Stat Advancement at Character Creation vs During Gameplay
New Fire:
I've been working on a game for quite awhile now called New Fire. It's an Aztec-themed fantasy RPG using a d10 system and done in a very heroic and dramatic fashion. We're pretty far along on it, but I'm having trouble making up my mind about a few elements of character creation. I thought I'd put the question out there, both for specific advice as well as general discussion!
The game uses a system of 8 Stats (Strength, Willpower, Stamina, etc) all of which are quite important (there are no "dump stats"). Each Stat can have a rank of 1-5, 1 being a subnormal level of talent and 5 being prodigy level talent that has been fully honed and developed (rank 5 would be Mozart, Einstein, Olympic gold medalist level talent). It costs quite a few character points to increase a stat.
The way it works currently is this: during character creation you can increase your Stats as much as you like. However, after character creation is over and the game begins, you can only increase each trait once during the lifespan of the character. You can go from sub-average to average, from average to above average, from above average to exceptional, or from exceptional to legendary, but you can't go from average to legendary, for example. There are a number of reasons we do this--firstly, it makes each Stat rank much more significant and maintains a certain frame of reference. Humans max out at rank 5 in a Stat, but monsters and animals may have Stats higher than rank 5 (a polar bear might have a Strength of 8, for instance). If we allow unlimited increases, advanced characters may be able to get all 5's and will probably want to increase their Stats beyond 5. This destroys what I like to call the "shape" of the character.
I am a firm believer in the idea that characters should be balanced, with strengths and weaknesses off-setting each other. I've seen many games where the characters start out with strengths and weaknesses--a particular character may be strong but clumsy, another may be weak but very smart, and so on--but by the middle of the game those strengths and weaknesses have disappeared. The strong but clumsy guy is no longer clumsy, and may in fact have improved himself up to 'unusually graceful.' The "landscape" of the character--high strength, low grace--has changed and possibly even inverted. It just seems strange to me that a character could start off being noticeably weak in one area and end up being noticeably strong in it. I can see the character making some improvements, but a complete inversion seems like a flaw in the game.
The way my game is set up, Stats are only part of the picture. There are also Skills, and the idea I started with is that by developing Skills you can offset weaker stats.
But as I've developed and tested the game, I've been favoring a more and more heroic and dramatic feel to it. Do you think I should lift the restriction on Stat increases during gameplay? Or is it more heroic to make players to play their original characters, strengths and flaws alike? And is this sort of thing even a problem in your experience--do players commonly build weaknesses into strengths if there aren't rules against it? My playtesting group doesn't, but I would appreciate some other perspectives.
Thanks!
Doug Law:
I am a big fan of player empowerment. Personally I feel like the players ought to be able to manipullate their own character in almost any way they desire. I think, if your players understand the game's preference to maintain the "shape" of the character, they will try to maintain a character within your expectations. Most players will prefer to hinder their characters in some way in order to play an interesting character. They will maintain game balance on their own.
The real problem with game balance issues from a character creation/ advancement standpoint comes from "Power" players or "Munchkins". These types of players will maximize their character no matter what sort of system you have in place to prevent it. If you disallow a great deal of advancement, they will simply do as much as they can at creation or vice versa. There really is no way to stop a Munchkin. They will figure out a way around your careful checks and balances and, in fact, will probably find it fun to do so.
I guess what I would ask is - How long to you expect a campaign to last with a single group of characters? If it is only a few adventures then very small advancement is fine. If you are planning a game of heroic proportions where campaigns last for months or years and characters rise from sheep-herders to dragons-reborn, you need a lot of advancement possibility.
Frankly, my group never plays more than a few sessions of a game before we move on to the next thing, be it a new system, setting or just campaign. Nobody is inclined to manipulate the advancement rules, because we never get that far. Ridiculous as it sounds, I sometimes have more issues not killing the guys who purposely "gimped" their character in the interest of realism!
Holywar:
I run similar system myself, dividing out traits and skills, as a consequence of birth, and allowing modest improvements, but if your born smart, your pretty much smart.
The fact is that realistically speaking, if your inclined to be brainy, or graceful, or charismatic, then that inclination will follow you for the rest of your life. I remember a book by Carl Sagan called "Shadows of Forgotten Ancesestors" ,and it it he linked alot of research to the idea that people who liked to do things actually liked them because they were slightly better at a particular thing within their peer groups. the lesson being that people might change on the basis of traumatic events, but that change is brought to them through teh lens of previous experience. A character who has an epiphany, and who decides to change, might put more effort into something unusual for his character, but he would be no better or worse at it untrained than someone with similar natural aptitudes.
A good maximum is people have evolution, not revolution. As you gain more expeirance, the weight of that experienced colors everything you do. After a while you become almost incapable of change except in the most trying of circumstances. Its simply how your brain has learned to solve problems. Its not possible to learn anything else.
Characters are however still capable of epiphanies, and learning, but this is still learning ,and doesn't effect aptitude. A 40 year old scholar might train to use a sword better after watching a dozen friends injuries due to his physical weakness, and that might be reflected in his skills, but he is too old, and his physical aptitude will only increase modestly.
My approach to issues like this is that traits can almost never improve, or improve only slightly. And my second method is by forcing the character to justify in rational terms the skills that they learn. Most good role players will always do that. Min maxing is no longer a problem, because in life we learn skills that have the most utility to us in real life. A non-combat character CAN learn combat skills without min-maxing, because they see alot of combat, and are rational enough to realize that they better learn to use a sword before someone they care about gets killed.
Certified:
Here's a question to answer your question. How much control can you exert over a game you are not a part of?
Once the game is out there it will be up to the Players and GMs to decide if they like that rule or not. While advancing an attribute one step may be costly you have provided the framework for it. If a group does not like the rule that they can only raise a stat once then they are likely to discard it. Other groups may find it accurate to real life and want to see it enforced in every game.
When you talk about heroism in the system are the rules what makes the characters heroic or the actions they take? What you may consider is something like guidelines for campaign tone or scope where you say if this is the feel you are looking for here are some rules that support that. This might be something akin to "True Heroes" versus "Legendary Heroes" or something along those lines. This might mean that at one power level an attribute can only be raised once while at another the character can get up to 8 total attribute bumps, placed where he likes or an unlimited number so long as they pay for them.
While I support flexible advancement I can see why things could and should be limited. Perhaps another way to raise an attribute past it's first bump is by taking a hit to another attribute. This would be to emulate the focus required to push themselves means that other areas suffer.
Finarvyn:
You've got 8 stats, and unless I misread your post it would appear that 3 is average. 8*3=24 stat points to be totally average.
What you might do is have different point totals suggested for various styles of play. For example, "grim and gritty" could be 24 points while "heroic" could be 27 and "epic" 30. That way, the GM would decide in advance which style to use and then have players develop characters based on those guidelines.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page