Balance... whatever it is

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

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.
...
Come to think of it, the old Yelmalio gift that gave a 90% spear skill could completely disrupt a GM who wanted "balanced" characters.

I prefer a system where you have a few points, rather like Fate Points, to spend in character creation which can be used to tweak the character as you prefer (better stats, better heritage...). If you don't, you can spend 'em to get a few extra skills instead.

As for Gifts/Geases, yes, they're a menace! I once had an interesting character (Humakti baboon) who managed to reach Initiate status, raised his Int like he'd always wanted - and got the geas "distrust all non-Humakti". The other players' characters weren't Humakti, so he was out of the campaign. For me, it killed him stone dead - worse than any critical, because you can't Dodge/DI out of it... or could you spend a Fate Point?

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But your own argument proves the point of unbalanced campaigns.

Not sure I understand your response here; can you elaborate?

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.

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.[/quote]

I remain, as I said, unconvinced that its not at least something of a big deal for the majority of players.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

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

And if it was one person out of all gamers, I'd find that a relevant statement, but given I've personally seen it be an issue for at least a dozen people at one time or another, and heard of many more, that's clearly incorrect, so I return to my statement that the only question can be how widespread a problem it is.

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.

Except they clearly weren't the default case, and as such, if a GM had no problem with it but a player did, he was simply stuck. In addition, the alternate methods had their own issues.

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

To a degree, but I don't think there's much subjectivity in saying that a character who does everything worse than other characters is inferior by a reasonable objective metric.

skills that would cause a player to dismiss a character due to inexperience from age or lack of combat skills due to occupation.

No, I'd say its a desire to have a character that doesn't feel like a second stringer. To dismiss that as poor roleplaying is to have an essentially pointlessly elitist definition of roleplaying.

In addition, it a poor game master that doesn't tailor their game so that every

And I'd characterize it as poor design that makes it necessary for him to do so. A routinely generated character shouldn't require extra effort on a GM's part to feel involved.

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.

And I'd claim that if I needed to do so in every session, that's the game expecting more than is reasonable. It shouldn't be necessary to make sure every adventure involves a boat to make a character feel useful.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by 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.

By that standard, no character generation problems are a problem; after all, the GM can just fix them, right?

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...

The issue is that there are ways to produce that result without the choice of either using the random tables, or having no one ever chose those professions at all. The RQ4/AIG draft found a relatively easy way to do it. It wasn't rocket science. Even RQ2 didn't require it to this degree. It was simply poor basic design that served part of its users no better than the RQ1 and 2 methods, and part worse.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by 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%.

That works if people want to start off completely inexperienced, but I don't think it'd serve the needs of most groups and campaigns very well.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

And if it was one person out of all gamers, I'd find that a relevant statement, but given I've personally seen it be an issue for at least a dozen people at one time or another, and heard of many more, that's clearly incorrect, so I return to my statement that the only question can be how widespread a problem it is.

You stated that if one person had a problem, then it was problematic. This is a ridiculous claim. I would say that if even a dozen or more gamers had an issue out of the number of potential gamers out there, then it is still not a problem.

Except they clearly weren't the default case, and as such, if a GM had no problem with it but a player did, he was simply stuck. In addition, the alternate methods had their own issues.

The GM is the finally arbitrator in their game, so that statment is nonsensical. Find another game and GM if you don't like the rules the GM chooses.

To a degree, but I don't think there's much subjectivity in saying that a character who does everything worse than other characters is inferior by a reasonable objective metric.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I guess I can find value and potential in almost any character. The potential for objectively inferior characters is a possibility for any game system that uses random generation. Accept it or don't play a game with random generation.

No, I'd say its a desire to have a character that doesn't feel like a second stringer. To dismiss that as poor roleplaying is to have an essentially pointlessly elitist definition of roleplaying.

No, I'd say it's child mentality that forces them to always play superior characters. In any RPG game or group, there are players who will have to play second stringer to one or more characters. It's the nature of the beast, and to say otherwise is foolish.

And I'd characterize it as poor design that makes it necessary for him to do so. A routinely generated character shouldn't require extra effort on a GM's part to feel involved.

That is another ridiculous statement. All game sessions and campaigns require extra effort for the players and characters to be involved.

And I'd claim that if I needed to do so in every session, that's the game expecting more than is reasonable. It shouldn't be necessary to make sure every adventure involves a boat to make a character feel useful.

Now are you being ludicrous: there are plenty of ways to engage a sailor character without having a boat in every session.

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote-in-quote thing, so please don't read anything into it.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

By that standard, no character generation problems are a problem; after all, the GM can just fix them, right?

Um... Yes. It's as simple as saying to the player: "Gee. That new character's going to be underpowered for the adventure I've got planed. Go ahead and tack on an extra 7 or 8 years of experience if you want. Oh, and you're free to change profession to <list of professions> if you want. And if you can qualify along the way, feel free to add initiate experience, just remember to spend a point of power, and choose from one of <list of cults> available in the area...".

Seriously, what is the problem here? How on earth can you expect to run a game if you can't manage that? It's not like you're being asked to re-invent the wheel here. Every single thing in that conversation is common sense, the mechanics for doing it are right there in the rules, and any GM with half a brain shouldn't even have to think twice to manage it.


What do you do when a player wants to do something in a game you're running that you didn't think of and write down ahead of time? Just stand there looking confused and muttering about how there's no written rule for this, so you're not sure what to do? If you can't handle figuring out what to do if a player comes to you with a character that you feel wont fit into the game, I guess I don't know what to say...

The issue is that there are ways to produce that result without the choice of either using the random tables, or having no one ever chose those professions at all.

No. The choice is that you use the random tables as a guide and make any darn adjustments you want. It's not "either/or". The tables are provide in order to give you an idea of what sorts of skills someone actively working in a given profession would be expected to have. As a GM, you never have to use a rule that you don't like, and as a player, you don't have to play in a game you don't like.

Even RQ2 didn't require it to this degree.

And neither did RQ3.

It was simply poor basic design that served part of its users no better than the RQ1 and 2 methods, and part worse.

No. It was vastly better. If you don't see that, then you completely missed the point of the tables. Rolling on them for starting occupation and starting years was only the smallest component to them. The whole point was that you could derive any character based on occupation. You could use them between adventures as a guide for gaining skills when not adventuring. That was certainly an improvement over RQ2.

And yeah. What if I want to generate a group of farmers, or sailors, or thieves? I can do this because I have this set of tables that tell me what skills they'll gain and in what proportions. You're waaaaay to caught up on the whole "OMG! You have to roll random dice to determine your character's starting abilities". If you don't like that, then by all means don't roll randomly.

Those tables have utility well beyond just initial character creation. I'm amazed that you apparently somehow missed that.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

Um... Yes. It's as simple as saying to the player: "Gee.

Then we have nothing more to say on the subject, because I don't believe that for a moment.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Now are you being ludicrous: there are plenty of ways to engage a sailor character without having a boat in every session.

When in all other ways he was less competent than every other character, unless your premise is that his capabilities are irrelevant to engaging him, I don't know any other way to read this.

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote-in-quote thing, so please don't read anything into it.

Acknowledged.

That said, I'm coming to the conclusion that my premise on this--that problems character generation cause players are genuine systemic problems--are also foreign enough to you that any further exchange is pointless.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

Those tables have utility well beyond just initial character creation. I'm amazed that you apparently somehow missed that.

Since neither I, nor anyone I ever played with every found a need to actually generate the abilities for an NPC farmer, I didn't find any such utility, and while I won't deny the possibility of it existing for others, I do consider those who found it so most likely in the minority.