Quote:
Originally Posted by Atgxtg
If some characters are getting more checks than others then they inevitable will have an advantage anyway.
|
Theoretically, but it doesn't always work out that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atgxtg
The problem isn't with sacrificing check boxes for hero points, but with people getting significantly more checks than others.
|
IMHO, not as much as it sounds. There are plenty of other ways to reward characters. Advancement-wise, time and money for training are equally important (I come from a RQ3 background). Other characters will concentrate on acquiring spells (or powers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atgxtg
They shouldn't. A GM should try to make all the character equally useful. Especially in the long run. Otherwise people are getting penalties if they stray from whatever "works" for a GM. For example, if most people are playing combat oriented characters and one guy plays a scholar, the GM should make sure that the scholar gets as many chases for a check mark as the fighter types.
|
I may be misunderstanding what "chases" means - but combat isn't a problem, since everyone eventually gets his or her skill check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atgxtg
Basically in BRP a lot of this should balance out, because as skills get higher improvement slows and the lower skilled characters can start to close the gap. THe guys with the 30% skills do get the checks and tend to go up.
|
And here's the catch.
The guy with the high skills succeeds most of the time and gets most of the checks, and therefore the most hero points, although he wouldn't succeed with the experience roll. The guy with low skills doesn't get as many, but his experience rolls will most likely succeed.
And this is where, AFAICT, advancement in BRP games balances out (not with the number of skill checks). Most GMs I know are not going to worry too much if one PC increases five skills by 6% while I've failed all my experience rolls after the session. Hero points however are potential lifesavers and require close attention.
That said, I realize now I've started a rather esoteric discussion that probably few readers are interested in. And again, in theory, you are completely right.