It's my system and I'll roll if I want to.
Your last argument doesn't hold Mark. A 1st level guy with a 20 isn't the best or smartest or whatever. 'Best' is defined in terms of skills. Your stats are only your potential to eventually be best. A 5th level guy with average stats can still kick the ass of a 1st level guy with END 20.(That's one thing I kind of don't like about the system, really, is that your ultimate potential is defined by your initial stat choices. Another 1E error. You seem to be hitting a lot of 1E mistakes, in my eyes.)
A 20 at the start makes a hell of a lot of difference. -Consider a 20 agility. 5% chance to hit you? Pick up a shield and it's Dodge of 21? That's more than potential. Call it what you like, a 20 is the highest possible.
I think you are totally missing where I am coming from: Starting characters should have ok stats and skills, over time they can improve these both. They aren't ultimately defined by them.
Choosing ultimately is the more fair system, because it equalizes PCs at the start, which is absolutely essential for balance. There's a good reason why the first gen RPGs used rolling, and almost all subsequent systems dropped it in favor of choosing.
Maybe it's ultimately fair, but fair doesn't equal good or interesting. Sorry, but I don't think Roger Bacon is interesting. Actually, I would really rather not play in a Roger bacon kind of game.
Also, what do you mean by balanced? If we really wanted complete balance, we could just have all mundanes, and all humans, and all 10s for stats. It isn't all about balance. I don't play the game for balance. Sure balance matters, but balance isn't the only thing that makes it fun.
Actually, it's a problem of any system where you set hard 'caps' on skills or ability scores, and where only the most extreme stats give you any bonuses.
In the current system, there's no difference between a fighter with a 9 STR and one with a 13 STR. (But there's a considerable difference between a guy with a 10 AGIL and a 12 AGIL.)
It's another thing 3E did right: whenver stats go up by 2, you get another +1 bonus, so a 13 STR is better than 11, and 15 is even better. Also, there are no caps, but starting stats are limited to the typical range.
I did adjust strength some. And, stats can be raised. Still all scores need either a cap or an asymptote, otherwise, the scale is meaningless. That was one problem with our old skill system. Sometimes we needed 200% in a skill. Then, when we tried something easier, we would need to roll 2 or 3 times higher than we would have needed to at low levels. It just got relativistic and messy.
We can keep arguing about Choose vs Roll all along. But rolling I think makes the problem worse, because clearly, if someone rolls exceptionally poorly, the GM won't make them keep their guy, or their guy will just die. "Okay, my 6 AGIL, 8 END 1st level fighter rushes into melee. Can I roll a new guy yet?" But if you roll great, you get that 1/200 '20', you're fuckin' magic. Maybe you don't recall Ben Gunsberg's 18/00 fighter. That was the first straw to making Justin Jaymes quit gaming- his guys were useless compared to Ben's randomly rolled tanks. I think rolling makes the problem of stats worse in the end. The problem isn't: how good are these guys relative to the world- the problem is: how good are the individual PCs relative to each other.
I still don't think you've rolled 5d4. You've got 3 characters that are 'fucking magic'. Roll some characters. I've tried your way. I have really seriously considered it. Try mine.
No weapon speed. No one uses it.
I am not making a 3E supplement. I don't want to.
That's also why I am discussing all aspects of the game.
I adjusted the off-hand weapon penalties. Now ambidextrousness is better. Also, when you can't just give yourself a super high dex at the start, it actually does matter.
I'll look at the running proficiency again, maybe tame it. Still, if you can't start with a 20 endurance...
Maybe we just have different ideas of what makes a game fun. I don't think a game that has the Roger Bacon, Griminien, or John Applegate is fun. These guys are Big Ben. -I'd rather just play chickens.
If you really really like choosing, maybe I'll just tame it more. I'll make 19's and 20's unchooseable. -It just seems lame to me.
Just roll some d4's dammit. Do it on the blogroller. Make 20 characters. Just try it.
A 20 at the start makes a hell of a lot of difference. -Consider a 20 agility. 5% chance to hit you? Pick up a shield and it's Dodge of 21? That's more than potential. Call it what you like, a 20 is the highest possible.
I think you are totally missing where I am coming from: Starting characters should have ok stats and skills, over time they can improve these both. They aren't ultimately defined by them.
Choosing ultimately is the more fair system, because it equalizes PCs at the start, which is absolutely essential for balance. There's a good reason why the first gen RPGs used rolling, and almost all subsequent systems dropped it in favor of choosing.
Maybe it's ultimately fair, but fair doesn't equal good or interesting. Sorry, but I don't think Roger Bacon is interesting. Actually, I would really rather not play in a Roger bacon kind of game.
Also, what do you mean by balanced? If we really wanted complete balance, we could just have all mundanes, and all humans, and all 10s for stats. It isn't all about balance. I don't play the game for balance. Sure balance matters, but balance isn't the only thing that makes it fun.
Actually, it's a problem of any system where you set hard 'caps' on skills or ability scores, and where only the most extreme stats give you any bonuses.
In the current system, there's no difference between a fighter with a 9 STR and one with a 13 STR. (But there's a considerable difference between a guy with a 10 AGIL and a 12 AGIL.)
It's another thing 3E did right: whenver stats go up by 2, you get another +1 bonus, so a 13 STR is better than 11, and 15 is even better. Also, there are no caps, but starting stats are limited to the typical range.
I did adjust strength some. And, stats can be raised. Still all scores need either a cap or an asymptote, otherwise, the scale is meaningless. That was one problem with our old skill system. Sometimes we needed 200% in a skill. Then, when we tried something easier, we would need to roll 2 or 3 times higher than we would have needed to at low levels. It just got relativistic and messy.
We can keep arguing about Choose vs Roll all along. But rolling I think makes the problem worse, because clearly, if someone rolls exceptionally poorly, the GM won't make them keep their guy, or their guy will just die. "Okay, my 6 AGIL, 8 END 1st level fighter rushes into melee. Can I roll a new guy yet?" But if you roll great, you get that 1/200 '20', you're fuckin' magic. Maybe you don't recall Ben Gunsberg's 18/00 fighter. That was the first straw to making Justin Jaymes quit gaming- his guys were useless compared to Ben's randomly rolled tanks. I think rolling makes the problem of stats worse in the end. The problem isn't: how good are these guys relative to the world- the problem is: how good are the individual PCs relative to each other.
I still don't think you've rolled 5d4. You've got 3 characters that are 'fucking magic'. Roll some characters. I've tried your way. I have really seriously considered it. Try mine.
No weapon speed. No one uses it.
I am not making a 3E supplement. I don't want to.
That's also why I am discussing all aspects of the game.
I adjusted the off-hand weapon penalties. Now ambidextrousness is better. Also, when you can't just give yourself a super high dex at the start, it actually does matter.
I'll look at the running proficiency again, maybe tame it. Still, if you can't start with a 20 endurance...
Maybe we just have different ideas of what makes a game fun. I don't think a game that has the Roger Bacon, Griminien, or John Applegate is fun. These guys are Big Ben. -I'd rather just play chickens.
If you really really like choosing, maybe I'll just tame it more. I'll make 19's and 20's unchooseable. -It just seems lame to me.
Just roll some d4's dammit. Do it on the blogroller. Make 20 characters. Just try it.
posted by Jimmy Swill @ 4:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home