Balance... whatever it is

[deleriad]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

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?

Actually, this strikes me as a GM/player problem, not a system problem. Part of the role-playing side of the game is to deal with the random reversals that the dice deal you. If the GM and the player wish the character to stay in play then how do they deal with it. For example, does the GEAS mean that he must actively distrust the non-Humakti? Now the player has to play a character with an instinct to trust his friends who is worried about what his God thinks. What a brilliant role-playing opportunity. Does he tell his friends? Who does he confide in? Does he go to his Sword and ask for guidance?

Or maybe the GEAS actually implants a seed of distrust in his heart and now he has to play someone who has conflicted feelings. He knows he should trust but his spirit is telling him to beware all who do not show his faith.

Or maybe the GEAS is turning him into an emotionless member of the faithful. By distrusting this simply means that his ability to trust is dying as he becomes more Humakti.

One of the joys about RPGing is responding to vagaries of dice rolls from time to time. Each group has to make their own decisions about when to roll the dice and when to re-roll the dice and how to respond to them. Of course, everyone has a different thing they enjoy about RPGing. For me its about the balance between the game and the roleplaying and randomness is an integral part of that.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by deleriad

Actually, this strikes me as a GM/player problem, not a system problem. ...

You're dead right, of course. In fact, I felt the GM had fiddled things a bit and rushed him to Initiate status anyway (perhaps seeking balance with other characters? I can't remember). So I just took it at face value, and said the character wouldn't return to a now-distrusted group - much more logical to just stay with his Priest (and me roll up a new one). But thanks for your interest.

The "get out of a Geas" question is one for the Fate Points thread. See you all there!

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

In a game in which there are no character classes, the *only* thing that differentiates one person from another is their skills.

These are some of the things that differentiate between people:

• Skills
• Background
• Culture
• Religion
• Personality
• Species

Skills are only one part of it.

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

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?).

Yes, I like templates. I'm not that keen on generic backgrounds and prefer the idea of Homelands from HeroQuest.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by soltakss

These are some of the things that differentiate between people:

• Skills
• Background
• Culture
• Religion
• Personality
• Species

Skills are only one part of it.



Yes, I like templates. I'm not that keen on generic backgrounds and prefer the idea of Homelands from HeroQuest.

Yes this is the best way to handle the topic. The cultural background defines if one is a good sailor to earn the titel "master sailor" or just an poor amateur who bought the titel from the authorities. The term "master sailor" is purely arbitrary because there are no guidelines in the rules if a "master" is 50% or 150%.

The term get only some sense if you know if this "master sailor" comes from dry Mongolia or from 15th century Venice.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Kloster

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

And its a game system's job to not make him have to more than he must. The fact other people seem to disagree with that is why I say my participation in this thread is basically pointless; the premise most of the people I'm debating with is so different we might as well not be in the same hobby in some ways.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

And its a game system's job to not make him have to more than he must. The fact other people seem to disagree with that is why I say my participation in this thread is basically pointless; the premise most of the people I'm debating with is so different we might as well not be in the same hobby in some ways.

Big post eaten by the net! Argh!!!

Okay, here we go again (shortened down to the main points):

I think Kloster have a point here. The RQ3 rules specifically state that an option is to let the players chose their occupation, which is what I usually do. Unless we're starting up a new group, with everyone as inexperienced farmers, but that can be fun too (and "balanced"). On the issue about whether to drop a newborn farmerboy amoung a group of Humakti heroquesters, I totally agree with you Nightshade.

SGL.

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by soltakss

These are some of the things that differentiate between people:

• Skills
• Background
• Culture
• Religion
• Personality
• Species

Skills are only one part of it.

Heh. You are correct. I should have qualified that as "the only things that differentiate characters that directly affect game balance are skills".

Within the context of overall "game balance", only skills really matter (ok, spells, abilities, and whatnot, but you get the point). Background matters specifically because of the skills that result (which was Nightshade's point). Culture matters because it affects what cultural skills you may have. Religion matters because it determines both what special skills may be available and what spells your character may learn. Species matters because it determines that base stats and skills your character will have.

Most of those things (including personality) also have significant roleplaying importance, but this thread was about game balance. How you "balance" those aspects are purely up to the GM. You can decide exactly to what degree playing a dark troll may disadvantage someone in your campaign (ranging from "instantly suicidal" to "not at all"). As a GM, you get to decide all on your own whether the player who's snaky get's punished for doing oddball things, or gets rewarded. There's a classic story in our game about a hobbit tossing a stone into a pool "just because" and the fallout it caused (hobbits are evil. Really!).

But all those things are "flavor", and not so much "balance". Systemic game balance, such as the kind Nightshade was talking about derives from skills. My original observation was that in RQ (and BRP systems in general), the negatives from having lower skills aren't nearly as harsh as they are in other games. You're free to choose not to have large skill gaps between characters in an adventure, but the game system itself is much much much more forgiving if/when it happens.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

Big post eaten by the net! Argh!!!

Annoying, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

I think Kloster have a point here. The RQ3 rules specifically state that an option is to let the players chose their occupation, which is what I usually do. Unless we're starting up a new group, with everyone as inexperienced farmers, but that can be fun too (and "balanced"). On the issue about whether to drop a newborn farmerboy amoung a group of Humakti heroquesters, I totally agree with you Nightshade.

What does BRP Zero say about Character Generation? Is it random or can you choose? Are their many different occupations for each period or is it ultra-generic?

[Daefaroth]

Originally Posted by soltakss

<snip>
What does BRP Zero say about Character Generation? Is it random or can you choose? Are their many different occupations for each period or is it ultra-generic?

You can choose and there are different occupations for each period. However, the book does point out that the same template may be able to be used across time periods. Ex. A noble with a high degree of diplomatic ability and some weapon skills is rather generic. Change the weapon skills to fit the period and you're off and running.

It's not quite that simplistic but it's close enough.

[Gnarsh]

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.

I think the bigger point here is that if you want to run a campaign in which nothing matters except combat skills, and/or want to make sure that everyone has similar levels of combat skills, the you're complete free to ignore the occupation tables and associated die rolls and allow characters to have whatever skill levels you think are appropriate.

Those people are not hurt in any way by the fact that those tables and options are available within the game system. However, insisting that the tables shouldn't be in the game because you don't use them in your campaign *does* hurt those who want to use them (for whatever reason). You can always choose not to use an existing rule. But you can't choose to use a rule that doesn't exist. Seems pretty abundantly obvious to me...