Topic: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
Started by: Furious D
Started on: 5/22/2002
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 5/22/2002 at 6:09pm, Furious D wrote:
Flexible Priorities in char gen?
I've been considering allowing players to downgrade some priorities in order to upgrade others, in order to make more midline characters (like with c, c, c, d, d, d sets). Has anyone else thought about allowing things like this (or is there a similar mechanic already in there that I missed)?
On 5/22/2002 at 6:36pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
I wouldn't do it. It'll give you bland characters. I don't know anyone who is average at everything, and I think Jake has mentioned more than once that he doesn't believe in average people. It'd be the same thing as 12 everything in D&D, it gives you nowhere to shine, and nothing to protect.
Chris
On 5/30/2002 at 7:10am, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
Bankuei wrote: I wouldn't do it. It'll give you bland characters. I don't know anyone who is average at everything, and I think Jake has mentioned more than once that he doesn't believe in average people. It'd be the same thing as 12 everything in D&D, it gives you nowhere to shine, and nothing to protect.
Chris
Personally, I think you're completely out in left field on this one.
If anything, it ENHANCES the variety of a character. Under the present system, for instance, it is impossible to make a character who is BOTH Gifted AND a LandLess Noble.
(Unless D and I BOTH missed something) Is that to say that no such people exist? That none of them are PCs?
Just being balanced between a number of categories doesn't make you flavourless. You still have your high attribute, your gifts and flaws, and your proficiencies and/or vagaries.
And, as with a DnD character with all 12s, being TOO balanced is a kind of flavour in and of itself (Ever played one? I have. Most amusing, realising you suck at EVERYTHING, just not as bad as the guys who REALLY suck.)
On 5/30/2002 at 8:56am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
Under the present system, for instance, it is impossible to make a character who is BOTH Gifted AND a LandLess Noble.
Until you get some insight points, anyway. But one thing I know is a big deal here is that you shine in one area, and suck in another. Everyone's got a weak point, and I know Jake made it that way to avoid the two extremes of ultra min/maxing("quadraplegic combat machine?!?") or Joe Average("No disadvantages? How am I supposed to hose you?")...But as he always says, it's your game, do what you want, right?
chris
On 5/30/2002 at 9:52am, Bob Richter wrote:
I got that.
Bankuei wrote:Under the present system, for instance, it is impossible to make a character who is BOTH Gifted AND a LandLess Noble.
Until you get some insight points, anyway. But one thing I know is a big deal here is that you shine in one area, and suck in another. Everyone's got a weak point, and I know Jake made it that way to avoid the two extremes of ultra min/maxing("quadraplegic combat machine?!?") or Joe Average("No disadvantages? How am I supposed to hose you?")...But as he always says, it's your game, do what you want, right?
chris
What I'm saying (and what you're missing) is that changing priorities around doesn't eliminate weak points, nor does it allow for nonsensical minmaxing.
What it DOES allow is landed nobles with 14 proficiencies. Or slaves that have no proficiencies or vagaries.
I start out with the following priorities.
A
B
C
D
E
F
Through flexing, they may become
C
C
C
C
C
F
So I'm a Human (good use for an F) with High Freeman status, 39 Attribute Points, 7/7 skills, 6 proficiencies, 1 major gift, and 1 minor flaw.
This doesn't preclude me from making an interesting or directed character.
First, I have to choose a high attribute and stat distribution.
I make my high stat (tosses die) Social.
I make a rounded distribution, and my stats are thus:
ST 3
AG 4
TO 3
EN 4
HT 4
WP 4
WT 4
MA 4
Soc 5
Per 4
Plus I get SAs (which REALLY give me character.)
I pick Courtier and Swordsman as my skill packages (close enough.)
For proficiencies, I choose:
Sword and Shield 4 (functional in close combat whether dueling or fighting bandits on the road)
Crossbow 2 (I know how to use one, but that doesn't make me GOOD!)
My Flaw is Obese(minor.)
My Gift is...two gifts, Linguist (minor) and Intuition (minor)
So....what's wrong with that character THAT WAS CAUSED BY MY PRIORITY CHOICES?!
On 5/30/2002 at 10:49am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
...y'know, though I was inclined to agree with Chris at first, I am beginning to believe that D and Bob have a good point. However, if you choose, as Seneschal, to allow it, you'd do well to keep an eye on players with a history of attempting to minmax in other systems. It can be done in any system, assuming familiarity with it. I guarantee Jake could minmax a character with or without the flexing option, because he is more intimately knowledgeable about the system than anyone, at least at this point.
So I think, from my standpoint at least, that Bob actually wins this point.. though 'shouting' may not be the most polite way to attempt it.
On 5/30/2002 at 11:00am, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
Wolfen wrote: ...y'know, though I was inclined to agree with Chris at first, I am beginning to believe that D and Bob have a good point. However, if you choose, as Seneschal, to allow it, you'd do well to keep an eye on players with a history of attempting to minmax in other systems. It can be done in any system, assuming familiarity with it. I guarantee Jake could minmax a character with or without the flexing option, because he is more intimately knowledgeable about the system than anyone, at least at this point.
So I think, from my standpoint at least, that Bob actually wins this point.. though 'shouting' may not be the most polite way to attempt it.
No, 'shouting' isn't so polite, nor is it so good at making people sit up and take note as real shouting. :)
I agree that minmaxing is a potential problem here, and that the (GM-er-)Seneschal will have to keep a close watch on his players to prevent abuse. I play two other priority-based systems, and both allow flexible priorities, with that recommendation.
On 5/30/2002 at 1:00pm, ScarletJester wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
I let them start with whatever stats, skill levels, proficiency/vagary levels, flaws/gifts they want to. As long as it matches their character concept, and that concept matches the game, everyone is happy.
On 5/30/2002 at 6:22pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
Hey, its fine by me, just be aware that having a single bad category(such as F) will almost always be used in the "race & sorcery" box, since it doesn't change below C. I'd probably give the player 2 bad ones(possibly both E?) to make'em juggle it.
My only major gripe against it is everytime I've seen someone go for the "all average" character is that it's typically by the "too cautious" player, and I love the fact that as the system is written it forces that player to make hard choices and live with'em. Sometimes it's good to make people take risks, or make choices they wouldn't normally make to remind them that it's an adventure game. That's only from my personal experience though.
By all means play how you want. And, no, I am one of those folks with whom you do not need to shout.
Chris
On 5/30/2002 at 10:44pm, Bob Richter wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
Bankuei wrote: (1)Hey, its fine by me, just be aware that having a single bad category(such as F) will almost always be used in the "race & sorcery" box, since it doesn't change below C. I'd probably give the player 2 bad ones(possibly both E?) to make'em juggle it.
(2) My only major gripe against it is everytime I've seen someone go for the "all average" character is that it's typically by the "too cautious" player, and I love the fact that as the system is written it forces that player to make hard choices and live with'em. Sometimes it's good to make people take risks, or make choices they wouldn't normally make to remind them that it's an adventure game. That's only from my personal experience though.
By all means play how you want. And, no, I am one of those folks with whom you do not need to shout.
Chris
1) The F is almost always used in "Race and Sorcery" anyway, unless you're Siehe or a Sorceror (and that's pretty rare.) There are few other places you can put it that won't totally wreck a character. The one Sorceror I've made has it in Skills.
2) I think I just proved that the "all average" character is more or less impossible in tRoS and that flexing priorities won't change that. Maybe I do need to start shouting again. I don't think you're listening. :)
On 5/30/2002 at 11:50pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Flexible Priorities in char gen?
2) I think I just proved that the "all average" character is more or less impossible in tRoS and that flexing priorities won't change that. Maybe I do need to start shouting again. I don't think you're listening. :)
Point proved. Check off your syllogistic logic skill and make a MA roll. :P
I'll let Jake explain his design goals from now on.
Chris