Balance... whatever it is

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I really wonder about breath of experience here. A lot of role-playing settings have a chain of command and people do play "sidekicks".It can actually be a lot of fun.


Mythic Greece did that. In Pendragon, the standard was to play a squire to another knight before becoming knighted. Star Trek had it's chain of command, and most historical settings put everyone under the thumb of a feudal lord.

The issue is that in most of those kind of cases, even the supposed underling had something they did better than the top dog. It was entirely possible in RQ3 to simply be worse at anything that was likely to matter. Really, take a look at what some of the professions got, and ask how often some of those were really going to be critical to most games; then note they didn't even necessarily have them all that well.

That's why I tend to use the extreme example of the young civilized farmer, as it puts this in stark relief: about the best thing they get is a few Lores, and at the bottom end you're talking about even those in the 20-30% range; their combat skills are so close to minimal they could easily be drowned out by someone who just ended up with better attributes than they did. The only thing they were at all likely to end up with at any noticeable value was First Aid, a skill usually made mostly moot by even low end Healing magic.

Not all characters ended up this bad, but given that it didn't necessarily require much in the way of difference in roll to have two characters who were at a 25-30% difference in combat skills, it was simply easy to have a character who looked worse than another character in the group in any way that was likely to matter with any frequency (even an older farmer, for example, was liable to look pretty much pointless if there happened to be a Scribe or Sorcerer and, say, a Crafter also in the group, and two of those three aren't exactly professions most people would jump at as a PC either).

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

I can see this in other games, but this really isn't as much of a problem in RQ (especially RQ3). Skills tend to grow to 100 pretty quickly. Adventuring gains tend to outpace occupational gains. The difference in whether your character started with a 50% combat skill or an 80% combat skill tend to only matter for the first adventure or two.

Two responses to that:

1. I tend to disagree; it could take considerably longer than two or three adventures to close that gap unless you tended to get a lot of money and downtime quickly; that's shown by the simple issue of how many D6's in percentage ti takes to fill the 30% difference (a minimum of 5, and more likely 10; and that if the higher character wasn't advancing at all).

2. 50% was easy for someone not to get if they were actually rolling both profession and age. The aforementioned Farmer would start with 27% with anyything but fist in weapon skills, and a dead average RQ character only started with an Attack bonus of about 4%. So you're talking about a character who could be barely cracking 30%. And rolling better in age didn't help all that much; the dead average 25 year old Civilized Farmer was only about 8% better.

Yup. Great time to roll up a brand new character with base starting skills, right? Sure. She didn't contribute much for awhile. But she'd get some swings in during each fight (mostly sticking next to someone who looked a lot more

But the point is, many people don't see why someone should have to wait to play catch-up just to have something to do. Far as that goes, I don't see why they should have to.

And this was almost entirely an artifact of the overly random character gen in RQ3. It wasn't nearly the problem even in RQ1 and RQ2; you still had to roll attributes in those (which has its own issues) but you just picked background , and the random varience in skill in those backgrounds was not nearly as severe as the age roll could make (even on the better professions such as the warriors and soldiers, you could well be talking a 40% difference from top to bottom in your more important skills).

[Gnarsh]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

1. I tend to disagree; it could take considerably longer than two or three adventures to close that gap unless you tended to get a lot of money and downtime quickly; that's shown by the simple issue of how many D6's in percentage ti takes to fill the 30% difference (a minimum of 5, and more likely 10; and that if the higher character wasn't advancing at all).

I suppose that depends on how long a typical "adventure" is in the game in question. Whatever. In our game, a typical adventure tends to last upwards of 10-12 sessions (which may represent a single long adventure, or a series of related ones in which the same set of characters are all involved). Assuming your character gets into at least one fight per session, succeeds with his weapon skills at least once (not unreasonable, especially if he's fighting with a group of folks who can do things like throw bladesharp on his weapon to help him out), and in turn makes a significant percentage of his skill increase chances (also not unreasonable when you're starting at a lower skill), it's a pretty good bet you're going to make up that difference pretty quickly.

You wont "catch up" of course, since presumably the other guy makes skill rolls as well. My point isn't about comparing the relative strength of characters. It's about whether or not a character starting with low skills is eternally stuck as a mediocre bit player that can never contribute (which is what was implied). And that's simply false. That character will make skill increase rolls. He will get better. It just doesn't take that long to get a character from virtually any starting skill level up into the 80-100% skill range with their combat skills. I've done it personally many many times.

It's not that big of a handicap.

2. 50% was easy for someone not to get if they were actually rolling both profession and age. The aforementioned Farmer would start with 27% with anyything but fist in weapon skills, and a dead average RQ character only started with an Attack bonus of about 4%. So you're talking about a character who could be barely cracking 30%. And rolling better in age didn't help all that much; the dead average 25 year old Civilized Farmer was only about 8% better.

Obviously, that depends on starting stats as well. As you pointed out, starting out older doesn't help that character much either. We use the "roll one die higher and throw away your choice" when rolling stats for characters. The assumption is that PCs are "heroic" to some degree. They may not start that way, but presumably they always have the potential to be (represented by their starting stats). I'd assume that joe random farmer with mediocre stats probably wouldn't want to embark upon a career as an adventurer, right?

What the exact numbers are don't matter. The point is that the difference in weapons skill between a character with "farmer" as background and 2 years rolled for age and one with "soldier" and 12 years is exactly 38%. The difference is that the first guy is 10 years younger. In a game where you actually track time and in which characters age, retire, and die, that's significant in the long run. More to the point, after 10 years of adventuring, I think it's pretty safe to say that the guy who started as a 17 year old former farmer is going to be vastly more skilled then the guy who started as a 27 year old soldier.

Clearly, he's going to gain more then 38% in 10 years, right?

But the point is, many people don't see why someone should have to wait to play catch-up just to have something to do. Far as that goes, I don't see why they should have to.

Again. That depends on what the focus of your game is. In my game we tend to play two characters apiece. This allows a player to play one more experienced character and one less experienced character. That allows for a smoother transition over time. Older characters retire, new character take their place. The bigger issue is that the player is having fun.

Fun is not always defined by the skills on your character sheet. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Obviously, it's important to ensure that the players feel that their characters are accomplishing something, but accomplishments come in all shapes and sizes. My newbie ex-farmer character can stand next to a much better geared and skilled warrior in combat and make a *huge* difference simply by timing my attack to the same strike rank as his. He gets parried, I get a hit through that perhaps is just enough to put an arm down and turn the tide of the battle. Who "won" that fight? Certainly I wasn't nearly the threat that the other guy was, but if I hadn't been there it might have taken him 5 more rounds to wear down his opponent.

And that's before even getting into roleplaying issues. In the adventure I'm playing in right now, I've got a relatively new character. He's an orlanthi barbarian type. And not incredibly skilled. I decided that he was hugely overconfident though. Swaggering around, calling out his name in battle and otherwise declaring to enemies that he had arrived and they'd better watch out! Sure, he's not really that huge of a threat, and usually spends most of the battle lying on the ground bleeding, but they don't know that. And every once in awhile, he gets a lucky hit in and takes something out (complete with war cry and everything). Guess what? I have more "fun" doing that then playing my other character (who's a pretty impressively tough centaur stormbull combat monster). Oh. And he's got a thing for beer too.

It's called a roleplaying game for a reason. If it was a simple wargame, of course you'd always want to use the unit with the higher combat values. Who wouldn't? But that's not always the point here. We're not just playing a sheet of stats. We're supposed to be playing a real living breathing person. That's the whole point...

And this was almost entirely an artifact of the overly random character gen in RQ3. It wasn't nearly the problem even in RQ1 and RQ2; you still had to roll attributes in those (which has its own issues) but you just picked background , and the random varience in skill in those backgrounds was not nearly as severe as the age roll could make (even on the better professions such as the warriors and soldiers, you could well be talking a 40% difference from top to bottom in your more important skills).

If you don't like the random rolling, then don't roll. My point is not that a younger character isn't less powerful then an older one. Just that such a character is not useless, and may in time become a major part of a campaign. Again, if you play with aging rules, the mere fact that this character will live 10 years longer then the other one is *huge*. 10 years of adventuring will always net you more then 10 years of occupation experience.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

I suppose that depends on how long a typical "adventure" is in the game in question. Whatever. In our game, a typical adventure tends to last upwards of 10-12 sessions (which may represent a

Ah. You were using adventure for a much more time consuming process than I've typically seen it used for. Yes, I can quite believe someone, if they survived, would close the meaningful gap in 20-24 sessions; I also think that's a long time to have to wait to do so.

You wont "catch up" of course, since presumably the other guy makes skill rolls as well. My point isn't about comparing the relative strength of

Actually, with a long enough time frame, its possible in RQ to effectively catch up because the higher character will stall out on advancement, but it can take a long, long time.

characters. It's about whether or not a character starting with low skills is eternally stuck as a mediocre bit player that can never contribute (which is what was implied). And that's simply false. That character will make skill

I don't think I ever said eternally; but as I noted above, 20-24 sessions is rather a long time for most people; that's five to six months of playing realtime for most groups, if not longer.

increase rolls. He will get better. It just doesn't take that long to get a character from virtually any starting skill level up into the 80-100% skill range with their combat skills. I've done it personally many many times.

I think barring a lot of training time, we're having a rather large difference of opinion in what translates into "long" here.

It's not that big of a handicap.

And I'm afraid I disagree. Playing for weeks on end with a character who contributes minimally _is_ a long time.

Obviously, that depends on starting stats as well. As you pointed out, starting out older doesn't help that character much either. We use the "roll

For a farmer it doesn't. It can make quite a difference for someone who starts in a profession with many high multiple skills. For example in the case of the combat specialists, a 5 year difference is a 20% difference, which especially toward the bottom end is pretty non-trivial in RQ/BRP.

one die higher and throw away your choice" when rolling stats for characters. The assumption is that PCs are "heroic" to some degree. They may not start

That certainly helps, as it'll make it somewhat more likely to generate a higher base, but its no guarentee.

What the exact numbers are don't matter. The point is that the difference in weapons skill between a character with "farmer" as background and 2 years rolled for age and one with "soldier" and 12 years is exactly 38%. The

I don't consider that trivial in a system that only goes from 1-100 in meaningful value usually.

difference is that the first guy is 10 years younger. In a game where you actually track time and in which characters age, retire, and die, that's significant in the long run. More to the point, after 10 years of adventuring, I

That's a big if; I'd say it assumes longer campaign cycles than I have any reason to believe are typical for any game this side of Pendragon.

think it's pretty safe to say that the guy who started as a 17 year old former farmer is going to be vastly more skilled then the guy who started as a 27 year old soldier.

And that's relevant just how?

Again. That depends on what the focus of your game is. In my game we tend to play two characters apiece. This allows a player to play one more experienced character and one less experienced character. That allows for a smoother transition over time. Older characters retire, new character take their place. The bigger issue is that the player is having fun.

But even two characters doesn't promise that you're not going to find yourself with _both_ substandard (and I'm not sure how common that really is, though I've tended toward something like it myself because of the mortality RQ and other BRP games can generate); all it requires is a couple of pieces of bad luck in a row.

Fun is not always defined by the skills on your character sheet. Or at least, it

That may be, but I think its overly blithe to assume most people don't care about their characters capability, especially in cases where that capability is completely overshadowed by others in the same group.

shouldn't be. Obviously, it's important to ensure that the players feel that their characters are accomplishing something, but accomplishments come in all shapes and sizes. My newbie ex-farmer character can stand next to a much better geared and skilled warrior in combat and make a *huge* difference simply by timing my attack to the same strike rank as his. He gets parried, I get a hit through that perhaps is just enough to put an arm down and turn the tide of the battle. Who "won" that fight? Certainly I wasn't nearly the threat that the other guy was, but if I hadn't been there it might have taken him 5 more rounds to wear down his opponent.

And that's great when it happens, but its very easy for it to _never_ happen, because the attack misses so much that it never ends up much mattering; and that's assuming the character isn't hard pressed to just survive, which is dependent on opponents conveniently always being not much more capable than he is that actually attack him.

And that's before even getting into roleplaying issues. In the adventure I'm

Roleplaying can be used to trump any mechanical flaw argument, and as such I don't consider it much of an answer. Anyone can get fun out of any situation with roleplaying, but that doesn't mean that the situation produced by the rules is helping him.

If you don't like the random rolling, then don't roll. My point is not that a

The problem was without the random rolling, most of those professions might as well not have existed. It was clear that for all the options, the game system did expect you to roll, but if you actually did so, the results were more than a little unedifying.

younger character isn't less powerful then an older one. Just that such a character is not useless, and may in time become a major part of a campaign.

Younger per se might not have been useless, but I'll flat out say that some results of random rolling were close enough to useless that the only real function the character usually fulfilled was to attract fire. It was simply too easy for the character to have no skills at a level that were actually going to be useful in a game where there were others that did everything they did and better; the rare occasions when they could contribute slightly did not counterweight the fact they mostly came across as simply spear carriers. This was particularly noticeable with younger members of professions that weren't ideal choices for adventuring in the first place, which is why I've used the minimum age farmer as the iconic extreme example.

If you don't agree with the above, you don't, but nothing I've seen in actual play in multiple campaigns run by different people suggests to me I'm incorrect here. Most of your responses have either defined the problem away, or at most suggested that under some circumstances its not as severe. Since I don't see any reason for the problem to exist in the first place, I'm afraid I don't find that much of an argument.

[Gnarsh]

Well, not going to go point-counterpoint on this.

As I've stated repeatedly, if you don't like the rolling, then by all means don't roll. If you want every character in your campaign to start out with the best possible profession and the most possible skills, then by all means, do that. Heck, If you want to just skip that awkward period of time before characters get up over 100% and can "really do something", then by all means start all characters at whatever skill levels you want.

The only point I was making was that starting out with lower skills, even in a group of much more skilled characters is not automatically a balance problem either for the players, or for the GM. It is quite possible to run characters with wildly different skill levels in the same adventure. Doing so at the low end isn't significantly different then doing so at the high end.

RQ specifically is much much more forgiving then other game systems. There are no levels. There are very few direct offensive spells. There are no "saving throws" that take some kind of level into account. My beginning level character is just as likely to resist a spell or disease or poison as anyone else (barring some exceptional abilities of course). My stats are not inherently likely to be significantly lower then a much more experienced character's. I don't have a fraction of the hps of a much more experienced character either.


My skills are lower. That's it. So I'll miss a bit more often. I can't rely on making that parry every time. Yup. That's a handicap. My point was that it's nowhere near the equivalent of a first level character in D&D attempting to play in the same adventure with even say a group of 5th level characters (much less 10th level or higher). A significantly lower skilled character in RQ *can* adventure successfully. He *can* survive. Assuming the GM isn't simply throwing nothing but uber powerful opponents at the group (I've already discussed methods of balancing adventures that allow for disparate character skill levels) he can even be effective.

It's just that the terms you keep throwing around, the disdain you seem to have for "low skill" characters, suggests to me that it's not a mechanical issue we're talking about here, but one of personality and playstyle. *You* think that characters that can't do everything everyone else in the group can are useless, so you relegate them to "drawing fire" and "carrying spears". That colors your opinions on this issue. You're welcome to them, but I have to respectably disagree. As I've already pointed out with a couple examples, some of the most enjoyable characters I've played started out quite wimpy. And even on their first adventure, while unable to compete with their companions, I still quite enjoyed playing them, and I was able to find ways to make them useful beyond just drawing fire and carrying weapons for others to fight with.


In many other RPGs, player character "balance" really is a necessity. In RQ, it's not nearly as important. it's quite easy as a GM to construct adventures in such a way so that everyone from the 17 year old farmer to the powerful runelord can all contribute and succeed and most importantly enjoy themselves. I've certainly never had a problem doing it as a GM, have never had complaints from any of my players, and have never had a problem on the other end as a player myself.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Gnarsh

My skills are lower. That's it. So I'll miss a bit more often. I can't rely on making that parry every time. Yup. That's a handicap. My point was that it's nowhere near the equivalent of a first level character in D&D attempting to play in the same adventure with even say a group of 5th level characters (much less 10th level or higher). A significantly lower skilled character in RQ *can* adventure successfully. He *can* survive. Assuming the GM isn't simply throwing nothing but uber powerful opponents at the group (I've already discussed methods of balancing adventures that allow for disparate character skill levels) he can even be effective.

It's not just your skills that are lower. You will also have much less stuff and spells, which is the real power here. Iron armor, protection and shield, f.ex. have a loot to say. One of my best characters have 80% with his mace. He have done a lot of adventuring though, and is quite dangerous in a fight. He also have much better chance of escaping a fight going bad.

The problem I have seen with complete newbies in an experienced group is that they die so much more frequent, and have to roll up new newbies. That can kill away some of the motivation for the game. It does of course depend on whether the GM adjust the scenarios and the opposition to fit with characters of lesser strenght too, but it's not all GMs that like to pull punches that way.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

The problem I have seen with complete newbies in an experienced group is that they die so much more frequent, and have to roll up new newbies. That can kill away some of the motivation for the game. It does of course depend on whether the GM adjust the scenarios and the opposition to fit with characters of lesser strenght too, but it's not all GMs that like to pull punches that way.

SGL.

I don't see that as "pulling punches". Does the GM throw Rune Lords up against characters all the time? Or does he "pull punches" until the PCs make rune level?

But I would also expect the rest of the group to try and cover for the newbie until he starts to get up to speed. Maybe give him some training on the off hours, have him stick by a skilled warrior for a bit. But then,. I would expect the PCs to work together anyway. Otherwise they will get torn apart anyway.

[soltakss]

We have PCs in put party with different combat abilities. The people with the best abilities tend to shield the people with the worst, unless things are really desparate and they can't.

If you have a combat where the two good fighters can link together and take on more than 2 opponents, then the weaker fighters can be protected to a certain extent.

If everyone just charges and takes on all comers, then the weaker PCs will die. But that's because of stupidity not game balance.

However, I was in a mixed-level party in AD&D once, with several PCs of 1-3 Level and several 4-6 level. We went into a room and uncovered an artifact that killed anyone below 4th level with no saving throw. Half the party was killed straight away. When we complained to the GM he said:
1. It was out own fault for uncovering the artefact
2. We didn't have to go into the room
3. He didn't write scenarios for Game Balance, they depended on absolute levels not relative ones

[Triff]

Originally Posted by soltakss

3. He didn't write scenarios for Game Balance, they depended on absolute levels not relative ones

Hehe, it wasn't even a published scenario? He made a scenario meant to take out half the party with no chance of survival? I guess you played a lot more with him afterwards, or what?

SGL.

[Rurik]

A GM is either running a scenario designed without a specific party in mind, in which case tweaking to suit the party is often required anyway, or they are custom designing the scenario/encounter to a specific party and the whole issue is moot. I don't see how pulling punches has anything to do with it.

Most fights are not even. Usually the characters are outnumbered by weaker foes, or outnumber stronger foes. In the first case the weaker party members have plenty of oppurtunity to faight balanced foes. In the latter case they often get ignored as the foes focus on the tougher party members. The newbies often get unnoposed attacks on the enemy, and I have found often in games as a result deal the killing blow. And as a player (and for the character as well) the enjoument gained by your 'farmer' killing the enemy Rune Lord is far greater than that of a Rune Lord killing an equal foe.

It calls to mind a runelord facing a dark troll and trollkin and deciding not to parry the trollkin...