Balance... whatever it is

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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.



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.

Oh, come on Nightshade. Don't be so silly and melodramatic

It was just plain silly to say that the only way a GM can engage the skills and abilities of the sailor occupation was to present a boat in every session. There are plenty of other ways that a GM can engage the skills and abilities of a sailor without resorting to a boat in every session. You are an intelligent and imaginative person and I am confident that you could come up with plenty of other ideas to engage a sailor character.

Again, don't be so silly. I comprehend your premise. I simply disagree with it. I don't see RQ3's random character generation method or the optional character generation methods as a systematic problem; it's that simple. I can't honestly believe that you are trying to be condescending in your posts, but when you use words like 'foreign,' 'dismissive,' or 'elitist' it is hard to stay positive. I'm going to chalk it up to the nature of forums and the written word; without context things are easily taken the wrong way.

Seriously, I wished I still lived in Glendale. I grew up in Glendale and lived in the L.A. until a few years ago. I did most of my gaming and made my RPG purchases at the Last Grenadier in Burbank. Once in a blue moon, I would make up to that RPG shop on Colorado past the Pasadena City College (I can't recall the name at the moment ). Anyway, I would love to discuss these things in person over a beer or cup of coffee.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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.

Perhaps you didn't generate them, but surely at some point you wanted to have some idea of what kind of skills a farmer might have? You've never played any scenario in which a combatant was anything other then a trained warrior? Sure, you could just make something up, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some kind of tables showing what sorts of skills they get, right?

The point is that there are a whole variety of professions that different people could work in. Farmer, while not terribly exciting, is going to be pretty common (in any sort of pre-industrial campaign setting of course). It would be a bit silly and shortsighted to have a set of rules for occupation experience and leave out what is arguably the most common occupation. Whether you choose to play any characters with that starting profession or not isn't really the point. The point is that farmers exist in your game world, so you may as well have rules governing what sorts of skills they'll have. You've got them for everything else, so why not? It's not like it detracts from the game to include them, right?

Maybe in your game no one ever plays or interacts with a farmer. Seems a bit odd, but whatever. In my game, we've had numerous scenarios in which knowing the skills of a farmer is useful. Let's see. Band of bad guys raiding the local farming community. Party arrives and rallies the locals into defending their town (with the party's help of course). That's a lot "better" storywriting then just having the mighty adventurers go off by themselves to kill off the bad guys, right? And during that fight, you might just find yourself next to a farmer wielding a scythe or hoe (they're in the weapons list for a reason, right?). And maybe, just maybe as a GM, it might help to know what that farmer's skill is...


Or hey! Maybe the party has been infected with disease or poison. They stumble into a small farming village, weak and desperate. What are the odds that someone has a good enough plant lore to find the healing herbs that will save them? Gee. Would have been awfully convenient to have some kind of rules to figure that out, right? Like say a profession called "farmer" with lists of skills that they gain over time...


Or... The party is traveling through some guys fields, when suddenly they're attacked by a roving band of broos. They're in a tough fight, there's a few farm hands in the immediate vicinity. If only we knew what kind of combat skills they might have so they could lend a hand...


I'm again somewhat mystified why this is viewed as a problem. As I and several others have pointed out, you are under absolutely zero obligation to force your players to roll for their age or their occupation if you don't want. But having the tables available to do it if you want, and a fairly complete list of possible occupations complete with skills gained over time is IMO incredibly useful. Certainly, it's better then only having a set of rules for soldier types, and then only telling you what skills they gain if they start at age 25...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Again, don't be so silly. I comprehend your premise. I simply disagree with it. I don't see RQ3's random character generation

And that's why I say this isn't going anywhere. If we have fundamentally different premises, most of our discussion is, by its nature, going to be talking past each other.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

Perhaps you didn't generate them, but surely at some point you wanted to have some idea of what kind of skills a farmer might have? You've never played any scenario in which a combatant was anything other then a trained warrior? Sure, you could just make something up, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some kind of tables showing what sorts of skills they get, right?

Given the frequency in which it mattered, and the degree of detail needed for it, its largely a waste of space. I could give a farmer the base weapon value for culture and his modifier and feel just as good about it (and for an older farmer, I'm not sure I found the values given credible anyway--if you kept running the numbers up past the 20's, I think it could end up making him too _good_ a combatant at some point). So no, I really never found the need.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

And that's why I say this isn't going anywhere. If we have fundamentally different premises, most of our discussion is, by its nature, going to be talking past each other.

Well, I wouldn't say talking past each other; I would say more like agree to disagree. We both understand each others premise.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Given the frequency in which it mattered, and the degree of detail needed for it, its largely a waste of space. I could give a farmer the base weapon value for culture and his modifier and feel just as good about it (and for an older farmer, I'm not sure I found the values given credible anyway--if you kept running the numbers up past the 20's, I think it could end up making him too _good_ a combatant at some point). So no, I really never found the need.

You could make the same argument for any occupation in the list though. You could just start all characters with a standard cultural skill level plus bonus. You could just hand them X*years in points to spend on whatever skills they want. But then you'd have no idea what a "typical" merchant's skills were, or a "typical" sailor, or a "typical" footpad. You could certainly just make stuff up (and as a GM you often will do just that), but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some sort of guideline. If nothing more then having a sense of relative skill. Is the local guardsman better at fighting then the local tavern owner? Sure. We assume that's the case, but how much better? Why?


In a game in which there are no character classes, the *only* thing that differentiates one person from another is their skills. Having some sort of templates and examples of typical skill sets based on broad occupations is incredibly useful I think. I never viewed those as some kind of limitation or restriction on the player characters. It's background. It gives you a starting point. It gives you continual relative reference points as well (how skilled will that master sailer be in comparison to the newbie who just joined the crew last week?).


And you never know. One day a player might just come up to you and want to play something other then a soldier. Perhaps even roleplay a young farmer who's family just got killed by some evil bad guy and now he wants to join your band of stalwart adventurers and fight against him. But that's a plot that's never happened, right?

[Atgxtg]

Yes. Gnash is right. If the GM were running a campaign that had little combat, and dealt with politics and trading, then the value of some skills would be raised and others lowered. A farmer could be very important in a campaign where the GM doesn't gloss over the difficulties of feeding the populace in a preindustrial society.

At least one RQ product did have players rolling their farming skills to keep the stead going, and producing enough food to feed everyone.

If 90% of gamers don't do anything except fighting, then I think that is their problem, not a problem with the game. All those skills exist for a reason.

[Triff]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

If 90% of gamers don't do anything except fighting, then I think that is their problem, not a problem with the game. All those skills exist for a reason.

Actually, that might not be a problem at all, for them. Lots of people like scenarios with a lot of combat. The "balance" issue we are discussing is really just based upon different preferences. There's enough followers in both camps that both camps should be thrown a bone.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Triff

Actually, that might not be a problem at all, for them. Lots of people like scenarios with a lot of combat. The "balance" issue we are discussing is really just based upon different preferences. There's enough followers in both camps that both camps should be thrown a bone.

SGL.

Yup. I'm just worried about where some might be aiming when they throw. Several had said it is a matter of choice from the beginning, and some have been told that "it won't work for everyone".

Everyone might not want to try it, but that doesn't it it wouldn't work for then if they did. Not that their choice not to try it bad, just that they should be aware that it is an option.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

...
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.
...

They are. The rules specifically say 'Choose or roll'. It is GM's work to refuse something he find unbalancing, uninteresting or problematic.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster