Non-Caster Incentive

[Tywyll]

One of my concerns with certain BRP settings is that there is little 'flash' for the non-casters. Elric! certainly feels this way, as did the old Stormbringer (I never got the latest version of Stormbringer).

Since skills are improved via use, there is no reason a person who casts spells can't also be good in melee combat. What, if any, thing does the new BRP do to address this? I'm not saying that casters shouldn't be able to learn to wield swords, but from a 'fun' standpoint, what do the non-casters get to help them remain relevant in a party of casters?

[GianniVacca]

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?
Well.... What can I say? This is a hard one. And there are many ways to tackle the problem, depending on personal taste/campaig background/rules fiddling.

1/ You could go the D&D way. Magic-users are not allowed to learn swordfighting. Period. Obviously a party will need fighters as well as magic-users.

2/ You could say that only characters from a certain caste/from a very wealthy family are allowed/can afford to learn magic.

3/ You could say that magical studies are so long that all starting spell-casting characters are 50 years old. This may have some disadvantages in terms of physical skills.

4/ Any characters could be allowed to have magic and fighting skills. The line between 'fighters' and 'magic-users' would be completely blurred (like in all RQ2 games I've played).

But in the end buying magic skills is expensive, and a lot of players want to be able to have more than just one group of skills over 50%. I am running a MRQ GodLearner campaign and although all PCs had access to magic, not all players decided to invest heavily in magic skills.

[GianniVacca]

An additional thought re 'flash'.

In a historical campaign setting, characters with good etiquette or dancing or arts skills can be more useful than good fighters or good magicians!

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by GianniVacca

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?

No, that's not it. The problem is that plain "fighter type" characters have much more limited options (in combat, principally) than magic-using ones.

OK, they could learn dancing and/or etiquette, but that doesn't give their players more interesting things to do when a melee breaks out...

Settings like Glorantha solve this by allowing everyone to do magic. But that's not suitable for every setting, and not to everyone's taste.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by GianniVacca

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?

Mostly. Its also, "If players have a concept, such as street-wise rogue, or grizzled combat veteran, what happens down the line when the mages are schtumping the opposition and the only real advantage those concepts maintain is simply a few more points in a few skills, which the casters can be developing as well?"

Well.... What can I say? This is a hard one. And there are many ways to tackle the problem, depending on personal taste/campaig background/rules fiddling.

1/ You could go the D&D way. Magic-users are not allowed to learn swordfighting. Period. Obviously a party will need fighters as well as magic-users.

Never liked this option.

2/ You could say that only characters from a certain caste/from a very wealthy family are allowed/can afford to learn magic.

this works, to a degree, but essentially leaves the problem of the non-caster eventually being in danger of being bored by lack of things to do (besides say "I attack") while the casters are dripping with tons of options. It also doesn't help with the balance issue... a wizard can learn sword-fighting later on, but the non-casters really can't.

3/ You could say that magical studies are so long that all starting spell-casting characters are 50 years old. This may have some disadvantages in terms of physical skills.

Doesn't work for my setting.

4/ Any characters could be allowed to have magic and fighting skills. The line between 'fighters' and 'magic-users' would be completely blurred (like in all RQ2 games I've played).

Also doesn't work. Its also not really an option for most 'traditional' fantasy/Sword&Sorcery settings. This isn't a knock on RQ, but for most people coming to BRP, this style won't be familiar or necessarily favored.

But in the end buying magic skills is expensive, and a lot of players want to be able to have more than just one group of skills over 50%. I am running a MRQ GodLearner campaign and although all PCs had access to magic, not all players decided to invest heavily in magic skills.

Its expensive in MRQ, wherein level ups are limited by 'improvement rolls'. However, in more traditional BRP, improvement is solely based on use, so that doesn't necessarily hinder the player. If the skills are there, they can take them as they wish.

I guess my issue is two fold. The player of casters have lots of different options and things they can do in combat, in addition to having the same set of options that non-casters have (weapon and skill use). They aren't prevented from being as good or even better than the character that begins the game as the dedicated 'heavy' simply because improvement is random and use based. After awhile, I'm concerned that the players who failed to pick magic as a concept will end up with little to do compared to their mystic companions.

Now, MRQ handles this issue with a limited amount of improvement, which is one means of balancing the issue. the other would be providing some sort of special or focused abilities that are either incompatible with magic, or simply require a lot of extra focus from a character (preventing most cases of 'double dipping').

Or, I'm sure there are other options I've not considered.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

No, that's not it. The problem is that plain "fighter type" characters have much more limited options (in combat, principally) than magic-using ones.

OK, they could learn dancing and/or etiquette, but that doesn't give their players more interesting things to do when a melee breaks out...

Settings like Glorantha solve this by allowing everyone to do magic. But that's not suitable for every setting, and not to everyone's taste.

Exactly what I was getting at.

[Jason Durall]

For what it's worth, there is a longish section called "Powered Characters versus Non-Powered Characters" in BRP that addresses this issue.

Some of the options presented are:

• Allowing the non-powered characters more skill points to construct their characters with. This head-start should prove decisive throughout a campaign.
• Allowing non-powered characters to invest in non-flashy powers like Defense, etc. that are technically powers but could be characterized in gameplay as "catlike reflexes, exceptional luck, etc."
• Allowing non-powered characters to invest "character points" into stuff like exceptional gear, etc. to help them compete.

Elsewhere in the book, I discuss the nature of balance and how it's the GM's job to make sure that a campaign is balanced. For example, if you're running a criminal investigation scenario and one of the PCs is a police detective, he/she has a distinct advantage over the player who picked "student" or "priest" as their profession. There are some guidelines as to how to achieve this, but it's very general as that sort of stuff is intrinsically setting-specific.

Still elsewhere in the book are the Fate Point rules, allowing players to spend power points to affect dice results. This isn't a magic bullet to end the perceived problem, but given a finite number of power points, having non-powered characters using them to augment skill/combat rolls and having powered characters using them for powers seems to balance things considerably. (Incidentally, this very problem is why I introduced the Fate Point system - giving non-powered characters something to do in gameplay with power points.)

Hope this helps.

[sladethesniper]

"If players have a concept, such as street-wise rogue, or grizzled combat veteran, what happens down the line when the mages are schtumping the opposition and the only real advantage those concepts maintain is simply a few more points in a few skills, which the casters can be developing as well?"

I am also having this problem. Almost anyone can learn magic in my setting. During playtesting a lot of them got irritated because thier magic spells don't really seem to "work" often enough for their taste.

Basically a spell is a skill and purchased as normal. They pay the cost in Power, roll the dice and see if it works. The problem arose that magic is available and so the players got some spells from 5% to 40%...and then complained mightily.

Why...because if you swing your sword and miss, what are you out? Not much. If you jack up your fireball, what are you out...about 3 Power...and you don't an unlimited supply...

What I have found is that in my setting beginning players see all the powers and skills and options and sort of go nuts...they try to get everything at 10%...and they die.

The second character actually develops into a concept and they start with skills in the 50%-60% range and are viable...

I think that it really comes down to, IMO and experience, is concept...if you want to be a fighter...be a fighter...if you want to be a mage, be a mage, if you want to be a fighter mage, good for you, but you'll never be as good at either profession since you just don't have the resource pool to spread over that many skills.

What this does is force character concepts and the use of "magic". Characters in my setting will now almost always use magic first or last...they no longer use it to solve problems, but to save themselves....

I hope that helps.

-STS

[Harvey Walters]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

One of my concerns with certain BRP settings is that there is little 'flash' for the non-casters. Elric! certainly feels this way, as did the old Stormbringer (I never got the latest version of Stormbringer).

Since skills are improved via use, there is no reason a person who casts spells can't also be good in melee combat. What, if any, thing does the new BRP do to address this? I'm not saying that casters shouldn't be able to learn to wield swords, but from a 'fun' standpoint, what do the non-casters get to help them remain relevant in a party of casters?

You could always add something to penalize the casters, like the
SAN loss for Cthulhu spells, or the corruption from the BRP/MERP rules
someone posted a link to recently. Also, make magic spells expensive
in skill points, perhaps casters have to sacrifice POW to learn spells,
spells can drain hit points/fatigue points/POW per so many MP expended,
spells can age a character so many days/weeks/months per MP, you
can add nasty spell failure charts ala weapon fumbles but mystical in
nature. Spell use could attract attention from the gods or magic eating
creatures like thought eaters or cerebral parasites from D&D, or magic
could be illegal or heavily restricted like Traveller's psionics -- there may
be instead or in addition to this a public prejudice against magic.

Just some suggestions,
Michael Hoxie

[AikiGhost]

Well in RQ 3 sorcerers could only get weapons skills up to a max of Dex x4 (or was it x3 I cant remember) it was rationalised as not having time to pursue and maintain such skills since they spent so much time working on magic and lore.

In my own games I stopped anyone with a POW of under 16 having magic of any kind.