Jump to content



Photo

Proposed New Stage in Character Creation


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41 Nimsim

Nimsim

    Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 02:16 PM

I put up these posts on it a while back. I'll try digging up the specific combinations later tonight when I'm not on my phone. I haven't gotten into the imbalances with starting items (although this info is out of date a bit) in this thread, but I bring it up in that one.

http://community.fan...acter-creation/

Edited by Nimsim, 27 September 2013 - 02:16 PM.


#42 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 02:57 PM

I still see a lot of numbers, and nothing to suggest any correlation between these numbers and actual gameplay experience.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#43 Nimsim

Nimsim

    Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:11 PM

I'll admit that some of those were just descriptive numbers meant to look at character creation but things like the approximate values of each background and my later post about the actual discrepancies between skill xp values are useful for the game. I've explained that characters can start off with different xp values. This isn't really balanced out by being ineffectual, because the character will start with the cheap advances needed to become competent in their role and can likely just use his 500xp to buy them. The problem becomes more tangible as the game goes on and players want to buy skills outside of their main niche and find that they are suddenly paying a lot more. That is the game experience. It's not incredibly obvious to everyone, but that fact doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed. As I've said, it would not take a lot to fix this problem. What I'm getting from you is that this glitch will only affect a small number of people, so it's not worth fixing. Congratulations on being an actuary, I guess? Id prefer if a problem affected 0% of players rather than 1-2%, but that's just me.

#44 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 04:17 PM

No, I'm still saying it's not a problem at all.

 

Say, I'm a guy who deliberately chose a Background/Role combination that makes my Background-given stuff cost the most exp, and rounded out the character concept using starting exp. Great, except what did I really gain? Some stuff that, given my role (the most defining part of chargen when it comes to what you actually want to do in the game), will be of tangential use at best. And if some of that stuff proves useful in the campaign, that's great, as long as I can use it on the current level. But if I ever think, yeah, that Remembrance is really getting a lot of use, but I'm not succeeding at it too often, I'll better invest some exp into being better at it - this is the moment I lose my "edge", as any investment I make into the expensive stuff effectively means paying back the "credit" I gained at character generation.

 

At the same time, other people in the group will spend their exp with different cost/effect ratio, depending on personal preference. Since the actual value of any particular advance differs from campaign to campaign, and since people prioritize their advancement in different ways, it's actually impossible for everyone to maintain the same cost/value ratio. On average, any starting advantage will even out as campaign goes on.

 

So, what you consider a problem is only a problem in a hypothetical scenario where a)someone who gains an exp advantage at start deliberately maintains it by only buying cheap stuff throughout the campaign, and b)this strategy turns out to be unambiguously successful in play as the campaign unfolds, and c)whatever advancement strategy other players at the table chose yields visibly worse results in actual play.

 

The chance of that scenario happening in actual play approaches zero.


Edited by Morangias, 27 September 2013 - 04:18 PM.

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#45 MaliciousOnion

MaliciousOnion

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:21 AM

 

I'd actually prefer if character creation was even more open-ended, with starting skills, traits, etc. not being intrinsically tied to a character's fluff background at all. Sure, skills and talents should be justified by the background, but that should be left up to the players and GM in my opinion, not the rules. There's so many different branches of the Ministorum, Administratum, Imperial Guard, etc. that it's unlikely two characters with the same background would be the same. You only have to look at the regiment and character creation rules for Only War to see this.

 

edit: To expand on this, have players pick four skills from the cheapest category, and four tier 1 talents and one tier 2 talent, assuming they meet any prerequisites. This is an example only; I'm not concerned so much with the numbers as I am with the method.

The ultimate issue you have to consider here is that FFG have to try and cater for multiple audiences. Your suggestion works GREAT for people who have a heavy RP focus, the kinds of people who think out all their character details before they touch a sheet then build their stats around that concept. I use a similar system in my games.

 

For someone who's a bit less roleplay oriented and needs a helping hand though? They'd be totally lost.

 

I'd say this is preferable to having experience equivalence disparity. For Only War they listed suggestions for spending your starting experience - they could do the same here.



#46 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:04 AM

 

I'd say this is preferable to having experience equivalence disparity. For Only War they listed suggestions for spending your starting experience - they could do the same here.

I disagree. Ease of character creation is a much more worthy goal than false character equivalence.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#47 Olifant

Olifant

    Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:54 AM

This argument and discussion has become less about how to make a meaningful background or at least a list of or simply ideas to help flesh out characters and more about how many GMs have gotten upset they let players bully them.

 

I've played as both GM and player (mostly GM) and at first I hated background packages, as I saw it as simply stat boosts or new career paths to overpower players. In a sense they are, but here is the thing. They are for your players, not you the GM. If a player wants to make a Tech-priest with a high fellow ship and diplomatic, fine, he has that option for its costs. Does it break the mold of what to expect? Yes, and there is no reason to not allow it. Claim any concept you want about abusing the system, or microing as much of a stat as a player can but the final call and judgment comes down to the GM.

Now I love background packages and point them out (from the many source books I have) to players who are interested in leaving their standard mold, looking to make a more particular type of character or sub branching with a new career rank.

 

Background packages and alternate careers, may be 'over powered' or even 'pigeon holing' to some, but to those of us, who have something called creativity or even just want to use the tools available to play a style of character they have in their minds, these tools are excellent.



#48 kingcom

kingcom

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:09 PM

This argument and discussion has become less about how to make a meaningful background or at least a list of or simply ideas to help flesh out characters and more about how many GMs have gotten upset they let players bully them.

 

I've played as both GM and player (mostly GM) and at first I hated background packages, as I saw it as simply stat boosts or new career paths to overpower players. In a sense they are, but here is the thing. They are for your players, not you the GM. If a player wants to make a Tech-priest with a high fellow ship and diplomatic, fine, he has that option for its costs. Does it break the mold of what to expect? Yes, and there is no reason to not allow it. Claim any concept you want about abusing the system, or microing as much of a stat as a player can but the final call and judgment comes down to the GM.

Now I love background packages and point them out (from the many source books I have) to players who are interested in leaving their standard mold, looking to make a more particular type of character or sub branching with a new career rank.

 

Background packages and alternate careers, may be 'over powered' or even 'pigeon holing' to some, but to those of us, who have something called creativity or even just want to use the tools available to play a style of character they have in their minds, these tools are excellent.

 

lol, this guy. 


  • MaliciousOnion and frajaq like this

#49 MaliciousOnion

MaliciousOnion

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:16 PM

Setting and story should always take precedence over the rules, but that's not an excuse for bad rules.


  • Simsum likes this

#50 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,561 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:07 AM

Setting and story should always take precedence over the rules, but that's not an excuse for bad rules.

The way I'd phrase it, solid rules give you the freedom to ignore them when they're not necessary, while weak rules leave you with the challenge of fixing them when they are necessary. Former is always more preferable.


  • MaliciousOnion likes this

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#51 Vaeron

Vaeron

    Member

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 05 October 2013 - 07:10 PM

 

Setting and story should always take precedence over the rules, but that's not an excuse for bad rules.

The way I'd phrase it, solid rules give you the freedom to ignore them when they're not necessary, while weak rules leave you with the challenge of fixing them when they are necessary. Former is always more preferable.

 

 

I completely agree.

 

Picking and choosing rules is definitely easier than having to make entire new ones up out of scratch.  2nd edition AD&D had 3 different optional initiative systems, and I've never heard it referred to as a rules heavy game.  But even of those 3 systems, every gaming group seemed to have their own way of handling initiative.  That doesn't mean it would have been acceptable to not include initiative in the book at all!


Edited by Vaeron, 05 October 2013 - 07:11 PM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS