Stat levels - slightly OT (was:

[Sidhain]

Because in novels you have a central character and support character, in
comics you have varying levels of power within the same group...
I the percentage is at most 20% which is not huge when you consider a
Birthright character (blooded) would be about 150-200 GURPS points or
80-90 in Champions.

Very simply put not everyone in a group of PC's are going to be of
equivalent power--to say they are is is very poorly crafted plausibility.
The real world shows that real people often gather in groups called Friends
that often have varying experiences, lives etc. (especially in gaming)
The real world doesn't have a mystic draw that makes everyone who meets each
other of somewhat similar level of ability...

[Mathieu Roy]

Sidhain wrote:

> Because in novels you have a central character and support character, in
> comics you have varying levels of power within the same group...
> I the percentage is at most 20% which is not huge when you consider a
> Birthright character (blooded) would be about 150-200 GURPS points or
> 80-90 in Champions.

Support characters are not all weaker than protagonists. And why would I want to
play a support character? Why should the dice decide who gets to be the central
character? Letting dice decide the potential of a character just feels wrong to
me. Low roll? I'll just kill that one off and roll a new one, thank you very
much. =)

Besides, point systems generally lets you customize a character's abilities, so
that two characters with the same potential need not have the same abilities at
the same levels. One may be a better warrior, another will be less powerful but
have a broader range of skills. Or one may even be more able overall than
another, but be saddled by enemies that his friends are free of. Given that,
having different point totals for different characters seems a lot less useful.

> Very simply put not everyone in a group of PC's are going to be of
> equivalent power--to say they are is is very poorly crafted plausibility.
> The real world shows that real people often gather in groups called Friends
> that often have varying experiences, lives etc. (especially in gaming)
> The real world doesn't have a mystic draw that makes everyone who meets each
> other of somewhat similar level of ability...

Certainly, but this is a game, and if the characters aren't balanced with each
other, not only is it liable to cause bad feelings (no matter how mature the
players), it may also lead to difficulties in balancing the game. In AD&D,
threats that can challenge a 3rd-level character will often make minced meat of
a 1st-level one, and other systems aren't different (though usually less
extreme).

Mathieu

[Sidhain]

>Certainly, but this is a game, and if the characters aren't balanced with
each
>other, not only is it liable to cause bad feelings (no matter how mature
the
>players), it may also lead to difficulties in balancing the game. In AD&D,
>threats that can challenge a 3rd-level character will often make minced
meat of
>a 1st-level one, and other systems aren't different (though usually less
>extreme).
>


II wasn't talking about levels but attributes...and a slight difference in
level will always come to exist in any game because of varied exp table...as
to playing a support characters a support character isn't less important
than a main character as a whole jus tless condicive to moving the plot
ahead..and a slight variation in ability levels is not going to disrupt the
game.

[Mathieu Roy]

Sidhain wrote:

> II wasn't talking about levels but attributes...and a slight difference in
> level will always come to exist in any game because of varied exp table...as
> to playing a support characters a support character isn't less important
> than a main character as a whole jus tless condicive to moving the plot
> ahead..and a slight variation in ability levels is not going to disrupt the
> game.

An AD&D fighter with exceptional attributes can easily be the equal of a warrior
one level above him, who has average scores. In point-based games, though, the
difference in starting points is more important since usually character points
and experience points are the same, so you're litterally starting them with more
experience.

And, well, if a support character is as important as a main character, he isn't
a support character. He is a main character. There can me more than one, and
most games are built on this premise. Ars Magica is one that isn't, but even
there everyone has a Magus (main) character and a Companion (support) character.

But ultimately, to each his own. I'd bet we would never feel at home in each
other's game.

Mathieu

[Alaric]

Mathieu Roy wrote:

> And, well, if a support character is as important as a main character, he isn't
> a support character. He is a main character. There can me more than one, and
> most games are built on this premise. Ars Magica is one that isn't, but even
> there everyone has a Magus (main) character and a Companion (support) character.
>
> But ultimately, to each his own. I'd bet we would never feel at home in each
> other's game.
>
> Mathieu

Recall, though, that in Ars Magica they suggest that you often play using groups of
Magi, groups of Companions, or everyone playing a Grog, and that you rotate. Seldom
is it expected that one player will constantly be playing the Magus and the others
Companions. However, I once played in an Ars Magica campaign where I was the only
player with a Magus, and the others had Companions. Oddly enough, it all worked out
fine in the long run.
Another example of staggering character levels is Talislanta. Choosing certain races
can place two equal-leveled characters at completely different points. It was found
that playing one of the few made-for-combat races could effectively put a character
3 (or more) levels ahead of anyone else, even if they were both full fighters. The
same was true with magically-inclined people. Again, it all still works out as long
as the players are focussed on the roleplaying.
Now here's where I go a little off topic. It has been my experience that AD&D,
running like the video game that it is, is probably the only setting out there where
the skill and experience (or lack thereof) of the DM and Players can not destroy a
campaign. Even with the most power-grubby players and a DM that does very little to
encourage roleplaying, a good time can still be had (there are degrees, of course).
Most other settings require very good interaction and roleplaying skills. This isn't
either a good or bad thing, I'm just saying....
Thx,
Alaric

[Mathieu Roy]

Alaric wrote:
[Snip]

> Recall, though, that in Ars Magica they suggest that you often play using groups of
> Magi, groups of Companions, or everyone playing a Grog, and that you rotate. Seldom
> is it expected that one player will constantly be playing the Magus and the others
> Companions.

That was my point.

> However, I once played in an Ars Magica campaign where I was the only
> player with a Magus, and the others had Companions. Oddly enough, it all worked out
> fine in the long run.

That's fine, as long as everyone's all right with it... and I bet you didn't roll the
dice to decide Magus-ness. =)

> Another example of staggering character levels is Talislanta. Choosing certain races
> can place two equal-leveled characters at completely different points. It was found
> that playing one of the few made-for-combat races could effectively put a character
> 3 (or more) levels ahead of anyone else, even if they were both full fighters. The
> same was true with magically-inclined people. Again, it all still works out as long
> as the players are focussed on the roleplaying.

Again, I would bet that the race/class combo would be picked by the player, and not by
the dice. IMHO it is more important that every player have equal opportunity to build
the concept they want to do; if a player ends up with a "less powerful" character due to
player choice, and not due to rolling the dice, then that is fine by me.

[Snip]

Mathieu

[Memnoch]

I've been following this thread for a couple of days now. and I believe I
may have a workable solution:

I may be old, but does anyone remember the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier? What
happened with this character class was that every time he/she advanced in
levels, 2d10 was rolled for strength, dexterity, and constitution. This was
added to the strength, dexterity, and constitution stats for the character
in a percentile. For any stat other than strength, and for strength only
when it was 18, it was ignored unless the accumulated 2d10 roll reached
100+. At that point, a full stat point was added.
For strength, and only if it was already a 18, 2d10 added directly to the
percentile strength score of the character...

This could be a way that could be adopted for increasing the ability scores
for characters, where the 2d10 roll can be used during the Training action,
and when the character increases in level....


- -----Original Message-----
From: Mathieu Roy
To: birthright@mpgn.com
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Stat levels - slightly OT (was: Training and the
Tyranny of Six-sided Dice)


|
|
|Sidhain wrote:
|
|> II wasn't talking about levels but attributes...and a slight difference
in
|> level will always come to exist in any game because of varied exp
table...as
|> to playing a support characters a support character isn't less important
|> than a main character as a whole jus tless condicive to moving the plot
|> ahead..and a slight variation in ability levels is not going to disrupt
the
|> game.
|
|An AD&D fighter with exceptional attributes can easily be the equal of a
warrior
|one level above him, who has average scores. In point-based games, though,
the
|difference in starting points is more important since usually character
points
|and experience points are the same, so you're litterally starting them with
more
|experience.
|
|And, well, if a support character is as important as a main character, he
isn't
|a support character. He is a main character. There can me more than one,
and
|most games are built on this premise. Ars Magica is one that isn't, but
even
|there everyone has a Magus (main) character and a Companion (support)
character.
|
|But ultimately, to each his own. I'd bet we would never feel at home in
each
|other's game.
|
|Mathieu
|
|************************************************* **************************
||'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
|

[Alaric]

Memnoch wrote:
>
> I've been following this thread for a couple of days now. and I believe I
> may have a workable solution:
>
> I may be old, but does anyone remember the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier? What
> happened with this character class was that every time he/she advanced in
> levels, 2d10 was rolled for strength, dexterity, and constitution. This was
> added to the strength, dexterity, and constitution stats for the character
> in a percentile. For any stat other than strength, and for strength only
> when it was 18, it was ignored unless the accumulated 2d10 roll reached
> 100+. At that point, a full stat point was added.
> For strength, and only if it was already a 18, 2d10 added directly to the
> percentile strength score of the character...
>
> This could be a way that could be adopted for increasing the ability scores
> for characters, where the 2d10 roll can be used during the Training action,
> and when the character increases in level....

Here's another possibility for advancement per level. In a friend's
campaign (not AD&D), each level he rolls percentile, and if the result
is lower than the character's level, one attribute will go up a point
(which attribute is decided by the GM based on what attributes were used
most in that level). It would probably have to be modified, because
levels in that game go up with no ceiling, and veterans of 20th level or
so are not all that uncommon.
Thx,
Alaric

[Sidhain]

>I've been following this thread for a couple of days now. and I believe I
>may have a workable solution:
>
>I may be old, but does anyone remember the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier? What
>happened with this character class was that every time he/she advanced '

''thankfully 2edition did away with this and that other Munchkin Abomination

[Alaric]

Sidhain wrote:
>
> >I've been following this thread for a couple of days now. and I believe I
> >may have a workable solution:
> >
> >I may be old, but does anyone remember the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier? What
> >happened with this character class was that every time he/she advanced '
>
> ''thankfully 2edition did away with this and that other Munchkin Abomination
>

I don't know the class, but a character that had as one of his only
advantages, balanced by a healthy disadvantage, could easily have some
sort of stat advancement ability, IMO
Thx,
Alaric

[Craig Dalrymple]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Alaric
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 1999 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Stat levels - slightly OT (was: Training and the
Tyranny of Six-sided Dice)


Memnoch wrote:

> > >I've been following this thread for a couple of days now. and I believe
I
> > >may have a workable solution:
> > >
> > >I may be old, but does anyone remember the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier?
What
> > >happened with this character class was that every time he/she advanced
'
> >

Sidhain replied:

> > ''thankfully 2edition did away with this and that other Munchkin
Abomination
> >

Alaric couldn't help but add:

> I don't know the class, but a character that had as one of his only
> advantages, balanced by a healthy disadvantage, could easily have some
> sort of stat advancement ability, IMO

Which means I am compulsed to add:

Actually the advancement of the scores from the Cavalier is something I use
from time to time. It really depends on the game I am running and the power
level therein. If the players are starting off with a lackluster rolling
system such
as 3d6 take it and stick it; something like this gives them a feeling of
hope
that they can someday be a munchkin without really giving it to them.

The beauty of this is that the player would have to roll 20 every time the
dice fell
to raise their stat by one point every five levels, which would therefore
only be
four advancements on the way to 20th.

Assuming they roll the middle and get 10 for an average each roll, they are
only
going to do this twice in the life of a normal character. So if Billup
started with
a 15 STR and ended with a 17 I would not cry. Nor would I cry if he actually
popped all four times with rolls of "20" as this would only be the first %
catergory
of 18 STR being attained AT 20th level. By then they usually have something
magical that makes this advancement quite token.

On a related thread:

When using this system, I tend to develop some fighter magic items that
give out points that can be added to this amount and thusly raise the score
by one measly point. You'd be suprised how excited a person can get
when they find gauntlets that add 4d6 % points to their strength and
push them from say 13 to 14.

These items can work just as well for other classes. A wizards hat that
gives
some percentage points for INT, a book that does the same for a priests
WIZ score.

They make for some really nice Junior Woodchuck items that really don't
throw the balance off. This is something that can really help in BR games
where you really don't want to let it get all high magic.

A fighter might find Haelyn's Girdle, an item of power crafted by the
priests
of the aforementioned god. This might raise the STR (or Con) of a fighter
by X% points if they are blessed by a priest of Haelyn.

It makes a nifty belt buckle, might give ONE point of str to a person, and
even
has some nice religious tie-ins so you can prevent the party from bundling
up\
just one person with all the STR items as you can give them one that person
can't use (in this case the warrior might follow Belinik, and therefore
would
get no benefit from the Girdle); and force them to share the toys with each
other.

These are just my thoughts. I make no claim to them!

Craig

[the Falcon]

> Here's another possibility for advancement per level. In a friend's
> campaign (not AD&D), each level he rolls percentile, and if the result
> is lower than the character's level, one attribute will go up a point
> (which attribute is decided by the GM based on what attributes were used
> most in that level). It would probably have to be modified, because
> levels in that game go up with no ceiling, and veterans of 20th level or
> so are not all that uncommon.

How about this? Each time you advance a level, you need to roll equal to
or below your level with 1d20. If you succeed, pick an ability score to
improve. Then, roll _over_ the ability with 1d20. If you succeed that as
well, then you may add a point.
Just an idea - lemme know what you think of it...

- the Falcon

[Kenneth Gauck]

Memnoch's solution moves in the right direction, but in general I am opposed
to advancing ability scores except in the most fantastic cases. Rather I
prefer to advance individual skills, that is proficencies, by level.

When we look at the RPG's that have character generation points, and you buy
your attributes, we also see they are mostly skills based games, not
attribute based.

Also, when a character levels, currently the rules advance THAC0, HD, saves,
and spell powers, which tends to all group nicely as combat skills (though
spells selected could be non-combat). Rangers are special in that they
advance in Tracking without having to spend the precious few additional
non-weapon proficiencies that come with every three or four levels.

My solution is to basically allow a player to take one proficency per
level --mostly non-weapon, but it varies by the contents of the adventure,
and class, as well as how often a player takes the weapon option. My list
of proficencies is fairly long, and so no player could hope to get an
exhaustive set of skills. Further I take skill advancement into account
considering the first point of proficency as equivilent to apprentice in
terms of skill or Bachelors degree in terms of knowledge. The second level
of skill I consider to be journeyman in terms of skill, MA in terms of
knowledge, and so a wider range of actions can be considered routine, and
few actions out of their experience. The third level is the last that
assumes expansion of skill area. It is equivilent to Master Craftsman in
skill, or Ph.D in terms of knowledge.

So players end up taking greater levels in proficencies as well as taking
additional ones. To find that the Duke of Osoerde has three proficency
points in Falconry, and two in dancing should round out the character in an
interesting way without suggesting he lacks abilities required to rule
Osoerde.

Some guildelines I use:
1) Only allow a proficency to be taken if their is an in-game possibility of
learning the skill. Players who used the skill unproficently alot during
the course of play, assisted proficent characters, or found a teacher are
all good candidates for aquiring the skill.

2) Never refuse a skill that adds more to role play while having a
negligable effect on the character's power. Dancing, cooking, indeed any
art, enhance the character in a way that gives him real life.

3) Just as the arts are excellent skills to allow players to take, keep an
eye on skills like blind-fighting, strategy, healing, and whatever else your
campaign focuses on. If players seem inclined to focus exclusivly on the
short-term aquisition of certain kinds of skills suggest that character is
focused in a way that should impact the character. Taking one of these
kinds of skills now, and one later does not say to much, but a character
that has taken Weapons Mastery in both Longsword and Crossbow, has
blind-fighting, two slots of armorer, three slots of weaponsmith, has
riding, animal husbandry, and two slots of animal training, as well as
endurance, survival(forest), survival (mountains) and survival (plains), and
only took hunting and heraldry to round out his charatcer has created a hero
or champion type of character.

A character who took four slots of Leadership, three of Military Science,
one of tactics, one of siegecraft, waterfind, two slots of riding,
cartography, is merely specialized in his primary weapon, has taken
politics, etiquette, and persuasion, as well as two slots of administration,
two slots of military history, a slot of ancient history, a slot of local
history (Avanil), and enjoys poetry and singing, speaks Anurian, Brecht, and
Dwarven is a captain, a leader of men, a different charatcer from the
champion above who may be the same level and posses the same basic
attributes.

When both men come before the Prince of Avanil seeking positions, the prince
will consider them fit for widely different tasks.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net


- -----Original Message-----
From: Memnoch
Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 9:51 PM
>
>I may be old, but does anyone remember the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier? What
>happened with this character class was that every time he/she advanced in
>levels, 2d10 was rolled for strength, dexterity, and constitution. This
was
>added to the strength, dexterity, and constitution stats for the character
>in a percentile.

[Alaric]

the Falcon wrote:
>
> How about this? Each time you advance a level, you need to roll equal to
> or below your level with 1d20. If you succeed, pick an ability score to
> improve. Then, roll _over_ the ability with 1d20. If you succeed that as
> well, then you may add a point.
> Just an idea - lemme know what you think of it...
>
> - the Falcon

Sounds like a modification on Chaosium's skill system. A good one, I
might add....Well, that gives a huge likelyhood of improvement. I'd like
a system that doesn't end up with att's skyrocketing (or at least
hitting at least 15-18 in most) by the REALLY high levels. Yeah, I know
that it may not make a difference, but I can just see the 25th level
fighter with 20/19/19 in the combat att's...then again, he may have him
anyway...I think it could work, but it'd have to be tried through a few
levels of play to see...
Thx,
Alaric

[the Falcon]

> > How about this? Each time you advance a level, you need to roll equal to
> > or below your level with 1d20. If you succeed, pick an ability score to
> > improve. Then, roll _over_ the ability with 1d20. If you succeed that as
> > well, then you may add a point.
>
> Sounds like a modification on Chaosium's skill system. A good one, I
> might add....Well, that gives a huge likelyhood of improvement. I'd like
> a system that doesn't end up with att's skyrocketing (or at least
> hitting at least 15-18 in most) by the REALLY high levels. Yeah, I know
> that it may not make a difference, but I can just see the 25th level
> fighter with 20/19/19 in the combat att's...then again, he may have him
> anyway...I think it could work, but it'd have to be tried through a few
> levels of play to see...

Well, I don't know anything about Chaosium - I just made it up myself.
Took me about a minute of thinkin, actually...
Let's make a simple analysis of it. Assume you start out at level 1 and
play until you reach level 20. Then on average, you'll succeed 11 rolls.
So on average, you'll be allowed 11 tries from level 1 to 20 to improve a
stat. The followin table shows (an approximation of) how many tries on
average are need to improve a particular score:

SCORE TRIES SCORE TRIES
1 1.05 11 2.22
2 1.11 12 2.5
3 1.18 13 2.86
4 1.25 14 3.33
5 1.33 15 4
6 1.43 16 5
7 1.54 17 6.67
8 1.67 18 10
9 1.82 19 20
10 2 20+

As you can clearly see, it takes an average of 9 tries to improve a score
from 15 to 17, and 10 tries to improve a score from 18 to 19, while it
takes only 2 tries to improve a score from 10 to 11. So I don't think
this system will create extreme super characters. It's more suitable for
takin those bad weaknesses out of your character.
What is also important to realize, is that a character will on average
have gotten one try at improvement by level 6, and an additional 1.2 at
level 9. After that, they get slightly more than one try per two levels,
slowly improvin to 1 per level, which is achieved at level 20.
Again, tell me what you think of this...

- the Falcon

[Alaric]

the Falcon wrote:
>
> Well, I don't know anything about Chaosium - I just made it up myself.
> Took me about a minute of thinkin, actually...
> Let's make a simple analysis of it. Assume you start out at level 1 and
> play until you reach level 20. Then on average, you'll succeed 11 rolls.
> So on average, you'll be allowed 11 tries from level 1 to 20 to improve a
> stat. The followin table shows (an approximation of) how many tries on
> average are need to improve a particular score:
>
> SCORE TRIES SCORE TRIES
> 1 1.05 11 2.22
> 2 1.11 12 2.5
> 3 1.18 13 2.86
> 4 1.25 14 3.33
> 5 1.33 15 4
> 6 1.43 16 5
> 7 1.54 17 6.67
> 8 1.67 18 10
> 9 1.82 19 20
> 10 2 20+
>
> As you can clearly see, it takes an average of 9 tries to improve a score
> from 15 to 17, and 10 tries to improve a score from 18 to 19, while it
> takes only 2 tries to improve a score from 10 to 11. So I don't think
> this system will create extreme super characters. It's more suitable for
> takin those bad weaknesses out of your character.
> What is also important to realize, is that a character will on average
> have gotten one try at improvement by level 6, and an additional 1.2 at
> level 9. After that, they get slightly more than one try per two levels,
> slowly improvin to 1 per level, which is achieved at level 20.
> Again, tell me what you think of this...
>
> - the Falcon
>

Hmm...interesting. I'm someone who relies heavily on averages and stats,
so that's an impressive array. Actually, now it seems like the method
you use (and probably the one I suggested too) are really only a balm
for the players who really want advancement, and enough to make a real
advancement for some att's. I still think it'd have to be played through
a few levels to see, but it looks realy good.
Thx,
Alaric