Balance... whatever it is

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Sure, but when I've seen enough people do so (and I have) you'll just have to accept that some naysaying on it isn't going to sell me on the contrary.

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by drohem

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

Yeah. Both methods have thier advntages, flaws and fans.

A point/build type of creation gives you more control, and lets you play what you want to play, but limits you in reaching certain character concepts.

A ransom method give you a lot more variety in the characters, but might give you a result that a player (or GM) doesn't like. While there has been a lot of comment about inferior/useless characters, what hasn't been mentioned much is the possibility of rolling a character who is superior to the existing group. Roll high stats, and get 12 years of experience, and end up with a character with 90% weapon skills.

Come to think of it, the old Yelmalio gift that gave a 90% spear skill could completely disrupt a GM who wanted "balanced" characters. If Rurik leave the farm and gets that during character creation, he probably just "leapfrogged" the rest of the group.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Yes, you're senario is subjective. I did state that I find your senario unlikely. As far as statistically possible, just look at the Occupation tables.

I have. But remember, as I've noted, this isn't one random roll, but at least two interacting (more when you factor random attribute generation).

Are you saying that your typical campaign experience is that one player has a young farmer while every other player has generated an experienced warrior type?

I'm saying my experience is that over a decent sized group of characters generated, one or more will be sufficiently substandard as to show the problems I'm discussing relative to the others. This simply isn't that hard; just the age roll alone can do it, and being a 2D6 roll, the probability of occasionally getting a really low roll isn't all that low; a 17-18 year old comes up one time in twelve. Nor is farmer the only marginal occupation. I've simply used the 17 year old farmer as the example because its pretty much the extreme example, but there are others that are less extreme while still problematic (the sailor I mention in my prior post, for example).

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

I saw plenty of people have fun with it too, or I wouldn't have used it for so long. But its not the people having fun that are the problem, and I'm not at all convinced they _needed_ the random generation to have their fun; the fact the random generation _can_ kill it for others is what then needs defense, and the only consistent defense I've seen of that is based on the assumption there's an intrinsic virtue in forcing people to play a variety of characters, which seems to be a case of projecting one's fun on other people.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

Also, I have to note one other thing: the fact that some people haven't seen it doesn't make it not a problem. If its a problem for anyone, its a problem; the only question is how wide spread the problem is. That's hard to demonstrate one way or another, but the best you can do is do some analysis on the maths of the rules. Of course if you can't even get people to agree that there's the possibility of a problem with it (as some don't) then no useful discussion can be had.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

A ransom method give you a lot more variety in the characters, but might give you a result that a player (or GM) doesn't like. While there has been a lot of comment about inferior/useless characters, what hasn't been mentioned much is the possibility of rolling a character who is superior to the existing group. Roll high stats, and get 12 years of experience, and end up with a character with 90% weapon skills.

Its a potential problem, but it usually requires a larger number of optimal rolls to come up, and doesn't produce some of the downsides of the inverse; the character will start out better than the rest of the party, but unless he's better in everything, they still have something to do while they close the gap. The superior rolled character tends to be more of a problem for the GM than the players.

Come to think of it, the old Yelmalio gift that gave a 90% spear skill could completely disrupt a GM who wanted "balanced" characters. If Rurik leave the farm and gets that during character creation, he probably just "leapfrogged" the rest of the group.

Well, that's an issue with Glorantha, to tell the truth; there are a number of cults that just have dramatically overpowered features compared to others. Fortunately that's solved by simply not playing in Glorantha, heretical as that is to some RQ fans.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Its a potential problem, but it usually requires a larger number of optimal rolls to come up, and doesn't produce some of the downsides of the inverse; the character will start out better than the rest of the party, but unless he's better in everything, they still have something to do while they close the gap. The superior rolled character tends to be more of a problem for the GM than the players.

But your own argument proves the point of unbalanced campaigns.



Well, that's an issue with Glorantha, to tell the truth; there are a number of cults that just have dramatically overpowered features compared to others. Fortunately that's solved by simply not playing in Glorantha, heretical as that is to some RQ fans.[/quote]

Or it might not be something that has to be "solved". If player balance isn't that big a deal, it isn't a problem.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Also, I have to note one other thing: the fact that some people haven't seen it doesn't make it not a problem. If its a problem for anyone, its a problem; the only question is how wide spread the problem is. That's hard to demonstrate one way or another, but the best you can do is do some analysis on the maths of the rules. Of course if you can't even get people to agree that there's the possibility of a problem with it (as some don't) then no useful discussion can be had.

If one person finds it a problem, then I don't see it as a problem. I see it as that person's issue. RQ3 didn't force random character generation down anyone's throat: it was the default method and the rules expicitly provided other options for those who didn't like completely random generation.

Also, I would like to note that useless and inferior characters are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that it is poor role-playing skills that would cause a player to dismiss a character due to inexperience from age or lack of combat skills due to occupation.

In addition, it a poor game master that doesn't tailor their game so that every character, whether inferior or superior, can meaningfully contribute to the session at hand and over all campaign.

Specifically addressing your example of the sailor, I would say that it was a failing of that GM not to include some elements into the sessions and campaign that would allow the use of some of the sailor's skills and abilities.

[Atgxtg]

My favorite method in RQ3 was to start off as 15 year olds as was the default in RQ2. You get a sense of accomplishment reaching 90% sword skill when it started off at 10%.

[Gnarsh]

I guess I'm just not getting the argument here. Is this a balance issue? Sure. But, it's one that trivially addressed by a GM based on the needs of his players and his game. As I and several others have pointed out again and again, there's no requirement that you make your players roll on those tables if you don't want to. It's your game. Play it how you wish.

IMO, there's nothing wrong (and a whole lot right) with having game rules that include such tables. While some may think that the results are a problem, they're free to not use them. If the tables don't exist, then those who do prefer to have some sort of random factors for player generation don't have rules to use.

A good game should have such things, if for no other reason then to present those playing the game with that exact choice. And that's a very good thing...