them is demonstrated by a capsule description of a character, hero or villain; these populate the world.), players should be hard-pressed to not compare their characters to that many examples. Comparison breeds contrast and the contrasts are the most important things the group needs to know to be comfortable with each others' characters in play.

At least that's the plan.

Fang Langford

p. s. I need some time to find the VCR, Ron. So what say we roll the tape in a few days, okay? (That being the third issue, I really gotta get outta here tonight.)

Hey Fang,

Nice post.

Every game of Champions I ever played in had a number of 'common' character types; the brick, the esper, the stealthy spy-type, were these a result of the rules? Not really, just another informal method (to classify characters as a tool) to keep players feeling 'effective.'

Do you think this was the result of social contract stuff, negotiated niche selection, "Don't step on my shtick and I won't step on yours," or an outgrowth of the game's mechanics, certain power combinations just fall together based on a limited range of initial choices the player confronts, "When you focus on DEX it makes sense to do (blank) and (blank)?" And which of these two are you pursuing with Scattershot?

For example, in the superhero book's laundry list of powers, every one of them is demonstrated by a capsule description of a character, hero or villain; these populate the world.

This is very old school, and I like it quite a bit. Back in the day, you'd have your own game world that wasn't Greyhawk, but you'd drop the Keep (from Keep on the Borderlands) onto it. You'd put the Village of Hommlet onto it. You'd have the tarrasque somewhere. Maybe you'd create your own version of Mordenkainen because you needed a powerful wizard for a specific scenario of your own design. There was no pressure to maintain faithfulness to a published setting or to historical accuracy, or to be comprehensive in what you used. It was pick and choose from what you had available. It will be impressive if you pull this off with Scattershot. The trick will be avoiding the perception that you're providing a setting.

Paul

I'm taking your word for it.

Your ideas are no stranger to me--and, since I'm as "old-school" as you're likely to find here, if you can convince me--you've got it made.

I do belive this is the first time I've ever seen Ron accused of implying "gamemaster is a pedagogue," though.

I still don't have a firm grasp on what will happen when a real-world group of players (i.e. non-theorists with at least some power-gamer desiers, in-group rivalries, and/or vastly different styles than one another) wil do with it. Your solution sounds a little like peer-pressure to me but it's obvious you've got something more elegant in mind.

As you probably know, I've got a multi-genre game with a supers system. It's point based--I'm quite aware of the "archetype" idea (in fact, JAGS has lists of gener specific archetypes with specific rules--and, more and more, meta-game rules--to flesh them out in various world books).

That's the perspective I'm coming from. We looked hard at supers-archetypes and decided that (as Ron feels about "genre") they were so muddy as to be unquantifiable. Some characters stood out as paragons of the archetype--but others were blurry.

It'll be interesting to see what you do with it (where does the character who is both faster than normal and stronger than normal--to the same degree--fit into the archetype?)

-Marco

Great posts all around, everyone. This is a real meeting of minds. (Damn! Paul, me, Marco, Fang. Talk about a variety of approaches and standards.)

Fang, you're right that my proposed questions did take the classic "GM proposes, player disposes" as the foundation. But my question still stands, which perhaps better phrased, is, "How is Scattershot presented in practical play such that its goals, rather than those of point-crunchers, are achieved?" But wait! Read the next paragraph.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the answer lies in the techniques rather than the mechanics and will wait patiently for all that to emerge. I hope that this thread has emphasized what specific issues "better be there" in those techniques.

Of course, I would like to get a preview, especially in terms of instances of playtesting, whenever you get the time to present it.

[One of the sub-issues that emerged in the discussion concerned spending Bruce Banner's points, and I agree with every argument Fang presented. I think it is very interesting that Champions, 1st-3rd editions only, required no point cost for scientific or any other professional expertise - only for their application to super-powered stuff like computer or sec-system hacking. It was one of my favorite features of the system which, among much else, was jettisoned for the uber-Sim 4th edition.]

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

RE: The hulk

I wonder if you're addressing the detail of Champs 4th into science skills, their presence at all, or the way points get disbursed making it a bad-gamist-payoff to buy a bunch of science skills? You talk like you're addressing the "Sim-issue" but Fang is talking about the "mechanics" issue (if I spend all my super-hero points on nuclear physics I won't be a super-hero).

That, I don't think, is a Sim issue at all. It's a mechanic issue pure and simple.

At least one way to address it is to separate normal-guy stuff from power-stuff (that's what JAGS did for that very reason). That way you can be the Banner-hulk guy without having to "be a fool to spend hardly any points there" (not that I disagree with Fang's statement in general).

Of course that creates other problems (how do I play a super-powered ninja if I can't buy extra "normal stuff") but there are degrees of solutions for these as well.

-Marco
[ For that matter, Fang's Turn-A-Telling-Blow-into-some-game-event mechanic (which I think is brilliant) seems purely Sim to me: yes, it's meta-game but it seems like just a run-of-the-mill dramatist mechanic--which could be either Nar or Sim. ]

Marco wrote: I still don't have a firm grasp on what will happen when a real-world group of players (i.e. non-theorists with at least some power-gamer desiers, in-group rivalries, and/or vastly different styles than one another) wil do with it. Your solution sounds a little like peer-pressure to me but it's obvious you've got something more elegant in mind.

Marco wrote: As you probably know, I've got a multi-genre game with a supers system. It's point based--I'm quite aware of the "archetype" idea.

That's the perspective I'm coming from. We looked hard at supers-archetypes and decided that (as Ron feels about "genre") they were so muddy as to be unquantifiable. Some characters stood out as paragons of the archetype--but others were blurry.

It'll be interesting to see what you do with it

Marco wrote: where does the character who is both faster than normal and stronger than normal--to the same degree--fit into the archetype?

Marco wrote: For that matter, Fang's Turn-A-Telling-Blow-into-some-game-event mechanic (which I think is brilliant) seems purely Sim to me: yes, it's meta-game but it seems like just a run-of-the-mill dramatist mechanic--which could be either Nar or Sim.

Ron Edwards wrote: But my question still stands, which perhaps better phrased, is, "How is Scattershot presented in practical play such that its goals, rather than those of point-crunchers, are achieved?" But wait! Read the next paragraph.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the answer lies in the techniques rather than the mechanics and will wait patiently for all that to emerge. I hope that this thread has emphasized what specific issues "better be there" in those techniques.

Ron Edwards wrote: Of course, I would like to get a preview, especially in terms of instances of playtesting, whenever you get the time to present it.

Ron Edwards wrote: One of the sub-issues that emerged in the discussion concerned spending Bruce Banner's points, and I agree with every argument Fang presented. I think it is very interesting that Champions, 1st-3rd editions only, required no point cost for scientific or any other professional expertise - only for their application to super-powered stuff like computer or sec-system hacking. It was one of my favorite features of the system which, among much else, was jettisoned for the uber-Sim 4th edition.

Le Joueur wrote:
I actually think it fails when it comes to how I understand Dramatists play. From what I have read, I would expect them to want the gamemaster (the purveyor of story) to create the detail that arises as a result of a Telling Blow (to properly put it into their Dramatic context). Sadly, I have not come to any ideas how to satisfy this type of desire (I can only hope that Dramatists feel fortunate in being empowered with their character's fate and don't feel left out.)

Le Joueur wrote:
One thing that has emerged so far, that can be related sans example; nobody seems interested in 'crunching numbers' or munchkinism when there are no point cut-offs. Sure you may get an uber-character or two at first, but I already have a practiced technique for that one; 'Give Them Enough Rope.' After that, my experience has been they settle down. (Well, technically there was that string of campaigns founded on that premise. But since everyone bought into it, it never seemed a problem. The other players went from having the uber-character save them to watching him 'get his just desserts' and back.)

Marco wrote: Also Note: I'm talking about a character with Super Strength and Super Speed. (i.e. stronger and faster than Captain A.)

Marco wrote: I'm not sure if your Exemplars are simply plotted points on a graph or something else.

Marco wrote: I'm unclear on this--I could play unlimited-pts Champions if I wanted to--with a social contract if that'll work for my group. What else does Scattershot bring the table that over Champs 4th with no-points?

Marco wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: The other players went from having the uber-character save them to watching him 'get his just desserts' and back.)

Also: who is getting their "just desserts?"

Marco wrote: Mind you: the techniques section might, alone, justify the existence of the game. Formalizing social contracts might well be a better balancing mechanism than point totals--but social contracts also have loopholes and the law doesn't work well on it's spirit but rather its letter ...

Well, Fang, I'm going to rain on the parade, sorry.

All I have read so far is that the points system is useful insofar as it indicates to the GM and other players what the character is about. How do the actual statistics not do this themselves? You say that throwing shurriken is hard, I say its easy. What does it matter? I can look at the character sheet and see that Will's got it at 14. He must be interested in using it I guess, seeing as he put it down. In fact, Marco's argument goes double here. What if I take a hard science skill just to round out the character? It'll have a lot of points in it, more than an easy skill. How does the difficulty of the skill relate to my interest in using it in a game? I might feel that I should not take that skill so that the game doesn't accidentally go off in the wrong direction. You say that you'd confer with the player as to why it's on the sheet? Then why look at the points at all. Just mandate a chat about the character, and that will handle things better, anyhow.

Heck, what this argues for is a system where you rate your skill whatever you want and then assign a second value at whatever level you like to indicate how much you'd like to see the game revolve around that skill. If you have these" techniques" for allowing players to limit themselves reasonably, how do these points tell them when they've reached that limit? Seems like extra work for a dubious return.

Mike

Hi Mike,

And if you decide to play with the option of limited points then you're going to be looking for some kind of "blance" no matter what.

It was mentioned that GURPS STR cost 10 for the first point but only 1pt in scattershot. That's fine so far as there are no limits--then everything might as well be 1pt--but if there are limits then you have to ask what stats are worth in relation to skills ... etc.

In a perfectly "balanced" system, points would be tokens of *relevance* in the game--that is--if nuclear science was never important--for the LIFETIME of the character--it'd be free. Obviously we don't have this kind of precience (and the players will try to use their skills anyway).

However, we can make guesses: In 1st Edition Champs there were no rules to be a phycist--all you did was bust up bank robberies (I'm being facetious--but making a point). The writiers knew (pretty well) how good the powers were *in a fight.*

That turned out to be a pretty good measure of what they were worth *in the game*--until you got to Mind Control. Mind Control is arguably more useful outside of combat than in--and it tends (IME) to wreck non-combat encounters if it's too subtle and powerful.

The idea that balance either can't be attained or isn't a worthy idea (I saw someone refer to it as an 80's-thing) is rediculous--if you pay points for something you should get what you pay for.

Mike is right--if points are tokens of relevance (not, as you said, particles of character class), then you should simply pay some percentage (out of 100, probably) based on how often you want it to come up.

-Marco

I may be in the vast minority--but I love points--I love crunchy chargen. There's something almost artistic in working out a character--working within a conception of give and take--and being rewarded for it with a cleverly made (IMO) character.

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, Fang, I'm going to rain on the parade, sorry.

Mike Holmes wrote: All I have read so far is that the points system is useful insofar as it indicates to the GM and other players what the character is about.

Mike Holmes wrote: How do the actual statistics not do this themselves?

Mike Holmes wrote: You say that throwing shuriken is hard, I say its easy. What does it matter?

Mike Holmes wrote: I can look at the character sheet and see that Will's got it at 14. He must be interested in using it I guess, seeing as he put it down.

Mike Holmes wrote: In fact, Marco's argument goes double here. What if I take a hard science skill just to round out the character?

Mike Holmes wrote: It'll have a lot of points in it, more than an easy skill. How does the difficulty of the skill relate to my interest in using it in a game?

Mike Holmes wrote: I might feel that I should not take that skill so that the game doesn't accidentally go off in the wrong direction.

Mike Holmes wrote: You say that you'd confer with the player as to why it's on the sheet? Then why look at the points at all. Just mandate a chat about the character, and that will handle things better, anyhow.

Mike Holmes wrote: Heck, what this argues for is a system where you rate your skill whatever you want and then assign a second value at whatever level you like to indicate how much you'd like to see the game revolve around that skill.

Mike Holmes wrote: If you have these "techniques" for allowing players to limit themselves reasonably, how do these points tell them when they've reached that limit? Seems like extra work for a dubious return.

Still not buying it.

First, are difficulties based on learning difficulty or on pertinence to the game? I can't see them being both. If they are the first, then they have the problem that I mentioned earlier. If they are the second then I still maintain that they are of very limited usefulness considering that one can just refer to the stats themselves.

Also, for either, aren't the difficulties or pertinences going to differ from game to game? I would assume that you would have different levels listed in each of your setting books, at he very least. But that still would not suffice as a game that was set in, say, a "modern" cops setting would have very different pertinences for a group that wanted to play sneaky detectives versus one that wanted to play a SWAT team.

You can't get away from the fact that a skill will be as pertinent in play as the scenario dictates, or, in shared play (BTW, stop throwing that out there like we don't get it, we do) as the players dictate. Either way, you do not know how important particular skills will be before hand. I can see those dirt cheap science skills being the most important skills in the game (I've certainly run games where that was true). By placing pertinence values on these things aren't you forcing these values on your players? "Oh, Bob has a lot of points in Rifle skill (which happens to cost a lot), he must want to do a lot of combat."

Then you backtrack and say that there will be techniques that will help define a character in terms of play direction. Great! Why need any mechanical method, then? Or, if one is needed, why not relate it to the players scores. I really find it hard to believe that a player or GM needs a statistic assigned to another statistic that is generated based on the game designers priorities to tell him that the statistic in question is important to the player. Either the player will say so, or the statistic should sufice.

And don't go off claiming that what I'm asking for is a systemless game. Not in the slightest. If I were into that crap I'd be off with the collaborative storytellers doing whatever it is that they do. All I'm saying is that if you're not going to limit spending they you should take advantage of the opportunity to reduce everyone's workload (and the potential dissaffection of those math haters out there) and just skip that step. It seems to me that the system would work just fine without it.

As far as niche-protection, the system doesn't actually limit players, so they can easily tromp on into each others niches. At least with a limited point game, you can only tromp so far. As to why "character types" show up in Champions, perhaps its becuse the books give tips on building those types, and suggest them. Informal archtypes. Nothing magic about how points work that make this happen. Even in a totally archtype-less game we'd still impose our own learned archtypes and make characters based on labels. Or, perhaps we could get beyond that and make more realistic characters. Either way, I don't see your particular granularity level as being any better than any other for this purpose.

But, then I'm sure that you'll tell me that I'm just not seeing it all together, and that the techniques will all make it clear. Sure. I guess we'll have to wait. But lets just say that I remain extremely skeptical.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Still not buying it.

Mike Holmes wrote: First, are difficulties based on learning difficulty or on pertinence to the game? I can't see them being both. If they are the first, then they have the problem that I mentioned earlier. If they are the second then I still maintain that they are of very limited usefulness considering that one can just refer to the stats themselves.

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, for either, aren't the difficulties or pertinences going to differ from game to game? I would assume that you would have different levels listed in each of your setting books, at the very least. But that still would not suffice as a game that was set in, say, a "modern" cops setting would have very different pertinences for a group that wanted to play sneaky detectives versus one that wanted to play a SWAT team.

Mike Holmes wrote: You can't get away from the fact that a skill will be as pertinent in play as the scenario dictates, or, in shared play as the players dictate. Either way, you do not know how important particular skills will be before hand. I can see those dirt cheap science skills being the most important skills in the game (I've certainly run games where that was true). By placing pertinence values on these things aren't you forcing these values on your players? "Oh, Bob has a lot of points in Rifle skill (which happens to cost a lot), he must want to do a lot of combat."

Mike Holmes wrote: Then you backtrack and say that there will be techniques that will help define a character in terms of play direction. Great! Why need any mechanical method, then? Or, if one is needed, why not relate it to the players scores. I really find it hard to believe that a player or GM needs a statistic assigned to another statistic that is generated based on the game designers priorities to tell him that the statistic in question is important to the player. Either the player will say so, or the statistic should suffice.

Mike Holmes wrote: And don't go off claiming that what I'm asking for is a systemless game. Not in the slightest. If I were into that crap I'd be off with the collaborative storytellers doing whatever it is that they do. All I'm saying is that if you're not going to limit spending they you should take advantage of the opportunity to reduce everyone's workload (and the potential dissaffection of those math haters out there) and just skip that step. It seems to me that the system would work just fine without it.

Mike Holmes wrote: As far as niche-protection, the system doesn't actually limit players, so they can easily tromp on into each others niches. At least with a limited point game, you can only tromp so far. As to why "character types" show up in Champions, perhaps its becuse the books give tips on building those types, and suggest them. Informal archtypes. Nothing magic about how points work that make this happen. Even in a totally archtype-less game we'd still impose our own learned archtypes and make characters based on labels. Or, perhaps we could get beyond that and make more realistic characters. Either way, I don't see your particular granularity level as being any better than any other for this purpose.

Mike Holmes wrote: But, then I'm sure that you'll tell me that I'm just not seeing it all together, and that the techniques will all make it clear. Sure. I guess we'll have to wait. But let's just say that I remain extremely skeptical.

Mike Holmes wrote: (BTW, stop throwing that out there like we don't get it, we do)