In reference to my Logarithmic, Multi-genre system, I was hoping to develop/modify my character creation/advancement system with a few goals:

1. Players will be compensated if the GM forces advancement on a character.
2. Players will be compensated for having a character that "lags behind" in power level.
3. Characters advance every session (there is some gamist/mechanical character development and change every time the game is played).
4. I want Character Points / XP to represent both the character's personal development and their equipment; unified as one number. (much like BESM)

First, Character Creation.  The GM would set a maximum number of attributes the characters could select at the beginning.  The characters could divide these points among certain realms: Physical, Social, Combat, Spatial, Knowledges, and Equipment; with certain limitations on how many attributes one could put in each category.  Within that, there might be limitations on how many of the Attributes could be Advantages, and how many could be Disadvantages.  A character needn't use them all; doesn't need to have any disadvantages, and is free to powergame to choose the most powerful attributes for their character concept.  Regulation of things like this comes in a later step.

Next, the GM will have set a Power Level of the campaign.  Also, the characters will be able to calculate a Level for themselves, based on the power of the attributes.  Disadvantage attributes would actually reduce the Level.  Characters will want to have a low Level, if they wish their character to develop toward the Power Level.

Now, the character's starting Advancement Bank will start out equal to (Power Level - Character Level) x 1.5 (another idea that mutated out of BESM).  That means, characters that start out at a lower Level actually have a higher Potential (if Potential = Advancement Bank + Character Level).

Any Experience gained by the character also goes into the Bank.  The bank will also gain a 10% interest (round down) per session.  All these simple calculations can be made by the GM.  Experienced players may wish to calculate their own Level and Bank.

At the beginning of each session, the players may select an attribute they wish their character to gain, which they must be able to afford from their Bank.  Characters with a high bank may wish to select two.  The GM works the story in any way possible in order to incorporate this advancement, whether the character is able to purchase a sword, learns a new ultimate fighting technique, or takes a course on public speaking.

Requested attributes are paid for by the character's Bank in full.  The GM may also work additional advancement, by handing out goodies without them being asked for.  Non-requested advantages receive a 25% discount, but non-requested disadvantages increase their return by 25%.

The current setting I'm developing the system for is a dark, drama setting, with themes similar to the manga "Claymore."  I figured that having a constant "potential" that endured through misfortune would help the more gamist players deal with the feeling of having their characters shafted in the process of creating drama in the game.

What do you guys think?

I'm not concerned at all at creating more math for the GM; so I'm not asking whether you think this is complicated or not.  The question is, do you think, if this process was explained (in simpler, non-numerical terms) to players in advance, would the players feel comfortable with it?

-Jason T. 

I should say that I plan on having Potential survive even through character death.  Advancement still accrues to the Bank even when a character dies, and characters are even awarded more for roleplaying drama.  The character's Level is dissolved back into Potential, which is used as the Power Level for the new character.  The GM may allow more than the starting level of attributes in this case. 

Killing a character undramatically with the purpose of wanting to play another, is another issue.  The character would take a heavy roleplaying penalty to Advancement, which would mean that the new character might easily have a lower Potential than the old one.

This is especially important considering the grittiness of the setting.  I'd also really like to get some comments on the setting itself, but I'll leave that for a later topic, after I've developed the setting further.

-Jason T.

ok, the first thing I noticed was that you want Equipment governed by CP, which is fine, but just a word of caution from having played Hero System which does asomething similar, it really really really sucks to play through a combat and defeat your enemies who are using cool magical weapons that nearly whooped your ass and then realize oh wait you can't pick any of them up and use them because you haven't paid the points, and the GM has to come up with some lame ass excuse why you need to spend experience point before you can swing a sword or fire a Rifle. But unless I'm misunderstanding I think thats why you have the rules about getting extra points if you're given an item or whateva. I

I like all the ideas you have talked about here, but I'm a little confused about a few things, so with the bank, the characters who start out weaker have a higher potential for growth, but what happens when a character who starts more competent eventually reaches their potential or am I fogging this up? Is the characters potential constantly being changed with a sliding power level for the game? If it is, then wouldn't character potential even up as characters played eventually with everyone settling around the same power level? Is this what you want because if it is I don't see how it's superior to starting everyone at the same power level except for it gives a motivation to play a weaker character to start, again perhaps I'm totally messing this up. As far as if it was explained to a player, no I don't think it would be particularly difficulty to learn, but againa I'm not entirely certain if I'm gathering all of what the system does.

Justin, I took another look over my first post, and perhaps 1.25 would be a better initial multiplier for the bank.  I was using 1.5 before I implemented the rule that advancement that was not asked for only costs 75%.  I should've changed it at the same time I added that rule.

That said, then, I should say that I don't find it important for characters to "balance out in the end".  The intention of the rules is actually to provide a slight reward for characters to have some imbalance at game start (though it would not reward a big imbalance, unless it's a particularly long-running campaign).

Characters that start out more powerful have a chance of hitting their potential, yes.  But that should only occur if they're taking high-cost attributes most of the time they advance.  In such a case, I think they could stand to go a session without advancing in order to put more in the bank.

On the other hand, the less-powerful characters might advance twice as quickly in order to catch up, and will often surpass characters that started out more powerful.  I find many examples in movies and Japanese manga where this happens; for instance, when the apparently weak shrimp suddenly picks up a magical sword and wins the day despite the defeat of the powerful babes that surround him.

Regarding equipment, if a character does pick up such a sword, and being close to their Potential, happens to go into debt with the bank, it will be treated just as any other character who has exceeded their cap.  However, since the GM was willing to throw the magical swords at them without the swords being asked for, I would still give them the 25% discount. 

I should say that I don't find it realistic to always kill people and loot their bodies, but I won't go out of my way to thwart a character who takes a dead guy's wallet. 

Another point of the system is that the requested advancement is a method of working player ideas into the game.  So that if I throw these bandits who happen to be carrying magical weapons they stole against the players, the characters probably already asked for the magical weapons, and will be motivated to fight the bandits in order to get them.

-Jason T.

Yea I was just wondering if thats what you wanted because it seemed like if the potential of characters changed throughout the campaign that eventually everyone would pretty much balance.

As for the looting bodies stuff, yea I agree but when you're playing a character who is a soldier and the enemies use these amazing rifles of your ass, I personally in that situation, would take the friggin gun and not consider it a bit morbid but I see that you've already done something to assuage that problem.

So yea, I dont think it would be too complex.

Remember, complexity in the system isn't what I was worried about.  The GM will handle all this simple math.

-Jason T.

I meant, I think it would be within the grasp of most players and they could feel comfortable with it.

Ok.  Do you think it would get the desired results from the players?  Would they be more comfortable, for instance, with character misfortune within a ruleset such as this?  Would the gamist as well enjoy trying to play the numbers?  Would a narrativist player feel more comfortable creating the character they want to play rather than the most powerful character? 

I know to answer that last one, you'd need to see how power level affects my conflict-resolution system as well.  Let it just be said that, while attributes are fairly granular, the rules intend to make strategy within a given situation more important than that granular power difference, without creating strategical monotony.

-Jason T.