Topic: Fixed -vs- Variable DP

[RandalThor]

My basic aversion to the random method, is that I "grew out" of that gaming ideology a while back. It is clunky, and you are too prone to having heavily unbalanced parties. (Though perfect balance isn't a main goal of mine, some balance is good and keeps player jealousy/animosity to a minimum.)

If everyone starts with the same amount of points, and the same rules on how to use them, then huge differences in characters shouldn't be a problem.


Off-Topic:
I say shouldn't because I have a friend who can take the 400 Build Points that Shadowrun gives for character creation, and make a better (read: more competent) character than I can with 500 BPs, just because he is a master at min-maxing - knowing the absolute best way to spend the points to get the most bang-for-his-buck. I, on the other hand, just like to make a character that I "like." By that I mean, the flavor is at least equal to the mechanics for me.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It's not really a problem for me, because it encourages characters to put points into their stats, which makes sense to me. Someone who can regularly dance toe-to-toe with dragons and drinks tea with demons should be stronger, faster, and smarter than normal people.

Otherwise, I just don't think that stats and stat bonuses contribute enough to the system. Stat bonuses are typically much, much smaller than rank bonuses or generic bonuses.

[jasonbrisbane]

We use the Random point method with our games and dont have an issue with it..

We did have people having wildly different sets of stats... Some ppl might have a new char with 70-100's and one  with 40-80...

So we made it a rule that PC's should have characters with stats that were at least as good as monsters.
i.e. that the monsters get stats of 75 (+5) so the PC's should have characters that have at least 40 DP's (80 at first level). if your total DP's is less then you re-rol the lowest stat until you rol higher, then recalculate and repeat until your total DP's => 40.

And since the party is fairly strong, then the GM at the time simply bumps up the levels or OB's of the monsters, etc....

if you have a strong party then the stronger monsters are drawn to them.... 
(And PAT started that off, so its not my fault!)

[RandalThor]

Someone who can regularly dance toe-to-toe with dragons and drinks tea with demons should be stronger, faster, and smarter than normal people.

Which brings up an interesting observation I had the other day. As I, too, believe the above statement, it struck me as odd/sad that every creature so far is listed as having a 75 stat for all of their stats, which equals 600 stat points if you go by the point buy - but they suggest 550 for characters. Sort of makes one feel inadequate, doesn't it?

[Right Wing Wacko]

Someone who can regularly dance toe-to-toe with dragons and drinks tea with demons should be stronger, faster, and smarter than normal people.

Which brings up an interesting observation I had the other day. As I, too, believe the above statement, it struck me as odd/sad that every creature so far is listed as having a 75 stat for all of their stats, which equals 600 stat points if you go by the point buy - but they suggest 550 for characters. Sort of makes one feel inadequate, doesn't it?

But the monsters rarely advance in level (if at all)...

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Which brings up an interesting observation I had the other day. As I, too, believe the above statement, it struck me as odd/sad that every creature so far is listed as having a 75 stat for all of their stats, which equals 600 stat points if you go by the point buy - but they suggest 550 for characters. Sort of makes one feel inadequate, doesn't it?

Not really. My characters all have at least 600 stat points by at least eighth or ninth level.

[johnkzin]

Otherwise, I just don't think that stats and stat bonuses contribute enough to the system. Stat bonuses are typically much, much smaller than rank bonuses or generic bonuses.

IMO, that's the way it should be.

Stat Bonuses should give people an initial talent boost that separates them from the crowd only at very low levels.   Skill should dominate over talent relatively quickly, IMO.

Though, honestly, I wouldn't mind doing away with Stats entirely.  Game mechanics wise, I don't care HOW someone gets to be good at fighting (talent vs skill), I care how good they are at fighting.  That's one of the things that Castle Falkenstein got very right: just give me a list of things you do, and how well you do them.  Whether they're talent or skill (or how much of each) is a character concept/character definition, not a game mechanic.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Which brings up an interesting observation I had the other day. As I, too, believe the above statement, it struck me as odd/sad that every creature so far is listed as having a 75 stat for all of their stats, which equals 600 stat points if you go by the point buy - but they suggest 550 for characters. Sort of makes one feel inadequate, doesn't it?

Not really. My characters all have at least 600 stat points by at least eighth or ninth level.

And the monsters stay the same... although the DM is free to add levels to them if he/she wishes

But most of the higher level opponents are bad news already!

[jasonbrisbane]

Yes, Monsters stats are always at 75, which is a pity becasue I'd spend 8 DP's to advance all stats to 76 and get a +1 bonus on all stats!

So players start lower (but still higher than the General Populace) and can increase their DP's by 20 per level and Monsters stay the same....

Remember that a L15 Lich (default level for a lich) still has stats at 75......

[Mando]

Remember that a L15 Lich (default level for a lich) still has stats at 75......

In some worlds, yes, but not in mine 

Always make sure you have the proper information before looking after such legends... 

[RandalThor]

Please remember that the stats listed are for the average individual, not any of the special ones. (Although, really, are there "average" Dragons of Kingship?!?) Which means that the average individual of every creature is equal (for stat purposes, anyway) to the more advanced PCs who have taken time and effort to increase their stats.

That tells me that PCs aren't special, but actually below average when they start out. Not a paradim I like to go with personally. Especially in games that tend to be deadly*, those individuals, who will be in EVERY dangerous situation presented, should be special to have even a small chance of survival for a short while.

*All the ICE games - even HARP - fall into this category as it is possible to die on the very first action in the game. (And the action doesn't even have to be combat for them to die horribly.)

[Right Wing Wacko]

That tells me that PCs aren't special, but actually below average when they start out. Not a paradim I like to go with personally. Especially in games that tend to be deadly*, those individuals, who will be in EVERY dangerous situation presented, should be special to have even a small chance of survival for a short while.

Below average -vs- what?
Even though all creatures have stats of 75, most PC's will have higher than that in their main stats... making them more powerful in that regard.
Also, I like games where PC's start out as average (or below as you seem to think), and work their way up...it seems more realistic and believable that way... to us... and that is the kinda game we like! Otherwise we would just play 4e or some other superhero game
And don't forget fate points to help your PC's survival!

[Karizma]

PCs don't need to be great to do great things.  But I also think at first level, PCs SHOULDN'T be above normal for a monster.  Monsters are monstrous.  Their average should be above that of a first-level PC.  Also, NPCs have even lower stats than the average PC.

[RandalThor]

Below average -vs- what?
Even though all creatures have stats of 75, most PC's will have higher than that in their main stats... making them more powerful in that regard.
Also, I like games where PC's start out as average (or below as you seem to think), and work their way up...it seems more realistic and believable that way... to us... and that is the kinda game we like! Otherwise we would just play 4e or some other superhero game
And don't forget fate points to help your PC's survival!

Here is where we differ: I don't like it where the PCs start out as average (usually, there are special cases). Maybe it comes from the fact that for the last 10-12 years the longest running game I have been in ran about 6 months. So, I don't get to see growth and it gets frustrating to be a purpetual neophyte. And being above average isn't being a "superhero" it is being above average. It just means that you are more likely to survive the stuff you run into than the average individual, not that you can punch through a brick & steel wall. (Unless, of course, you ARE playing a superhero game.  )

Oh, btw, 4e is not superhero-y in the least. Everytime I have played it (2 or 3, I forget), we have lost. That means that most of the party has died - if not all of us - everytime! These games were all played using WotC's own published 1st level adventure.

PCs don't need to be great to do great things.  But I also think at first level, PCs SHOULDN'T be above normal for a monster.  Monsters are monstrous.  Their average should be above that of a first-level PC.  Also, NPCs have even lower stats than the average PC.

They do not HAVE to be, but it as I said before, it helps them survive what's coming. If I want to play Joe: The Middle-Management Prole RPG, I will be more than happy to be the average guy, but I don't play that game, I don't play anything even remotely resembling that game. I play Sword & Sorcery fantasy, and high-flying Sci-Fi, and Pulp Action, and Superhero, and and and......

About the monsters stats, they get nice big racial bonuses so that even if the PC's strength score is higher than the Dragon's he is not actually stronger. When compared to other humans (or the equivalent) he is strong, and the dragon compared to other dragons is average, but compared to each other, the PC comes up lacking. The number is mostly there to reflect that individuals stats when compared to members of their own species. ICE has stat bonuses and racial bonuses as seperate entities instead of the way other games do it where you add the racial mod to the individuals actual stat to generate a total stat. No matter how strong a human gets, he is not going to get as strong as a dragon. (Barring some very extreme magical, or otherwise, means.)

I just have a different philosophy about this. I want my character to be, at least, somewhat "bigger than life." One way to help define this is to have greater stats.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Randal, I disagree with you... 4e is very super-heroey! What with every class having super powers and all...
And that 4e module you played (was it KotS?)... if you examine WotC forums, it is suppose to result in TPK most of the time. A lot of complaints about it...

But hey, play what makes you happy!... 4e doesn't make me happy....

I think we simply have different tastes and styles...

[RandalThor]

... 4e doesn't make me happy....

I think we simply have different tastes and styles...

4e doesn't make me happy either.