Topic: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Started by: dindenver
Started on: 6/11/2008
Board: First Thoughts
On 6/11/2008 at 10:02pm, dindenver wrote:
[DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Hi!
I was trying to come up with a way to make a Supers game without the laundry list of powers. I think I have it, let me know what you think:
Characters are made of Traits, Traits are divided into 7 categories:
1) Superpowers (This is a Trait with the Power Tag and Super Tag and at least one other Arena Tag - i.e., Physical, Mental or Social).
2) Powers (This is a Trait with the Power Tag and at least one Arena Tag) - Powers differ from Super Powers in that they cannot always be brought into play in a conflict in its Arena (sometimes you are not strong enough to overcome that physical challenge). While Super Powers can always be used to overcome challenges in their Arena.
3) Abilities (Abilities only have the Ability Tag). Abilities fall into the realm of human potential. They impact challenges, but not on the same scale as Powers or Super Powers.
4) Standard Traits (These have no Tags). Standard Traits have no mechanical weight and are simply used to define your character in terms other than kewl powerz.
5) Marks (A Mark only has the Mark Tag). A Mark is a weakness that can be applied to any arena of conflict. This represents an aspect of human weakness that is present in your character (Such as Mark of Greed or Mark of Witlessness).
6) Weaknesses (This will have the Weakness Tag and at least one Arena Tag) a Weakness should impair your progress in its Arena most of the time, but not all of the time. These are extraordinary weaknesses that require special care to overcome, like Batman's reliance on a Utility Belt.
7) Super Weakness (This is a Trait with the Weakness Tag, the Super Tag and at least one Arena Tag). This is a catastrophically bad weakness. It will almost always come into play in conflicts in this arena and will be nearly impossible to overcome. Think of Samuel L Jackson's character in Unbreakable when you want to imagine a Super Weakness with a Physical Arena Tag.
Remember, there is not list of Traits, just come up with a Trait and assign it Tags. For isntance Deceptive could be a Super Weakness, Weakness, Mark, Standard Trait, Ability, Power or Super Power. Its up to you.
So, based on that introduction, Char gen is as follows:
Have a complete character design in mind, then do the following:
Select 3 Tags for Powers and Super Powers. In order to get a Super Power you must spend at least 2 of these Tags (one for Super and one for each Arena)
Select 3 Abilities
Select 3 Standard Traits
Select 1 Mark
Select one Weakness Tag. In order to get a Super Weakness you must spend at least 2 of these Tags (one for Super and one for each Arena)
You can get Extra Abilities by selecting extra Marks (on a one-for-one basis)
You can get extra Tags for Powers by selecting extra Tags for Weaknesses (on a one-for-one basis)
You are done!
And all of this (except for Standard Traits) feeds directly into the Resolution mechanic.
Example:
Uber Man
Super Strength (Power, Super, Physical)
X-Ray Vision (Power, Mental)
Observant (Ability)
Popular (Ability)
Smart (Ability)
Seeks Truthiness (Trait)
Seeks Fairness (Trait)
Protects all Equally (Trait)
Alter Ego (Mark)
Green Rocks (Weakness, Physical)
This is a starting character. As you can see, He has an edge on knowing things that are hidden (X-Ray Vision) and can overcome almost any physical challenge.
The idea is to make Comic book-style super heroes. But, I wanted to open the door to player creativity. So, this sort of flexible system is perfect.
So, what do you think?
On 6/12/2008 at 9:10am, Arturo G. wrote:
Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Your idea reminds me a lot to the character generation of Capes. Do you know it? If not, have a look at Muse of Fire web site. In the downloads section there is even a Flash introduction to the game. I'm sure you will find inspiration there.
On 6/12/2008 at 9:11am, Arturo G. wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
I mess up something in the URL. Trying again. Muse of Fire.
On 6/12/2008 at 9:12am, Arturo G. wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Ok. In the old style. Muse of Fire: http://www.museoffire.com/Games/
On 6/12/2008 at 12:59pm, dindenver wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Arturo,
I have done the flash demo once and actually played with Tony on-line. But, I never got the hang of Capes. Also, IIRC, Capes assigns a numeric value to each Trait, so right there, its a little different.
I'll be posting the Resolution mechanics soon, so hopefully, this system will distinguish itself from others and we can get a dialog going.
Thanks for the feedback.
On 6/12/2008 at 2:13pm, dindenver wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Hi!
To see how these Traits work with each other, check out this post
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26351.0
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 26351
On 6/13/2008 at 1:54pm, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
My initial reaction is that it looks very min-maxing prone. There's quite a lot of number crunch involved, which will most probably lead to some choices being better than others. It seems like there's the same problem that most point buy systems have - the rules of this kind promote picking weaknesses that don't hinder the player's goals all that much, but provide points that can be used to add more useful stuff.
Now, there's this:
Have a complete character design in mind, then do the following:
But I just can't see how it is supported by the rest. You want the player to do one thing, but then give him crunch that encourages something else. Or rather, in this case, it tempts the player to be very careful with the character concept, so that it would translate into the desired effectiveness.
This "concept > mechanics" approach could work, I think, but only if the rest of the system provided structures that would balance low effectiveness. This is, however, very hard to do right. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard or IAWA and some others do it - whatever you put on your character sheet, even if it hinders the character, it won't make you less effective as a player. Games that give the player character building options that allow for varying levels of effectiveness across possible builds, and then simply instruct the player that he shouldn't "abuse" those options (without supporting it with structure that would make "abuse" meaningless) don't do it.
My suggestions:
What if you got rid of the flexible trade-offs? You could have a number of templates that offer different combinations of abilities, powers, superpowers, flaws and what have you, and ask the player to come up with specific traits and assign them to the slots provided by the template. You'd just have to make sure that the templates are roughly balanced against each other, with no choice being clearly superior in terms of overall effectiveness. I'm thinking about templates along the lines of Uber Guy, One Trick Guy, Flexible Powers Guy, Skilled Guy, Driven Guy etc.
What if you got rid of the disparity between different types of traits? Maybe instead of differentiating them via pure effectiveness, you could make each of them do something entirely different mechanically? Like, no bonuses and penalties but instead: one type allowing for a re-roll with some consequence (e.g. Hulk's rage: re-roll physical check, but lose control), another type threatening the opposition with some consequence (e.g. Human Torch's fire powers: get out of his way or risk getting burned, even if you win), another protecting from certain kinds of consequences (Wolvie's regeneration: cancels wound-based consequences), yet another generating a resource when some condition is triggered (Superman's vulnerability to Kryptonite: when exposed lose powers, but gain a re-roll token for use in a later check). This sort of stuff, though not necessarily exactly this way. Note that I suggest making the weaknesses as mechancially useful for the player as any other kind of trait, even though they'd still hurt the character in the fiction.
On 6/13/2008 at 5:49pm, dindenver wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Filip,
Thanks for your attention. I like what you have in mind there. In fact, I considered something like that for a wizard-centric game.. But I am not sure it fits my design goals for this game. The idea is, I want simple character creation that does not lead to freeform-styled play. That is what lead to my design. Players can name the power anything they want (Stinkiness, Super breath, Raging Strength, etc.) and apply tags that define when you can use it and how it can effect the game world.
I have seen some Supers games that use the kind of templates you are talking about. And, frankly, the templates designers pick do not resonate with me. And, I fear that it would lead to a laundry list of templates instead of the laundry list of powers.
I love the weaknesses that are inherent to the Supers genre. I say weakness and people immediately think of Superman and Kryptonite. Its very evocative. I would not want to use this kind of system for a Medieval fantasy for instance. But for Supers, I think it is appropriate, does that make sense to you?
On 6/23/2008 at 2:06am, dindenver wrote:
RE: Re: [DNAwesome] Simple Chargen
Hi!
I added a mechanic called Grit. To determine grit at chargen, do the follwing:
Players
Start with 3
Subtract one for each Super Power
Add one for each Weakness
Subtract one if the character does not have at least three Standard Traits
Add one if the character has more than three Standard Traits
GM
One
Plus one for each PC
To see how these get used, see this:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26389.0
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 26389