Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: character creation costs?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Lindt
QUOTE (Bull)
"SR4 is more flexible than a double-jointed gymnist with jello for bones!" wink.gif

What? Huh? What was this thread about again? Oh, shiny!

I swear, the ONLY thing that puts me off with this so far is the big numbers. 120 was enough, and you dropped back into double digits before you finished your Att.s 400 is a rather large number, for any generation system. it just gives me really bad flash backs from a system I was de-bugging/sub-writing/editing that started with 1200 points and needed a slide rule to do the math for.
will_rj
I donīt know what you guys are complaining about.
Donīt we all know that the archetype chars will be there ? (and in color, as promised). Skip the char creation chapter, choose the coolest archetype and we are all done with it wink.gif

BTW, Iīve never met this Beck guy you are all talking about...
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Ellery)

F
So, what can you do?[LIST=1]
[*]Create a game with no synergies. This is rather boring, because it means that only one variable can affect any given situation.
[*]Create a game where costs are nonlinear. Mage A will have to spend much more than twice as much to get eight times the impact.
[*]Yell at Mage A for being a munchkin and ban him from your games.
[*]Laugh at Mage B for being a loser and don't invite him to your games.
[

I'd personally rephrase 3 and 4, as

3: Actually try to communicate with your players. I know its weird but talk to them, explain the campaign setting and why there character as designed doesn't really fit it. Ask them what they were going for with there character and help them to reach that concept in a way that will fit your campaign.

And 3 is the preferred method for me. 3 alows me the most freedom with the least amount of problems. 2. Puts me in a straight jacket, and if I want to change it I have to change rules, not just talk to my players. Now if the non linear costs are in line with the mechanical benefits because of things like synergies I have no problem with the non linear costs.

If the non linear costs are there just because a game designer thought a 6 should be rare, then I do have a problem with it. The rules can support a setting sure, but the rules should not be made to force a setting. Character creation rules that are made to force a setting are far worse than loose character creation rules that can if the GM doesn't look over and approve characters help derail a settings feel.


Ellery
I still don't see what is special about linear costs from your perspective. Any framework limits GM choice, and reward matching cost, if taken to its logical extreme, means that choice is meaningless except in terms of style--all choices are equallly good. Is that the principle that you are following? Also, there are synergies all over the place, so if you just want to match cost to reward, linear is a bad default choice (as is any scaling--you really need cost to be proportional to the synergies you receive).
mfb
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist)
The rules can support a setting sure, but the rules should not be made to force a setting.

that's ridiculous. the whole point of a setting is to create a cohesive, consistent, interesting arena for your games to take place in. character generation is one of the largest parts of that, because it directly affects players' and GMs' view of the world. you, as a gamer, see the game world through your character's eyes. if your character does not match the setting, your view of the setting is going to be skewed.

that doesn't mean that the designer's vision of the setting is the end-all-be-all, but it does mean that the designer's vision of the setting should be backed up by the chargen rules. if you, as a gamer, want to do something different with setting, it's up to you to modify the rules to support the differences you're looking for.
mintcar
Agreed. There are allready a lot of generic systems that are supposed to work with any setting. I always found that unsatisfying and wierd, and the benefits far outweighed by the numerous problems. Look at D&D. No setting for that game can escape the things that are stated in the main book without causing confusion. And far from all things in the main books fit every setting.
Cain
QUOTE
I still don't see what is special about linear costs from your perspective. Any framework limits GM choice, and reward matching cost, if taken to its logical extreme, means that choice is meaningless except in terms of style--all choices are equallly good. Is that the principle that you are following?

Yes and no. The difference comes in ease-of-use-- the systems that are intuitive, quick, and simple, are better choices than ones that are obtuse, slow, and overly complex.

All choices might be equally good in terms of applicability to style, but they're not equal on those three criteria. In general, template systems are the fastest and simplest to use; point-based tend to be worse, depending on the scales involved.

Point-based also tends to encourage munchkinism more, since it gives the munchkins more room to maneuver. There's a natural tendency to try and squeeze every last bit of advantage out of every single point. The more points you hand out, the worse this problem gets.
mfb
QUOTE (Cain)
The difference comes in ease-of-use-- the systems that are intuitive, quick, and simple, are better choices than ones that are obtuse, slow, and overly complex.

of course. but that's hardly a delineator (i bring the funnies!) between linear and non-linear. linear systems can be pretty obtuse, and non-linear systems can be pleasantly simple. if you said that it's easier to write a linear system that is intuitive, quick, and simple, as opposed to the ease of writing a non-linear system that is these things, i'd agree with you. in the end, though, a non-linear system that is not obtuse, not slow, and not overly complex would be the best solution.

as for SR4's system, i wouldn't call it slow or overly complex. but it certainly struck me as obtuse in places. but, hey two out of three is... well, it's not the game i'm going to play, actually.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (mintcar)
Agreed. There are allready a lot of generic systems that are supposed to work with any setting. I always found that unsatisfying and wierd, and the benefits far outweighed by the numerous problems. Look at D&D. No setting for that game can escape the things that are stated in the main book without causing confusion. And far from all things in the main books fit every setting.

Sure the setting shouldn't be generic, but the campaigns within that setting should be. If the character creation drives you to play one type of campaign in a setting it has problems. Last time I checked this setting included high end black opps characters, master hackers, street punks, novice wageslaves thrown into the shadows, and everything else that fits in a world.

It should be almost as easy for me to make a campaign around the characters being street punks going pro and a campaign about them being high end extremely professional runners. If the character creation doesn't facilitate this its not working. When you increase costs just because you think a 6 should be rare your not using rules to enforce a setting you are using rules to force a campaign within a setting. The shadowrun setting can easily include an incredibly diverse set of character concepts and the character creation rules should support that.

Heck look at the novels for this setting, they've included absurd runners who can take on cyberzombies almost one on one, and they have included two of my favorite characters zig and zag from the short story book 2 gangers trying to go pro, and heck look at sam verner when he entered the game, a low decking skill, a low combat skill, decent overall skills and a recently awaked magic talent.

Why does it break the setting to want a character creation rules that easily accommodates that and doesn't spank the hand of the group who wants to run the beat up cyberzombie team campaign. No matter how many points you throw at that team give them the high end starting points as suggested they still get spanked for trying to be above competent in a skill if you have stagered costs where the mechanical benefits dont support it. And yet for that campaign which fits the setting being well above competent in your skills and attributes is the norm.
Ellery
That sounds like a reasonable goal for a character creation system--the ability to create a wide range of different characters.

Is a linear cost for skills and attributes supposed to have something to do with this? If so, what, and why?
Cain
QUOTE
of course. but that's hardly a delineator (i bring the funnies!) between linear and non-linear. linear systems can be pretty obtuse, and non-linear systems can be pleasantly simple. if you said that it's easier to write a linear system that is intuitive, quick, and simple, as opposed to the ease of writing a non-linear system that is these things, i'd agree with you. in the end, though, a non-linear system that is not obtuse, not slow, and not overly complex would be the best solution.

You're right, and I should have been clearer about things. In my experience, linear systems tend to be more intuitive, quick, and simple to use. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a general tendency.

Recently, I had to make a character for BESM. With uninterupted access to the book, and 35 build points, I was able to generate a character in an hour or so. (For those of you who don't know, BESM uses a more-or-less straight-buy linear cost system.) Contrast this with GURPS, where a 400-point character can take *days* to fully flesh out. (GURPS uses a nonlinear, staggered-cost point-buy system.)

QUOTE
That sounds like a reasonable goal for a character creation system--the ability to create a wide range of different characters.

Is a linear cost for skills and attributes supposed to have something to do with this? If so, what, and why?

Yes. In a straight-buy system, it's very easy to figure what effect adding X number of points will have. For example, under SR3 point-buy, if I go from 123 to 125, I know exactly what the characters will gain: either one more attribute point, or two more skill points.

Under a BEcKs-style system-- or any progressive-cost system-- it's much harder to calculate what adding more points will do. If you increase the build points by 10, what have you accomplished? They might have raised one attribute from 4 to 5... or they might gain one good midrange skill, or a lot of low-level skills, or a resources boost. It's much harder to balance the exact power level: "If I raise/lower the build point total by X, will I get the desired power level in my game?" You can't tell nearly as easily, under a progressive system.
mfb
i'm not convinced that's really a bad thing. it's bad if your only goal is simplicity, but simplicity isn't the main goal of any game i prefer to play.
Ellery
I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Is it that you prefer linear systems because with a nonlinear system, you can't figure out what kind of characters you (or your players) can create?

If the concern is balancing power level, I'd think that a nonlinear system would be preferable, because the system automatically balances (if created non-idiotically) to some extent.

It seems as though you're saying that you prefer a worse system that you can understand easily to a superior system that is harder to understand. Is that correct?
Cain
QUOTE
Is it that you prefer linear systems because with a nonlinear system, you can't figure out what kind of characters you (or your players) can create?

If the concern is balancing power level, I'd think that a nonlinear system would be preferable, because the system automatically balances (if created non-idiotically) to some extent.

Yes and no. What a nonlinear, progressive-cost* system does isn't the same as balancing the power level-- it handicaps it at a given place. If you want to raise or lower the power level from there, it takes a great deal more work than a straight-buy system.

If I want to run a street-level game using the standard SR3 points system, it's pretty easy-- I tell the players they have 90 or 100 points to work with. If I want magic to be more prevalent, I drop the costs for being Awakened by 5 or 10. It's pretty easy to accomplish.

On the other hand, with BeCKs-- if I remove a hundred karma, what exactly have I accomplished? Have I dropped the power level too far, or not enough? What if I use 50? There's no way I can tell, unless I spend a great deal of time crunching numbers and creating sample characters.

QUOTE
It seems as though you're saying that you prefer a worse system that you can understand easily to a superior system that is harder to understand. Is that correct?

No. I am saying that, in every case, a system you can understand easily is always a superior system.

Munchkins are a problem no matter what you try, but they really shine when they understand a chargen system better than the GM does. They can pull all kinds of stunts, and make it look like the system supports their abuses. For example, using BeCKs, a munchkin might go for an ubermage by having his character initiate into the double-digits. And unless you're an experienced GM, well-versed in both BeCKs and normal chargen, it can look awfully like the system allows these sort of stunts.

If you can't easily comprehend a system, it won't work for you. And the more readily you comprehend a system, the better it works for you. The MCCT, for example, is simple and easy-- anyone can create a base character in minutes, excluding spending a large amount of starting money. Points take a bit longer; but again, the slowest step is always spending the starting cash, if you've got a high Resources allocation. BeCKs, without McMackies, can take days or more to fully flesh out a character, even before you start spending money.



*Nonlinear, nonprogressive-cost systems can work extremely well-- that's essentialy what a template system is. It's the addition of the progressive-cost that slows things down.
Ellery
QUOTE (Cain)
I am saying that, in every case, a system you can understand easily is always a superior system.
Do you mean "all other things being equal," or not?

If you mean all other things being equal--sure, I agree. The problem is that balance (and flexibility) doesn't always coincide with simplicity.

If you mean that simplicity trumps all other concerns--yargh, no, I disagree! I strongly disapprove of myopic fondness of that which is simple and wrong. It may be true that some individuals do not have the capability to do something correctly, in which case they may as well keep it simple and wrong instead of complex and possibly even more wrong. But if the individual has good reason to believe that something is complex and right--on the basis of consultation with people who are trustworthy and can handle that level of complexity--then insisting on the simple, wrong solution is harmful to everything save the individual's tender ego. For example, if the GM can understand the character that is created, it doesn't matter if there's a deep understanding of the process; the GM can still veto characters that don't fit the campaign. But a good creation system will give the GM fewer weirdly unbalanced characters to begin with, because there won't be as much advantage to weirdly unbalanced characters. So it's still a win for the GM.

If you mean that in practice, nobody can create a complex system that is better balanced than a simple linear system, then I ask you to compare how hard it is to create munchkinous abominations if allowed to use the point-build system to raise skills (linearly) vs. karma awards in SR3. For example, in the linear case, dump all points into one or two skills--firearms is a good choice, and 30 or so is a nice skill to shoot for. Raising a skill to 30 with karma costs about 900 karma (equivalent to raising ~30 skills to 6). Raising a skill to 30 with linear cost is equivalent to raising ~5 skills to 6. Plus, you have to use GM edict ("your character cannot do that because I say so") instead of having the character wisely avoiding a waste ("my character doesn't do that because it's too much work to raise a skill past 9 and it's not worth it"). It's a completely different feeling--heavy-handed GM control vs. player choice.

I do think that perhaps there should be a little tutorial in RPG books for GMs explaining how various nonlinear systems work, so the GMs who lack the motivation or education to figure it out on their own know what to expect. (Actually, I think this should be there not because most GMs can't handle it on their own, but rather because they wouldn't think to try.)

P.S. I'm not saying to make systems complex intentionally--quite the opposite. A deep understanding on the part of the game designers can often let them create a simpler system that works than they'd have created off the top of their heads. I'm specifically talking about tradeoffs where a game can work well if it's made more complex, and poorly if it's made simpler--in those cases, insisting on simplicity is stupid (unless you really like playing simple games that have lots of problems).
Cain
QUOTE
Do you mean "all other things being equal," or not?

Or something close to it. A mediocre simple system can be better than a decent complex system, but that depends on too many things to give a rule-of-thumb on.

QUOTE
It may be true that some individuals do not have the capability to do something correctly, in which case they may as well keep it simple and wrong instead of complex and possibly even more wrong. But if the individual has good reason to believe that something is complex and right--on the basis of consultation with people who are trustworthy and can handle that level of complexity--then insisting on the simple, wrong solution is harmful to everything save the individual's tender ego.

If you ask a munchkin, they'll tell you everything they've done is right. Complex systems just confuse the issue, making it harder to see where the abuses actually are.

QUOTE
For example, if the GM can understand the character that is created, it doesn't matter if there's a deep understanding of the process; the GM can still veto characters that don't fit the campaign.

Not quite true. If the GM doesn't fully understand the chargen system, he might be decieved into believing that the character is balanced. Like I said, let's take a character created under BeCKs, which has been initiated into the double-digits. That character is going to be extremely unbalanced in gameplay; but unless a GM knows in advance that this sort of thing is an abuse, he might accidentally let it slide-- after all, BeCKs is designed to create more balanced characters than any other system! He might have been relying on the system to balance the characters for him.

QUOTE
If you mean that in practice, nobody can create a complex system that is better balanced than a simple linear system, then I ask you to compare how hard it is to create munchkinous abominations if allowed to use the point-build system to raise skills (linearly) vs. karma awards in SR3.

It depends on what kind of abuse you're going for. If you pull the restrictions off point-based (no starting skill above 6) then yes, it can be abused badly. However, if you go pure karma, there's no upper limit applicable-- so a character now has the possibility of getting that skill of 30! You've got to make the comparisons fairly-- point based has limits, while karma does not.

At any event, try this on for size: One hallmark of a good system is that you can create the widest array of characters possible. Using point-buy, you can create a character with a few high stats, a good number of midrange ones, or a lot of low-level skills. Using a progressive-cost system, you're very restricted in creating a character with high stats-- you're more-or-less forced into creating midrange to low-powered characters. Right off the top, you're more restricted in the type of characters you can create.
Ellery
QUOTE (Cain)
If you pull the restrictions off point-based (no starting skill above 6) then yes, it can be abused badly.

One hallmark of a good system is that you can create the widest array of characters possible.
If you have a cap, you can't create high skills. If you don't, creating high skills is unbalancingly easy. Linear progression doesn't give you any other choices. What's wrong with liking a system that allows flexibility while curtailing abuses?
Cain
QUOTE
If you have a cap, you can't create high skills. If you don't, creating high skills is unbalancingly easy. Linear progression doesn't give you any other choices. What's wrong with liking a system that allows flexibility while curtailing abuses?

Nothing, as long as the system doesn't become unusably overcomplicated in the process. Which is what progressive costs tend to do.

Let's be fair, now-- neither system really lends itself to creating characters with level 30 skills-- that's a ludicrious example. Both have inherent limits that prevent such a thing. I might as well say: "If karma costs only were 1 x level, people could have insanely high stats!"

Besides which, you *can* have high skills, even under a cap-- it all depends on what the game mechanics consider to be "high". Under Shadowrun, a skill of 6 is considered to be pretty high, and you can easily start with a good number of skills that high-- but, you don't *have* to only have high skills, the system allows you to have lots of midrange to low level skills as well. Straight-buy systems actually offer more flexibility, in that regard.

Once you get into a progressive cost system, you can no longer have as many high skills/attributes. And, should a different power level be desired, it's much harder for the GM to adjust. It might curtail some abuses, but no system is unabuseable; to date, I haven't seen any SR chargen system that didn't require a certain minimum of work on the part of the GM to shut down loopholes. (In fact, point-buy takes more work to check than the MCCT; and both take less work than, say, GURPS-- a nonlinear, progressive-cost system.)

The systems that best allow flexibility while curtailing abuses tend to be simple, quick, and easy. More complex systems tend to rely on their complexity to prevent abuses-- but that mechanism doesn't always work!
Ellery
Can you give an example of a flexible, simple, quick, and easy system that curtails abuses?

Also, without a cap, I'd buy sorcery up to around 20 every time--who needs a range of skills when you can solve every problem with a tsunami of unresistable magic?

And a skill of 6 is supposed to be considered pretty high, but at a karma cost of as little as 21 (14 for a specialization), they're absolutely not in practice, unless you run a small number of games with unusually low karma awards and don't let the players take a bunch of 6s at creation.
warrior_allanon
QUOTE (will_rj)
I donīt know what you guys are complaining about.
Donīt we all know that the archetype chars will be there ? (and in color, as promised). Skip the char creation chapter, choose the coolest archetype and we are all done with it wink.gif


you sir need a good knock upside the head, but i'm not gonna do it.
no sir i'm not gonna do it.
The H**L i'm not!......sarcastic.gif

you know what, i'm gonna ask....other than those of you who started out on SR1 who here has played an archtype straight out of the book as your first character...i know i didnt. granted my first character was a pregen but it was made with the 3ed rules by someone who knew what they were doing....what you have to do is get the character generation rules and play with them to see how to build a character that you will enjoy playing
Hell Hound
Well I started with SR version 1 and I still didn't use one of the archetypes as my first character. The only time I have seen anyone use any of the archetypes from version 1 right up to version 3 were two instances with people brand new to roleplaying who were last minute additions to an RPG session, one of them was literally there just for the day to kill some time.
mintcar
Lets not missunderstand what it means that skills and attributes will be lower and might have a progressive cost to increase. The system is brand new, it WONT mean that youīre new characters will be half as strong, fast, whatever than youīre old ones. A 3 will not be half as good in the new system as a 6 was in the old system, that seems pretty certain. Anyway thereīs no way you could make a straight comparision between them.

So what will the increased and progressive cost of high values mean to the karma wealthy upper tier? It will mean that they are more special. How is that slapping their fingers? Also, if you choose to specialize from char-gen you might loose some actual skill points compaired to if you spread them out, but if you do spread them out those extra skill points wont save you from the guy who put everything in his gun skill in a fire fight. If you know what you wanna be good at you can step in in those situations and shine. Thereīs still plenty of reason to specialize.
Cain
QUOTE
Can you give an example of a flexible, simple, quick, and easy system that curtails abuses?

The basic MCCT is a decent example, which we keep glossing over. It's simple, easy, quick for the base stats, and can create a very wide assortment of characters of varying power levels. The only slowdown is if you choose a high Resources, causing a lot of bookkeeping issues.

I'm starting an Adventure! game, using the Storyteller system. It also uses a template system, but like all White Wolf systems, it incorporates several "Freebie points" to give you added flexibility. It also allows for a wide assortment of characters, is simple and easy to understand, and generates characters quite quickly-- I was able to create a good number of sample PCs and equal NPCs in less than an hour.

QUOTE
Also, without a cap, I'd buy sorcery up to around 20 every time--who needs a range of skills when you can solve every problem with a tsunami of unresistable magic?

You're continuing to compare apples to oranges. Why not raise your Intelligence, Willpower, and Quickness to 20 each? You can easily escape a lot of spells that way.

Both progressive systems and non-progressive ones require caps of some sort. The difference is that a straight-buy system will say it outright, while progressive-cost systems tend to hide it in the details somewhere. Under the usual points system, and the MCCT, all skills/attributes are capped at 6. Under a total karma build, there is no limit-- so all of a sudden, you *can* have that Sorcery of 20-- the systems might be relying on "sweet spots", "synergies", and other mathematical tricks to limit abuses... but if someone finds a loophole, all bets are off. You *can't* have that under a good straight-buy system, since it will make it explicitly clear that there is a limit.

QUOTE
And a skill of 6 is supposed to be considered pretty high, but at a karma cost of as little as 21 (14 for a specialization), they're absolutely not in practice, unless you run a small number of games with unusually low karma awards and don't let the players take a bunch of 6s at creation.

In my current SR3 game, there's only one player with a fair number of skills at 6, and even he doesn't have more than three skills at that level. The rest of the players have learned the value of versatility; there's a scattering of 6's, with 3-5's being more common. There's also no specializations of 7+ whatsoever.

QUOTE
you know what, i'm gonna ask....other than those of you who started out on SR1 who here has played an archtype straight out of the book as your first character...i know i didnt.

*raises hand* I started in '89, and I can't recall a single player who ran an archetype straight out of the book in any game I've been in. At absolute best, I've seen con-games where the archetypes were used as a base, but then heavily tweaked to fit a particular concept.

QUOTE
So what will the increased and progressive cost of high values mean to the karma wealthy upper tier? It will mean that they are more special. How is that slapping their fingers?

Because shadowrunners are *supposed* to be special. They're not Joe Average with a gun, they're highly-trained specialists. By changing the growth and development curve, you make characters *less* special than they were before. And let's face it, who want's to play a character that isn't special in some way? If we wanted to deal with average issues, we'd stick to everyday life!
QUOTE
Also, if you choose to specialize from char-gen you might loose some actual skill points compaired to if you spread them out, but if you do spread them out those extra skill points wont save you from the guy who put everything in his gun skill in a fire fight. If you know what you wanna be good at you can step in in those situations and shine. Thereīs still plenty of reason to specialize.

You just hit on part of the problem. By making costs go from straight-buy to progressive, you've discourages people from spreading out quite as much, because they have to spend quite a bit more specializing. If a player wants a combat monster, he's going to make a combat monster, regarless of the system involved. However, under a straight-buy system, there's extra points to spend on other skills, which might be more useful.

In all my years playing Shadowrun, I've never seen a character with all 6's in their skills. Typically, I'll see anywhere from one to three skills at that level, with the rest lower, generally at the 3-4 level. I can't see why adding all these new restrictions, plus a complicated new progressive-cost system, will fix a problem that doesn't even exist!
Ellery
Do your characters actually advance after they're created? If you're talking only about a character creation system, then the SR3 priority system works fine. (What is MCCT? I'm not familiar with the acronym.) It's a low-flexibility method (only a few set levels of stats and stuff, and there's an absolute cap on almost everything you can buy). Can you think of a nonlinear-cost system that is less flexible than a capped system?

If you're going up against people with stats in the 20s, there are plenty of ways to make their life very miserable (damaging manipulations, barriers, etc.). Should you fail, you're likely to splatter over a ten-yard radius if one of them punches you. There aren't many settings where this makes for good gaming.

I know few characters built according to standard rules who started off with more than three sixes. I know many who have a lot more than three sixes after substantial play.

QUOTE (Cain)
By making costs go from straight-buy to progressive, you've discourages people from spreading out quite as much, because they have to spend quite a bit more specializing.
That's completely backwards. Making specialization less cost-effective means that people will do more of it? Huh?

Maybe you're confusing the effects of capping (gee, I already bought all of SkillX that I can, and I still have 20 points left) with linear vs. nonlinear costs.
mmu1
QUOTE (Ellery)
That's completely backwards. Making specialization less cost-effective means that people will do more of it? Huh?

Maybe you're confusing the effects of capping (gee, I already bought all of SkillX that I can, and I still have 20 points left) with linear vs. nonlinear costs.

No it isn't... Some systems might "encourage" spreading out your points by having the costs increase non-linearly, but they don't give players enough points to play with, and the reality ends up being completely different from what the designers intended.

In these systems, when faced with being mediocre at everything, or good at one thing and crappy at everything else, players will choose the latter - especially if it's a system in which being "average" actually means you suck, and below average means you really suck.

Of course, if the system has non-linear costs and does give you enough points to play around with - or allows characters to feel competent without exceptional scores - smart players will avoid min-maxing. But those systems, in my experience, are in the minority...
Ellery
So basically people who design progressive cost systems can't figure out how to give people enough points to be competent, while those who design linear cost systems more often give enough points?
mmu1
QUOTE (Ellery)
So basically people who design progressive cost systems can't figure out how to give people enough points to be competent, while those who design linear cost systems more often give enough points?

I'm not necessarily saying that people who design linear systems are more likely to get it right - just that many of the system with non-linear costs end up - in reality - encouraging results that are opposite to what they intend.
Ellery
I see your point, but I still think it sounds like an argument for caps.
SL James
QUOTE (Ellery @ Aug 13 2005, 07:14 PM)
(What is MCCT?  I'm not familiar with the acronym.)

Master Character Creation Table.

The table on page 54 for the priority chargen method in Third Edition.
Cain
QUOTE
Can you think of a nonlinear-cost system that is less flexible than a capped system?

Off the top of my head? D&D in almost all its incarnations, for one-- a random system is, by definition, nonlinear and nonflexible. The Mechwarrior 2nd ed system was pretty unuseable, especially if you weren't out to munckinize a mech pilot; it used progressive costs. And Traveller was just plain weird. Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind; there are others.

QUOTE
I see your point, but I still think it sounds like an argument for caps.

I've never seen a character system, of any stripe, that didn't require caps of some sort to maintain balance. BeCKs requires skill and attribute caps, and that's a progressive-system-- just try and create a legal character with 20 Willpower and 20 Sorcery using it!

The closest thing to an uncapped system that I can think of, off the top of my head, is the GURPS system; and even that has quite a few limits that can be adjusted by the GM.

Since caps are needed to balance a system anyway, you might as well go ahead and put them out explicitly, rather than relying on mathematical tricks and burying the caps in the fine print. It makes for a cleaner, simpler, and more intuitive system; regardless of rather or not it's straight-buy or progressive cost.
Ellery
I'm more interested in advancement than character creation, and the examples given aren't detailed enough for me to understand the point you were trying to convey. (What exactly whas the point about D&D?) I should have asked for more details, I guess, not just the name of a game (since I'm not seeing what you see in them, apparently).

QUOTE (Cain)
Since caps are needed to balance a system anyway, you might as well go ahead and put them out explicitly, rather than relying on mathematical tricks
Well, is a triangle progression a cap? How about a cubic progression? How about an exponential progression? A Fibonacci series? A factorial?

I can see the point in using caps to encourage people to create sensible characters to begin with (since they are explicitly forbidden from creating insensible ones, even if the insensibility is not advantageous for them). If the caps are actually hit as a character advances, however, they tend to lead cause problems--there is a large set of people who are "best" (those who have hit the cap). Among the exceptional, there is no-one who is truly outstanding.

This annoys me to no end when playing a game where one is supposed to be able to be someone extraordinary. It annoys me because first, I think there should be someone out there who is better still; if my character is Jan Ullrich, there's a Lance Armstrong out there. If my character is Scotty Pippin, there's a Michael Jordan out there. It annoys me second because there's no way, regardless of time and effort and dedication and sacrifice that my character will ever be the Jordan/Einstein/Bruce Lee of their chosen specialty.
Cain
QUOTE
I'm more interested in advancement than character creation, and the examples given aren't detailed enough for me to understand the point you were trying to convey. (What exactly whas the point about D&D?) I should have asked for more details, I guess, not just the name of a game (since I'm not seeing what you see in them, apparently).

Okay. In D&D, your stats are determined by six 4d6 rolls, drop the lowest value on each roll, and arrange to taste. That's clearly a nonlinear system, since your values are random; but it does rely on regression to the mean to provide balance. It's also hideously inflexible, especially when you factor in the class system. With the advent of 3.x, more flexibility has been introduced with Feats, but your skill sets are still predetermined for you, based on your stats and class.

When it comes to advancement, you're still pretty limited-- you gain a fixed set of abilities, depending on class. The rate of gain isn't exactly linear, since it tends to come in jumps; but the experience required is progressive.

In short, you can easily have a nonlinear system that provides much less flexibility than a linear one.

QUOTE
Well, is a triangle progression a cap? How about a cubic progression? How about an exponential progression? A Fibonacci series? A factorial?

I'm not mathematically savvy enough to really get into it; but if I can't figure out my next cost without resorting to calculus, it's too complicated IMO. However, nothing you say seems to be an actual "cap"-- all you're doing is trying to price the next level outside of affordability. That's not a cap, that's permission to go as high as you can force the system to go-- and believe me, munchkins will force it pretty high.

QUOTE
I can see the point in using caps to encourage people to create sensible characters to begin with (since they are explicitly forbidden from creating insensible ones, even if the insensibility is not advantageous for them). If the caps are actually hit as a character advances, however, they tend to lead cause problems--there is a large set of people who are "best" (those who have hit the cap). Among the exceptional, there is no-one who is truly outstanding.

I've been focusing more on chargen; but let's use the SR3 system as an example. For a base human character, the starting attribute cap is 6; but the actual maximum is 9. Now, I've never seen a human actually get their natural stat up that high-- they tend to rely on cyber or magic to do so. This is where your price limits can be effective; but so long as the difference between the starting cap and the absolute maximum is high enough to be a very long-term goal, it shouldn't be a problem.

QUOTE
This annoys me to no end when playing a game where one is supposed to be able to be someone extraordinary. It annoys me because first, I think there should be someone out there who is better still; if my character is Jan Ullrich, there's a Lance Armstrong out there. If my character is Scotty Pippin, there's a Michael Jordan out there. It annoys me second because there's no way, regardless of time and effort and dedication and sacrifice that my character will ever be the Jordan/Einstein/Bruce Lee of their chosen specialty.

Well, in SR3, the absolute maximum for a human character is a single attribute at 11. Considering that's almost twice as high as the starting cap, IMO that's a respectably inaccesable long-term goal. Since that maximum requires serious finessing of edges and flaws, plus genetech, it does mean that you can be among the very best without quite being the very best.
Velocity
QUOTE (Cain)
Well, in SR3, the absolute maximum for a human character is a single attribute at 11. Considering that's almost twice as high as the starting cap, IMO that's a respectably inaccesable long-term goal. Since that maximum requires serious finessing of edges and flaws, plus genetech, it does mean that you can be among the very best without quite being the very best.

I know this is off-topic, but would you mind breaking that down for me? How does a human character get an Attribute to 11?
Bull
QUOTE (Cain)
Well, in SR3, the absolute maximum for a human character is a single attribute at 11. Considering that's almost twice as high as the starting cap, IMO that's a respectably inaccesable long-term goal. Since that maximum requires serious finessing of edges and flaws, plus genetech, it does mean that you can be among the very best without quite being the very best.

Only 11? Are we talking starting character, or total maximum. Because I can tweak out 13 without even trying, off the top of my head (Maximum of 9 Strength or Quickness, +4 Str/Qck boost via either Cyber or Bio). I know with Quickness espeicially, if you massage the edges, flaws, and bioware you can crank it up several points above that.

Bull
Bandwidthoracle
QUOTE (Bull)
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 14 2005, 12:16 PM)
Well, in SR3, the absolute maximum for a human character is a single attribute at 11.  Considering that's almost twice as high as the starting cap, IMO that's a respectably inaccesable long-term goal.  Since that maximum requires serious finessing of edges and flaws, plus genetech, it does mean that you can be among the very best without quite being the very best.

Only 11? Are we talking starting character, or total maximum. Because I can tweak out 13 without even trying, off the top of my head (Maximum of 9 Strength or Quickness, +4 Str/Qck boost via either Cyber or Bio). I know with Quickness espeicially, if you massage the edges, flaws, and bioware you can crank it up several points above that.

Bull

I can't say for sure, but a troll starts with a +5 to strength right? So with no edges or anything a troll can start the game with an 11 (5+6).
blakkie
QUOTE (Bandwidthoracle)
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 14 2005, 01:07 PM)
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 14 2005, 12:16 PM)
Well, in SR3, the absolute maximum for a human character is a single attribute at 11.  Considering that's almost twice as high as the starting cap, IMO that's a respectably inaccesable long-term goal.  Since that maximum requires serious finessing of edges and flaws, plus genetech, it does mean that you can be among the very best without quite being the very best.

Only 11? Are we talking starting character, or total maximum. Because I can tweak out 13 without even trying, off the top of my head (Maximum of 9 Strength or Quickness, +4 Str/Qck boost via either Cyber or Bio). I know with Quickness espeicially, if you massage the edges, flaws, and bioware you can crank it up several points above that.

Bull

I can't say for sure, but a troll starts with a +5 to strength right? So with no edges or anything a troll can start the game with an 11 (5+6).

Ya, but Cain specifically was talking about "human".
Velocity
QUOTE (Bull)
Only 11? Are we talking starting character, or total maximum. Because I can tweak out 13 without even trying, off the top of my head (Maximum of 9 Strength or Quickness, +4 Str/Qck boost via either Cyber or Bio).

I thought he meant "11 without cyberware."
Ol' Scratch
Shock of shocks, one of the freelancers doesn't understand the basic principles of the game. How, well, shocking. Of course Cain was talking about an unmodified (except through Edges and Karma) attribute rating, and he's completely correct; 11 (through the use of Exceptional Attribute) is the maximum human potential.
Ellery
QUOTE (Cain)
Okay. In D&D, your stats are determined by six 4d6 rolls, drop the lowest value on each roll, and arrange to taste. That's clearly a nonlinear system, since your values are random; but it does rely on regression to the mean to provide balance. It's also hideously inflexible, especially when you factor in the class system.
Okay, now I understand. But if you put in a linear system in the same place as the nonlinear one, keeping the other principles the same (by using, say, d10+7), you haven't made things better. In this case, I'm not sure they're worse either...it's hard to talk about flexibility when you don't get to choose anything.

The advancement is inflexible, but again, if advancement were linear, it would be just as inflexible. For example, XP gain could be linear and the XP gain table could be modified to give the same advancement as it does now; you still have the same inflexible class-based system. However if XP was a flat cost per monster and levels cost a flat amount, then there'd be trouble--the more powerful you got, the faster you'd kill monsters, and the faster you'd advance, and the faster you'd kill monsters (etc.); you could then stop this by capping at level 5 or so.

D&D has a very formulaic (class-based) advancement system, even 3e/3.5e. In this case, there aren't many places where it makes a difference whether a progression is linear or nonlinear. Either way, your path is mostly chosen for you.

QUOTE (Cain)
I've been focusing more on chargen; but let's use the SR3 system as an example. For a base human character, the starting attribute cap is 6; but the actual maximum is 9. Now, I've never seen a human actually get their natural stat up that high-- they tend to rely on cyber or magic to do so. This is where your price limits can be effective; but so long as the difference between the starting cap and the absolute maximum is high enough to be a very long-term goal, it shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, the 9 max (or 11 with edge) is a comfortable limit because it's so rarely reached. It's expensive as anything, and stats don't help you that much in SR3, in that above 6 or so, there's usually a cheaper way to achieve the same goal. Still, I'd be happier if the maximum just got extremely expensive extremely fast (e.g. doubled for each point above the maximum).

QUOTE (Cain)
However, nothing you say seems to be an actual "cap"-- all you're doing is trying to price the next level outside of affordability. That's not a cap, that's permission to go as high as you can force the system to go-- and believe me, munchkins will force it pretty high.
If you design the progression to be expensive enough, they won't force it that far, unless they're not "munchkins" but "obsessive-compulsive pathetic-weirdo-character-builders". Raising a stat through the roof will be a boneheaded thing to do with a character that is supposed to be playable, since they'll have no flexibility and be only slightly more powerful in their one and only specialty than someone who had the same specialty but hadn't gone to such extremes.

The bigger problem is GMs who just pick incredibly high numbers out of a hat because they feel like it, without realizing how much dedication the stat represents. If the GM does this, then players may feel that they have to get ridiculously high stats/skills themselves to compete. ("How come every security guard has str 12? Man, that's going to cost me 500 karma, which I might earn in eight years if I don't use karma for anything else.")
Kremlin KOA
and 'NATURAL' strength (no cyber, bio, or magic)
he is wrong tho, it's 12 if you allow genetech

exceptional attribute edge gives +1 to Radial modified limit
genetech adds another +1

now te racial max for a stat with a RCM of 7 is 11 and for one with 8 is 12
Velocity
Genetech? Sorry, I don't have SOTA '64 or '65... what's Genetech?
Sabosect
Genetic alterations. Actually, it's quite common now, just mostly among plants.
Velocity
Thanks, I have read a newspaper or two in the last twenty years. wink.gif

Seriously, is it from one of the SOTAs? And does it refer to actual genetic modification of metahumanity?
Sabosect
2064. It's altering metahumans to have bioware from birth. In addition, there's a few others unique to it as well.
Bull
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Shock of shocks, one of the freelancers doesn't understand the basic principles of the game. How, well, shocking. Of course Cain was talking about an unmodified (except through Edges and Karma) attribute rating, and he's completely correct; 11 (through the use of Exceptional Attribute) is the maximum human potential.

Wow. A personal attack. From Doc Funk. I'm shocked. Grow up or go away.

There is no "of course", because he didn't specify. And thus I asked for clarification.

Bull
Cain
QUOTE
Okay, now I understand. But if you put in a linear system in the same place as the nonlinear one, keeping the other principles the same (by using, say, d10+7), you haven't made things better. In this case, I'm not sure they're worse either...it's hard to talk about flexibility when you don't get to choose anything.

Actually, we can make things much better, by converting totally over to a straight-buy system. If you want all scores to average, say, 14, you give them (14x6=) 84 points to distribute among their stats, with a cap at 18. We don't need to depend on mathematical tricks, like regression to the mean, anymore-- it becomes a straightforward purchase.

QUOTE
Yeah, the 9 max (or 11 with edge) is a comfortable limit because it's so rarely reached. It's expensive as anything, and stats don't help you that much in SR3, in that above 6 or so, there's usually a cheaper way to achieve the same goal. Still, I'd be happier if the maximum just got extremely expensive extremely fast (e.g. doubled for each point above the maximum).

Well, the SR3 costs are pretty high; but if I understand you correctly, the only real factor you're concerned over is time. My reading of your arguments is that you feel that there should be no upper limit, period; it's just a matter of the timeframe in how quickly a character can reach those insane stats. Thus, as long as XP awards (karma) and advancement costs conspire to make the upper limits inacessible for a very, very long time, I think it fits your desired goals.

IMO, if the upper limits are not likely to be reached within the expected lifespan of a character, then there is no difference between caps or no caps. In either case, characters probably won't get anywhere near those levels. And that being the case, you might as well stick with the simplest and easiest advancement system; it'll reduce bookkeeping time between games, and lead to less confusion as new abilities are added, and old ones expounded upon.

QUOTE
If you design the progression to be expensive enough, they won't force it that far, unless they're not "munchkins" but "obsessive-compulsive pathetic-weirdo-character-builders". Raising a stat through the roof will be a boneheaded thing to do with a character that is supposed to be playable, since they'll have no flexibility and be only slightly more powerful in their one and only specialty than someone who had the same specialty but hadn't gone to such extremes.

No offense, but you clearly have had little experience with extreme munchkinism. I actually envy you that-- the levels of min/maxing I've seen have jaded me to a lot of fun gaming experiences. Most of the munchkins I've met are cunning, but still easily qualify as "boneheaded".

At any event, you've described perfectly one of the favorite munchkin tricks-- forcing one aspect of the character to become so powerful, it completely dominates everything the character does. A combat monster will always respond with violence, and think the Lone Star SWAT teams sent after him are a nifty warmup; so long as he gets in his hack-quota before the GM has to send in the THOR shots, he'll be happy. A munchkin rigger will finesse every trick in the book, so he won't ever have to leave the van-- and in some cases, maybe not even his home-- so he can completely sacrifice his physical stats and skills.

At any event, you can be certain that the munchkin will gain a noticeable edge in his chosen area; and will ruthlessly exploit that edge, to the detriment of the game. Everyone else's enjoyment won't even be a factor in their minds-- that's the classic definition of a munchkin. I've encountered far too many of these kind to count, and they've destroyed many a campaign *and* gaming group with their antics.

The only way of combating these sort of influences is to have clear, explicit rules, set out for everyone to follow. If you try to single out the munchkin, he'll whine about how you're picking on him. But if you demonstrate that *everyone* has to play by the same book, they lose the offended-morality edge, and get placed ina position where they need to play nice, or shut up and leave.

QUOTE
The bigger problem is GMs who just pick incredibly high numbers out of a hat because they feel like it, without realizing how much dedication the stat represents. If the GM does this, then players may feel that they have to get ridiculously high stats/skills themselves to compete. ("How come every security guard has str 12? Man, that's going to cost me 500 karma, which I might earn in eight years if I don't use karma for anything else.")

Yeah, munchkin GMs can be a problem as well. Munchkinism isn't restricted to players, and the munchkin GM can be a scary sight to behold. Still, the same approach can work well, here-- all you need to do is call them on how they're making one rule for their NPC's, and one for the players. Once the abuses are exposed for all to see, the GM will be forced to reign it in, or risk losing all his players.

QUOTE
Only 11? Are we talking starting character, or total maximum. Because I can tweak out 13 without even trying, off the top of my head (Maximum of 9 Strength or Quickness, +4 Str/Qck boost via either Cyber or Bio). I know with Quickness espeicially, if you massage the edges, flaws, and bioware you can crank it up several points above that.

As others pointed out, I was talking about unaugmented maximum. I was talking about "base humans" in a previous paragraph, so it might not have been quite as clear as I thought it would be.

Although, if you want to get technical... since bioware counts as "natural", according to the FAQ, you can't actually exceed the cap with it. So, for a base human with Quickness of 6, you can only add 3 levels of muscle toner, leaving you at 9. Cyber and magic can exceed the cap, but not bioware.
Cain
Oh, and just for the record-- I'm a munchkin in recovery. I've created some of the most insane Shadowrun characters possible, many of which are technically legal under current or former Shadowrun rules. For example, there's the speed samurai, with a base reaction of 30 and initiative of 4d6; there's also the troll meat shield, with a Body of 29. I might even be able to force those stats a bit higher, if I really finessed the numbers.

Munchkins are like dogs. Sometimes, the only way to stop them from pooping all over your game is to swat them on the nose with a newspaper, and firmly shout: "Stop!" A cap is a good, firm "No!"; a sliding scale is a "You wouldn't *really* do that to little old me, would you?"
Ellery
QUOTE (Cain)
Actually, we can make things much better, by converting totally over to a straight-buy system. If you want all scores to average, say, 14, you give them (14x6=) 84 points to distribute among their stats, with a cap at 18. We don't need to depend on mathematical tricks
Um, right. That's just peachy, if you want characters with three 18s to be the norm. (18 18 18 10 10 10 is a much stronger build than 14 14 14 14 14 14). For spell-only types (sorcerers and wizards), 18 18 18 18 6 6 is probably a stronger build yet.

What exactly were we trying to accomplish with this system? Certainly not balanced characters. It's definitely more flexible, but it's also trivial to "abuse" (except that it's so easy that you can't really call it "abuse").

QUOTE (Cain)
IMO, if the upper limits are not likely to be reached within the expected lifespan of a character, then there is no difference between caps or no caps.
Absolutely.
QUOTE (Cain)
And that being the case, you might as well stick with the simplest and easiest advancement system
Except I haven't seen a game that lets you advance meaningfully, is linear, and doesn't have caps that you hit very rapidly, possibly even during character creation. (I don't play games with Dragonball-Z style power progression; I can imagine an example from that genre.)

QUOTE (Cain)
No offense, but you clearly have had little experience with extreme munchkinism.
Hahaha. Haha. Ha. That's a good one.

Rather than mention the 8d6-initiative horrors that have been visited upon me, I'll just say that when one understands the benefit of min/maxing, one also understands how to circumvent it. You say things like "mathematical tricks" as though math were something that you could dupe. ("Hey math, look over here!"...*grabs all the power*.) Appropriate understanding of the mathematical consequences of rules can help ensure that if characters become unbalancingly potent, even in a limited aspect, it is because they have earned it (whatever that is supposed to mean given the setting). And the min/maxers can't get around such things without outright cheating. For example, suppose that all reaction enhancers cost an amount proportional to your current reaction in order to increase it. D'you think you'd have built a reaction 30 character then? I don't think so, not without tens of millions of nuyen (which is a little hard to come by).

Unfortunately, the only way to get this nice behavior out of a system is to have the editor understand the mathematical consequences of every rule. Not all freelancers are going to follow guidelines that are set down to keep things under control, so the job really has to fall to the head designer for the product line. I'm not sure I know any line designers who do this, so unsurprisingly, most products have places where the well-intentioned scaled system breaks because of some supplementary rule that was put in without consideration of the mathematical consequences. I'm not sure whether it's feasible for a freelance "analyst" position to exist, since the line designer should have the final say, but overruling the analyst tends to make the entire position pointless except to have an official position for saying "I told you so".

I'm not saying that mathematical analysis of role playing games is supposed to be simple, but I'm also not saying that players and GMs have to be burdened with a mathematics homework set every time they want to play the game. Rather, proper initial design, coupled with slightly more complex rules, can have widespread beneficial effects. If most game companies screw it up, I think the appropriate response is "Hey, stop screwing up and do it right!" not "Don't even try!".
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 14 2005, 10:48 PM)
Wow.  A personal attack.  From Doc Funk.  I'm shocked.  Grow up or go away.

There is no "of course", because he didn't specify.  And thus I asked for clarification.

Yes, I need to remember to focus on general, broad-stroked insults like you. You know, like your condescending "silly children, play nice" statements. <jots that down so he can remember in the future>

And yes, there was an "of course" because basic English comprehension and the context of his statement made it blatantly clear. Especially if the reader is someone who's, you know, actually familiar with the fundamental principles of the game.
Velocity
QUOTE (Sabosect)
2064. It's altering metahumans to have bioware from birth. In addition, there's a few others unique to it as well.

Ah... so ka. One more reason for me to buy it. smile.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012