This is something that bugs me every time I read through the TRoS book. What was the design rationale behind the numbers of attribute points gained at each priority level during character generation? I mean, if a "C" rating is average, you have 10 stats, and an average value for the stat is 4, shouldn't this be 40 points? It's just an aesthetics issue for me, but I'd be inclined to just redo the points as A=50, B=45, C=40, D=35, E=30, and F=25. Sure, at F level you have an average value of 2.5, but if you assign F to attributes, you should expect to produce a pretty ineffectual character.
One other thing, and this isn't a slam to Jake (since I've seen it in his emails as well), but the word is "tenets", not "tenants". Also, the word is not only spelled wrong but used incorrectly in two places in the rulebook, and this jars me each time I read it. Tenets are "Any opinion, principle, dogma, belief, or doctrine, which a person holds or maintains as true; as, the tenets of Plato or of Cicero", not fundamental skills or techniques, which seems to be what Jake was going for in the book. Just an editorial comment for potential future editions.

John

I think Jake somewhere justified the 39 points by stating that no one is completely average, but I'm not sure...

That's how I'd justify it. Attribute values that can be easily distributed without any left-over just bug the heck out of me. It's an aesthetics issue of mine. Both 39 and 41 would attract me more than 40.

Hello,

My conclusion after talking to Jake about lots of the steps of TROS character creation is that it's always about hard choices. You have to give up good stuff in order to be good at stuff, and no optimal combination is intended.

I don't think the guiding principle has anything to do with in-game justification at all. Instead, it forces the player (or is intended to) to come up with a benchmark for the character, specifically the philosophy, to hang the difficult decisions on.

So the 39 is a minor example out of many which says, "Look, you're going to have to favor X over Y. Whichever is fine, but right here in character creation, you're having to make choices about who your character is."

Best,
Ron

This choice of priorities prompted a joke in chargen for the TROS game we're starting tonight. If you meet a PC who's a human slave with bloodlust, run for your life, because he's gonna be the greatest swordfighter that ever lived.

On a serious note, consider that a 3 attribute is dirt cheap to improve, whereas (if memory serves) you can't spend any amount of points to increase social class or gifts, or to attain sorcery powers, and you certainly can't change race once you've started.

39 points for attributes is a deal if it allows you to be an upper class sorcerer.

You can buy Gifts (with GM's consent) and buy off Flaws, but your other points are right on. No Sorcery, no social class, no race.

And I take offense that an F-level Attribute makes for an ineffectual character. I'd like to think that my F-level Attribute character was remarkably EFFECTUAL. So there.

Re: 39. What they said.

Re: Tenants. I know how to spell it. I'm (a) not the only writer in the book (you'll find about 7 others, if I'm not mistaken) and (b) I had editors. Blame them.

Jake

Well, at first glance I saw this topic come up and had wondered it before. The issue is not with the priority system so much like Ron thinks, but a matter of what the book states as average and which also turns out to be impossible to have. An attribute with a 4 is 'average' for instance... which means yes for each stat to be average you need 40 points. There is no priority level with 40 points exactly.. so you're either screwed with one 3, or alot of fours and a 7 or three 5's... or a 6 and a five. The completely average statistical character however is still going to be impossible, via the rule that states one must designate a 'high' attribute. And now that issue has been put to rest.


Now, onto my 'problem' as it were.. I see a pattern with the number of attributes one can start with, in increments of 4.. but with proficiencies it is different. Why is that Jake?
Why not start proficiencies out at F with zero and go up only 2 the whole-way up the scale? Instead of suddenly increasing by 3 points when you hit B and then by 5 at A?

The question is purely academic.. I only ask it to ease my mind...
Anyone who has studied or taken an SAT or IQ test knows of what I speak....

0...2...4...6...9....56......8..3.....1..3...5..7..8.76..4....
What is the next number in the sequence? Hmmmmmmmmm???

-Ingenious

It's a curve, tempting you into higher priority spending. It's not supposed to be an even line. It's not scientific, and was never meant to be.

Jake