Topic: stats for starting charakters

[Raf Blutaxt]

Ok, as I see it, there are several problems here:
The first is that a character with his stats gets significantly more DP than PC's with more averaged stats. With These DP's he could beef up his stats.
In my example the player has 49 DP and within the rules he could have a PR of 46 and RE ôf 51 at level three while still having 29 or 30 DP to spend on skills at the same time.

The second problem is that a character like this with his OB way up for a level 1 character steals the spotlight from all the other players if they don't maximize their characters as well. In a group of three or four players with maybe a mage and a thief such a fighter is ok but once there is more than one fighter in the party, this will lead to problems.

The third problem is that especially PR is only needed for a very limited number of skills whereas ST and AG are important for a wide variety of skills, not all combat related. This makes a character with high ST and AG very powerful even in areas where other characters could normally shine.

My first concern was to have a frame of reference to better treat the low stats as the problem they should be. Thanks to Rasyr this has been fixed.

Now the next step would be adressing the other problems.
I am thinking about further limiting the number of DP that can be spent on raising stats maybe on five ranks per level per stat. This would mean that the character couldn't just become smart and handsome over night.

Now I know there are many ways to work around this problem by roleplaying and for example only allowing stat raises for stats that have been used during play but I think there need to be firm rules otherwise the game is prone to be exploited. 

[RandalThor]

All games are prone to be exploited - that's human nature for you.

Limiting the growth of a character's stats is a good thing, I believe. The overnight transformation is silly.

The way to deal with the DP discrepancy is to dispense a set amount of DPs (as someone mentioned earlier) per level. I like the number: 50 as it is an easy number to remember and deal with.

About the limited number of skills for Presence, I wouldn't mind seeing it affect Feint and other combat skills dealing with trickery. That way it makes the attribute at least somewhat important for Fighters, even. Not exactly sure as to how to make that work, but I will look into it.....

Ultimately, it just looks as though you have a Player that likes to uber-focus his character. He just needs to be taught that that level of overspecialization will only work for a very limited amount of time, that he needs to have other abilities.

This is also a symptom of the problem that created the DnD 4e rules, the idea that each character has to only cover "their" area as all the other areas are covered by the other characters. Which is an over done response to the idea that "your character cannot step on my character's toes!" When, in fact, to ensure the highest chance of survival, many skills and abilities need to be covered by more than one party member, and in some cases all party members (like survival).

We seem to get too touchy about "our character's" area of expertise and in making sure no one can match them. Let's all just relax and be happy about the other fighter (wizard, priest, thief, whatever) in the group as it aids in our survival as well.

[Arioch]

This is also a symptom of the problem that created the DnD 4e rules, the idea that each character has to only cover "their" area as all the other areas are covered by the other characters. Which is an over done response to the idea that "your character cannot step on my character's toes!" When, in fact, to ensure the highest chance of survival, many skills and abilities need to be covered by more than one party member, and in some cases all party members (like survival).

It's the other way around: since a lot of d&d gamers liked to have a minmaxed hyper-specialized PC (just look over any PC creation thread in any d&d board) 4e was designed to enforce a certain degree of specialization and, consequently, of teamplay.

IMHO there's no problem in higly specialized characters, just make sure that the player understand that there are not "dump stats" and that having low scores in some stats will penalize him in many skills.
If he understand this and still wants to play that character let him to, maybe he just want to play a dumb fighter!

[butscharoni]

I tried writing my reply for 3 times now, but it seems i can't pin down the problem. :-)

Suffice to say, that in part i disagree with the approaches mentioned here for different reasons.
Mostly of all, though, the problem is how to deal with a gamer who is exploiting the system and ruining the fun for other players (at least for me).
I think HARP could be designed more to counter such behaviour, because, all house ruling and common sense aside, i really can see no penalty in the system with having a dumb/unsympathetic fighter as opposed for example the playing a weak and slow mage. And the ammount of power one gets out of such a construct, is extraordinary.

That said, fixed development points seem a good way to fix the problem. It is also a fix that won't look like penalizing that one player. After all, most powergamers are not bad persons and don't do this to ruin the fun for the others. The most important thing is for everyone to enjoy the game, so a solution that seems fair to everyone should be the best.

But then again, it makes me somewhat angry that i have to change rules, that up until now worked great, just because someone has nothing better to do then to find flaws in them and use these to his advantage...

[Marc R]

IQ is measured 1-200 with an average of 100, Reasoning is 1-100 with an average of 50. . .so you could say reasoning x 2 = IQ as a rough guide of human intelligence. (Racial mods throw that out the window, a smart Troll might still be equivalent to a Dull Human)

So Gump, often referred to above, in both book and movie had an IQ of 80, which is the bottom end of "Dull" on the IQ chart, bordering on "Borderline Deficiancy in Intelligence". . .low end below average or a 40 Reasoning in HARP terms. . .a 31 Reasoning is a 62 IQ. . .or mildly mentally retarded on the IQ table. . .so that character isn't just a bit slow ala Gump. . .think more Slingblade or Rainman. . . .translating the presence, contemplate someone who's mentally and socially slightly retarded. . .

I'd definitely expect the character to play as they built. . .otherwise take a 10 reasoning, then just behave like a genius using your real IQ and OOC perspective. . .that's just breaking outside the IC/OOC split. . .if you build a slightly mentally retarded character, you should play a slightly mentally retarded character.

IQ table, values halved so they represent the roughly equivalent HARP Reasoning stat instead of IQ, just to give a basic idea of what the low end scores would effectively mean:

90   100   Highest genius
83   89   High genius
73   82   Genius
68   72   Very gifted
63   67   Gifted
58   62   Above average
55   57   Superior intelligence
45   54   Average or normal intelligence
40   44   Dullness
35   39   Borderline deficiency in intelligence
25   34   Mild mental retardation
20   24   Moderate mental retardation
10   17   Severe mental retardation
0   10   Profound mental retardation

[Steve_990]

After LordMiller's post I'm picturing the Grocery Boy from Hot Fuzz... lol

Yarp...

[jurasketu]

A fine German fellow named Godel proved effectively that ALL sets of rules are incomplete. The corollary is that EVERYTHING we know is either wrong or incomplete. So, a set of RPG rules is going to be deficient no matter how good. Worse, its gotta define imaginary worlds. The conclusion is that all rules can be exploited.

In 'regular' games, its called 'strategy' to exploit the rules and no one complains.

In RPG, it is called powergaming or "rules lawyering". It is important to explain to a powergamer that while you applaud their clever exploitation of the rules, the powergamer has missed the point. The GM has the power to squash the players regardless of power without breaking a sweat. Anything a player can do, the GM can do better. But what would be the point? Explain that to the powergamer. Sure, tweaking the rules to avoid a exploitation is fine - but it becomes a competition between the player and the GM. Player exploits loophole, GM closes loophole, ad nauseum.

The absolute simplest way to stop powergaming (if explaining the 'goal' of RPGs doesn't work) is the GM approval of all character development. GM must approve ALL skill selections, improvements, stat selection, race, certainly talents, etc. The skills and talents provided in HARP are simply a starting point anyway. More talents and skills can be concocted at will by the GM/players, so the game system is intended to be "open" - which means the GM has gotta draw lines. So do it. Just explain what you're doing and roll your eyes at whining. Just ask the question - "Are you a Role Game Player or NOT?"

Sometimes the GM makes a mistake and approves development that turns the game upside down. Oops. You can take it away directly or indirectly or give the other characters 'stuff' to balance things out - or force the problem character into 'retirement'. Really powerful characters should garner the seriously unwanted attention of the gods (good and evil), rulers and other powerful entities. That attention usually takes the form of "Whose side are YOU on?" with the obvious consequences for choosing wrong or attempting to stay neutral.

Like sorry Mighty Indeed Fighter - the King has a mission for you. Your friends? Nah. They can go on their way.

"What? I'm supposed to just stand guard over here every day?"
"That would be 'What? Sire'"

[Thos]

LordMiller, I find your chart to be very helpful!

[Ecthelion]

IQ is measured 1-200 with an average of 100, Reasoning is 1-100 with an average of 50. . .so you could say reasoning x 2 = IQ as a rough guide of human intelligence. (Racial mods throw that out the window, a smart Troll might still be equivalent to a Dull Human)

So Gump, often referred to above, in both book and movie had an IQ of 80, which is the bottom end of "Dull" on the IQ chart, bordering on "Borderline Deficiancy in Intelligence". . .low end below average or a 40 Reasoning in HARP terms. . .a 31 Reasoning is a 62 IQ. . .or mildly mentally retarded on the IQ table. . .so that character isn't just a bit slow ala Gump. . .think more Slingblade or Rainman. . . .translating the presence, contemplate someone who's mentally and socially slightly retarded. . .

If you take a look at the IQ curve you will note that 99% of the population fall within the IQ range of 60-140. So I doubt that Re * 2 = IQ is a good formula. Something like 50 + Re = IQ probably achieves better results. Anyway I don't know if either of these formulas really help in this discussion  .

[Ecthelion]

In RPG, it is called powergaming or "rules lawyering".

Please don't confuse these terms. Powergaming is not rules lawyering. A power gamer often knows the rules quite well and thus might be more often also a rules lawyer than other gamers, but it's not the same.

It is important to explain to a powergamer that while you applaud their clever exploitation of the rules, the powergamer has missed the point.

Why? Power-gaming refers to creating powerful characters. This per se is not a problem, especially if all players in a group tend to do so - as I would say is the case in my group. It becomes problematic if one or more players in the group steal the fun of the other players because e.g. the characters constantly excel the other characters.

The GM has the power to squash the players regardless of power without breaking a sweat. Anything a player can do, the GM can do better. But what would be the point? Explain that to the powergamer. Sure, tweaking the rules to avoid a exploitation is fine - but it becomes a competition between the player and the GM. Player exploits loophole, GM closes loophole, ad nauseum.

This refers rather to the rules lawyer.

The absolute simplest way to stop powergaming (if explaining the 'goal' of RPGs doesn't work) is the GM approval of all character development. GM must approve ALL skill selections, improvements, stat selection, race, certainly talents, etc. The skills and talents provided in HARP are simply a starting point anyway. More talents and skills can be concocted at will by the GM/players, so the game system is intended to be "open" - which means the GM has gotta draw lines. So do it. Just explain what you're doing and roll your eyes at whining. Just ask the question - "Are you a Role Game Player or NOT?"

That might help, but personally I would not want to invest the time and look at every character that gets developed. I prefer to trust my players (when I am the GM) and let them develop their characters as they like. But we also made sure we had a group of homogeneous players which share a similar style of playing. If all players in a group are character players or all are power gamers then you usually don't have an issue.

It gets more complicated if you have a group with mixed styles of play. In that case it's seemingly the "evil" power gamer that get mobbed with weird means of penalizing his character - at least when I take a look at the comments in this thread. So in the case of a mixed group - which I'd suggest to avoid in the first point - I'd indeed take a closer look at the character of the power gamer and try to put some limits on his means of rules exploitation, e.g. fixed DP for HARP, minimum stat values etc., and/or I'd also help the other players in creating a bit "stronger" characters (if they want to), so that their characters have the same chances in the game as those of the power gamer(s).

Just my 2 cents

[Steve_990]

I personally try to encourage an element of 'powergaming' in my games. I like the players to play characters that are beyond simply being competant in their desired feilds of expertise.

Having said that - I think it depends on the definition of Powergaming. To some of us (myself included) it is a distainful term. But to others - it's the way a game should be played. But what is powergaming? If we are making characters that are better than anyone else at what you want to be, I see no issue with it. I think the real issue is what a powergamer does with his "power".

I would draw the lines at any player that is using whatever power they get to hold over the others in the group, making their play experience poor. One example I have seen is a crazy good fighter that no-one could touch in a group getting all the magic items because they threaten any player that gets one that he will kill their character unless they hand it over. That is NOT cool.

I think these issues really need to be dealt with OUTSIDE the game. If no-one has fun playing with Player X, maybe it's time for Player X to change his ways or find a new group.

If everyone is fine with it (GM included) then there is really no issue.

No having a character that is godly at one set of skills would mean they are invaluable to the group. I would have no issue with that unless others find it detremental, but then is the problem the min-maxed character, or the players that find it offensive. It likely depends on the group dynamic, and who has the majority 'vote'.

As I side note, it's one reason I love playing with most of the RM2 skills and do random stat rolls. If a character is specialized in one aspect - there are SOOOO many more aspects someone could be great at there is rarely overlap.

With the stat rolls I dislike forcing people to play unplayable characters like the 'Gump Fighter' above. So I allow people to reroll stats that are too low for my game. After all they are supposed to be heroes (or major villans???) They should have better stats than average.

[Marc R]

The vast majority of people in HARP are non adventurers, who's stats are derived as 2d10+40. . .so they have 41-60 Reasons. . .putting their IQs well into the center of the standard deviation curve at 82-120... .

And I wouldn't trust Wikipedia for stats. . . . .people at 40- IQs are rather difficult to test, and often just get assessed an assumed score based on observations, while 20- IQs are often completely impossible to test and are almost always scored on observations. (Beyond the fact that said graph doesn't even bother to display anyone above 145 or below 65). . . just because of celing effects and difficulties testing low end, some people don't like the way deviants make the curve unelegant at the edges so they exempt them from the data to create that curve. . . .in an authentic population study, you'd still have to include the super geniuses and the mentaly retarded.

PCs are deviants. . .in the sense that they rarely fall to average, but shopkeepers on the like appear even more average in HARP world than in the real world. (An analysis of the HARP population would reveal 99% of all people at 41-60 stats, with 1% above and below. . . .)



As to powergaming. . .

I don't see how playing an idiot or a Boor is powergaming. . .unless the GM allows you to smurf your mental and social stats and them behave as if you're smart and charming. . .shrug, if the PCs are not going to actually play in character, then you'd have to mechanically fix that by doing things like rolling reactions based purely on stats not words, and doing things like "Roll to figure it out, you're not allowed to roleplay figuring it out." which seems like misery and not fun at all, since it's no longer roleplay, it's like a computer game. . ."I click on the Ogre, then hit the Parlay button. . .failed, he attacks you, combat round 1."

[Karizma]

I don't see this as THAT much of a problem.  The way I'd solve it is to simply keep bringing it up (both in and out of character) in good humor.  Don't "punish" the player, but simply have his reasoning scoffed at or ignored by NPCs.

With a low reasoning, he's going to be hurt in the skills department (until he uses DPs to bring his stats up), and with a low presence, he's not going to be given any attention.

For example, I had a player that had one parent Halfling, the other Half-Elf.  So he was a "Half Halfling half Half-Elf".  He got the nickname "Quarterling" and got teased a lot, by the party and by NPCs from time to time.  He rolled with it because he knows that it was silly, but he wanted it.

Sometimes I enjoy making characters that are quite competent.  It's fun to take the system, and see what you can do with it.  It's a form of puzzle-solving.  There's a difference between "powergaming" and just being a jerk.  Let's not confuse the two.

[jurasketu]

Ecthelion-

I make a distinction between powergaming and "making a powerful, focused character". Using careful selection of skills, focus and intelligent choices to properly make a powerful character is perfectly fine. Real people who expend energy and focus can fashion themselves into high achievers. Can't object to that.

But by my understanding, powergaming is exploiting some defect in the rules to make a powerful character that should have limitations - but either by ignoring the limitation (reasoning, presence and self-discipline being the most easily 'ignored' limitations) or using a quirk in the rules to 'cheaply' overcome the limitation the player is essentially 'cheating'. That is why I equate powergaming with rules lawyering.

I'm an expert rules lawyer myself because I play loony characters - and loonies need to exploit the rules to achieve maximum looniness and still survive more than a few game sessions.

Robin

[RandalThor]

Well, here I go again. (I had a problem posting earlier.)

I don't think the you need to shift the responsibility of dealing with this player to the rules. It sounds like to me that it is a situation hinted at by karizma:

  There's a difference between "powergaming" and just being a jerk.  Let's not confuse the two.

But no matter what, the GM has to be the one to deal with this situation. If you made special rules to everytime these situations arose you would have to have a 500+ page binder to hold them all. Impractical, to say the least, as the game designers can't be made to rectify this situation for every group that has the problem. The rules can't stop them (the "power-gamer" player) from being who they are, they will just look for other loopholes, until the GM gets them to stop - in what ever way works for them, it is different for different groups/players/GMs.

[Arioch]

Why? Power-gaming refers to creating powerful characters. This per se is not a problem, especially if all players in a group tend to do so - as I would say is the case in my group. It becomes problematic if one or more players in the group steal the fun of the other players because e.g. the characters constantly excel the other characters.

I completely agree!

[Mormegil]

In short, the player created Lennie Small (from "Of Mice and Men") as his character.

That's okay.

After a few combats I'll level up and put some dp's into those stats and I'll be Gunn.

By level 10 I'll be Ozymandias.

One way to encourage moderate stats would be to limit how much pc's can increase them as they level up. Otherwise you end up with exactly the scenario I'm suggesting. I'm not disturbed by that - when I generate a fighting character I start with low mental stats to optimise ob/db at 1st level and then pump them for dp's as I level up.

I'm a munchkin though. YMMV.

[Marc R]

When a PC levels up, their skill picks should make sense. . .character is a swordsman, more ranks in sword, make sense. . .ranks in some esoteric spell would seem to require someone had taught the character. . .if the PCs spend a year in the desert it would seem strange if one of them piled on ranks of swimming they could never practice in the abscence of enough water to swim in. . .why wouldn't that logic apply to stat DP purchasing?

Your character spends a lot of time pumping iron, or loading wagons. . .go buy some strength. . .your functional moron should be doing something that justifies rising intelligence. . .which would make a lot of sense if you start characters as teens (who seem somewhat unreasoning and irrational to me as an adult) and grow up. . .but full adults, unless there's some reasoning, some training or life experience that is going on that would justify rising Reason and Presence. . .it's just buying swimming in the desert.

From a pure meta gaming perspective, that all makes perfect sense, from a role-play perspective it makes no sense at all unless you can in game justify it. . .I can't say either version is wrong, I've played plenty of RPGs that were essentially tactical board games with a pinch of roleplay, where that kind of logic would make perfect sense, but in roleplay heavy games, the GM likely wouldn't allow it unless it made sense, in context.

[Winterknight]

I'm reminded of one of my players, Bob, who played what was essentially a half-troll character for a time.  With good players, these issues work themselves out.  Bob's character had abyssmal PR and RE as well as IN.  He embraced his inner troll, and made it a good time for everyone.  Anytime a roll came up regarding social interaction, Bob would make sure all involved knew he was distractedly picking flesh out of his teeth with a blood-stained dagger, or bits of scalp out of his armor.  When perception checks were solicited, we would turn to Bob, and say, "Are you going to make a roll?" - he'd smile and say, "Why would I?  Did something edible just move?"

I think that ultimately, a discussion like that would be beneficial - encourage the player to embrace his limitations in a way that everyone enjoys.  Make sure he understands that by making certain paper choices, he is making personality choices as well.  If it's entertaining enough, it will become second nature.  Then, you might let them get away with something that might be strictly outside their abilities once in a while, because of the RP value they bring to the table otherwise. 

I also believe that given the hazards of the game environment, certain areas of expertise shouldn't be open to getting abused.  Thak the Unimpressive might have no idea how to appraise fruits and veggies, or many common goods, but because fighting is his life, he knows how to evaluate a blade - insofar as it applies to his exposure.  He might not know high steel from low steel, but he can certainly determine balance, heft, strength, etc.  He might be taken on a "shiny" purchase, but the shiny would be functional, at least.

[Nejira]

In short, the player created Lennie Small (from "Of Mice and Men") as his character.

That's okay.

After a few combats I'll level up and put some dp's into those stats and I'll be Gunn.

By level 10 I'll be Ozymandias.

First I know this is HARP and you technically dont have pot and temp in HARP. But this is one of the major issues I have with RM, its that your stats change ALL the time as you gain levels. Its makes it difficult to picture the character and put words on his capabilities. Yeah, I started out rather dumb but I got better. So in RM I ignore any flavor to the value of stats. Its mere a minus or plus to the dice.

Now in HARP there isn´t that issue, but you still may rise your stats later with DP so technically you can go from retarted to clever. IF we place more meaning than modifiers to the rolls, it becomes odd IMO.

To return to the original question: "Now what consequences would you you assume for Reasoning 31 and Presence 26? Is such a character still playable in your games?"

First I would assume that the player who took those stats, would be interested in playing a character with a low Re and a low Pr. So if that´s the case then yes such a character would be playable in my game. If the player is just min/maxing, well that´s his choice but I will let the NPCs react on his low Pr and I will set up scenes where he will be using Pr and Re as well in both cases.

That being said, no need to punish him beyond that. Yeah NPCs aint gonna take as easy to him as the bard with a Pr of 98, but isn´t that the point of Roleplaying, to play the character you want to? If you want to play such a character, I say go for it. I will back you up as the GM and be sure to play up to both your weaknesses and your strengths.

I am the type of GM which also rolls for social action, not just combat. It has been my experience, if the only thing you allow to be influenced by the dice are combat, well then the players are going to build characters around being good at combat and ignore social because "we can just roleplay that".