I'll accept that, if you but answer me this Fortune:
Is it acceptable in your eyes, that with a system with such limits, Awakened (Read, Adepts and Mages) can still up their attributes (incidentially, with less karma than mundanes could, even under the old system) - yet mundanes are now EVEN MORE screwed?
If that would be ok in your games, I understand your logic. If not, what gives sir.
Curugul
Full Version: Improving character attributes
Strangely enough, even when I did run games with limitations on Attribute increases, this problem didn't come up. Things were kept pretty balanced all around, and the players just concentrated more on skill improvement for their characters. 
How far does that go if you don't allow attribute increases though? And just because they concentrated on the only thing left for them to spend Karma on doesn't make it a good thing, of course they spent karma on skills (or made magical characters), what other choice was there? 
Sphynx
Sphynx
As a general rule we don't require training in ordinary circumstances, only in exceptional ones.
GM: So what did you do to bring up your INSERT STATS up by 1?
STR : All that exercise I keep getting running for my life is paying off.
QUI : All that dodging I keep doing while running for my life is paying off.
BOD: All those beatings I keep taking while running for my life are paying off.
INT: All those clever plans to keep me alive while I'm running for my life are paying off.
WIL: All the mental abuse I take while running for my life is paying off.
CHA: All this surviving is boosting my self confidence!!
Know what I mean? I dunno about you, but I get plenty of exercise. =)
Sunday.
GM: So what did you do to bring up your INSERT STATS up by 1?
STR : All that exercise I keep getting running for my life is paying off.
QUI : All that dodging I keep doing while running for my life is paying off.
BOD: All those beatings I keep taking while running for my life are paying off.
INT: All those clever plans to keep me alive while I'm running for my life are paying off.
WIL: All the mental abuse I take while running for my life is paying off.
CHA: All this surviving is boosting my self confidence!!
Know what I mean? I dunno about you, but I get plenty of exercise. =)
Sunday.
Not allowing Attribute increases is a totally different thing to limiting those increases.
In my long experience as a Shadowrun GM, I have rarely seen any dramatic natural Attribute increases in the games I have run. Most such improvements were of the implant variety.
In my long experience as a Shadowrun GM, I have rarely seen any dramatic natural Attribute increases in the games I have run. Most such improvements were of the implant variety.
Yup, most of the attribute increases I've seen are also either due to cybernetic or bioware. But really guys, think about it: going from 2 to 9 in one night using karma is kind of ridiculous. But going from 2 to 9 in the space of 1/2 a year is quite reasonable, given that you can earn enough karma to get from 2 to 9 in 1/2 a year.
Agreed with both Toturi and Fortune.
I've rarely seen it as well, so why a ruling to prevent it?
And considering the karma to raise an attribute from 2 to 9 is... well, insane. Nobody expects it in half a year even. 108 Karma is alot for a human to spend.
Sphynx
I've rarely seen it as well, so why a ruling to prevent it?
And considering the karma to raise an attribute from 2 to 9 is... well, insane. Nobody expects it in half a year even. 108 Karma is alot for a human to spend.
Sphynx
Well, let's see here. I'm harsh and quick in my games. I run a session every other week, and I run them in fast forward. Each session is a month of time. So after 12 sessions it's a year. I only allow reasonable increases within a period of time. I could see an increase from a 1-2, or a 2-3, in a year, but after that the time gets exponentially longer. 3-4 = 2 years(unless you started, then it's 1.) 4-5 = 3 years(again, unless you started.) and 5-6= 4 years(if you started, it's 2 years.)
I've seen entire teams retire before.
I've seen entire teams retire before.
Oh yay, must be a blast to play in your games.... realism and all. (* Looks for the drooling with sarcasm emoticon *)
You're not harsh, you're over controlling. GM's in attempts to strive for realism forget the most important part of a Game, that fun comes first. That includes fun for the players. There MAY be some logical sense to limiting attribute growth like that, though if you read the whole thread you'd realize there's not much sense to it, but at the expense of player's fun. It's a BAD idea you have there.
Sphynx
You're not harsh, you're over controlling. GM's in attempts to strive for realism forget the most important part of a Game, that fun comes first. That includes fun for the players. There MAY be some logical sense to limiting attribute growth like that, though if you read the whole thread you'd realize there's not much sense to it, but at the expense of player's fun. It's a BAD idea you have there.
Sphynx
Honestly, I haven't seen very many players improve their characters' Attributes naturally much more than 1 or 2 steps above what they originally had at chargen. There is much more growth potential (and fun) to be had improving old skills, or learning new ones.
All games have limits and controls. I think you make too much of GMs that want to run games the way they like. If the players aren't having fun, then they will leave andthe GM will (or should) learn from that.
All games have limits and controls. I think you make too much of GMs that want to run games the way they like. If the players aren't having fun, then they will leave andthe GM will (or should) learn from that.
| QUOTE (Sphynx @ Sep 15 2003, 08:15 AM) |
| Oh yay, must be a blast to play in your games.... realism and all. (* Looks for the drooling with sarcasm emoticon *) You're not harsh, you're over controlling. GM's in attempts to strive for realism forget the most important part of a Game, that fun comes first. That includes fun for the players. There MAY be some logical sense to limiting attribute growth like that, though if you read the whole thread you'd realize there's not much sense to it, but at the expense of player's fun. It's a BAD idea you have there. Sphynx |
You know, if you read the whole thread again, you'll find out that there are many different perspectives on this topic, two of which are:
a) Limiting a character's growth takes the fun away from the game, no matter what game
and
b) In a world where a certain amount of realism is balanced wiht a lot of techinological and fantastical wonders, limiting a character's natural growth by some amount only helps to reinforce that image.
Mixed with a lot of shadings of those.
Just because a few people don't like the idea doesn't mean it's universally bad and to be abandoned. It always, and I'm repeating an old concept here now, depends on the game and the people playing it, neh? If my players have fun with the way I play, that's peachy, right? Otherwise they have enough ways of letting me know they don't like the way I handle it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.