Topic: Static Development Points?

[NEPHiLiX]

There seems to be quite a bit of flak against the dynamic DP system in HARP/RM, and I wonder if I'm missing something here.

First, I'm completely against the everyone-gets-the-same-DPs-per-level idea unless you roll for stats--but the HARP system already has a solution for that: buy your stats with a base set of points. My players also don't roll stats, for example, they get 575 points to spend on their stats.

If you want to spend tons of points to get a 100 stat and put like 40 in 2 or 3 other stats to get it (which has a huge effect on DPs), that's your decision. That cost creates balance.

Also, DPs spent on Stats are generally only recouped in 5 levels (i.e.: you spend 20 DPs to get your stat up to 86 from 66, which gives you +4 DPs per level. But because you've already spent 20, it will take 5 levels to recoup that expenditure until you begin making a DP profit--if spent wisely. This changes for DPs spent to raise stats higher than 90, as in the cost gets steeper and the return takes longer at 91+). Spend 20 every level for 5 levels and the cost:return ratio looks like this:

Level 1 = 40 DPs to begin, -20 DPs for stats = 20 points in the stat hole
Level 2 = 44 DPs, -20 DPs for stats = 36 points in the stat hole
Level 3 = 48 DPs, -20 = 48 points in the stat hole
Level 4 = 52 DPs, -20 = 56 points in the stat hole
Level 5 = 56 DPs, -20 = 60 points in the stat hole

Essentially what I'm getting at is that, until this stat hole is filled, this character has invested DPs that translates into having 60 less DPs spent by level 5 than another character who has spent nothing on DPs (that's 1 and a half levels of spending to that other PC!). However, once the previous PC makes good that gap, the DPs begin rolling in, but only at the expense of losing those DPs at those levels and waiting a few more levels to reap the gain. Let's say that that PC stops buying into stats after level 5.

Level 6 = 56 DPs = 16 DPs that that PC would not have had points not been spent in stats so minus that from the "DPs in the hole" to raise stats to that level = 60 - 16 = 44 now in the hole
Level 7 = 28 now in the hole
Level 8 = 12 now in the hole
Level 9 = +4 profit DPs at long last!
Level 10 = +16 profit DPs!
Level 11 = +another 16 profit DPs

And while my group finds that pure arms users can afford do this, semi and full spell users generally need to make these stat purchases at a much slower pace.

So far, I haven't had a problem with this with my players...although we're not DPS power-gamers, so that may be why. I suppose that once you've hit this DP profit-margin, rolling them back into stats would yield a crazy effect but, again, by the time you enjoy this you're already in the epic levels. PCs who don't do this, however, already bought many of the talents/spells that you're purchasing much more slowly until this point, which has greatly facilitated their advancement and survivability as against yours.

[Thom @ ICE]

If increasing stats only improved DP then I'd agree with your assessment 100% - the issue is that in addition to increasing the DP, it also increases your skill bonuses (which could be over a dozen valuable skills). 

Going from 66 to 86 in a stat increases the skill bonus for all skills that use that stat by +4.  At low levels that's not much advantage because your DP could be better spent increasing 10 skills by 1 rank each (in favored categories) and getting +5 in those skills, but once you reach the point where the skill bonus for ranks suffers from diminishing returns, then you are better off just increasing your stats until they reach 91 across the board (which is permissble in HARP since there are no Max stats).

That is my personal issue with the skill development system.  Eventually players move forward by increasing stats and individuality begins to blur as characters all can become high stats across the board.  I'd say high level HARP character options need to be expanded so that players spend their DPs on skills and enhanced abilities, rather than cranking up the stats.

[NEPHiLiX]

If increasing stats only improved DP then I'd agree with your assessment 100% - the issue is that in addition to increasing the DP, it also increases your skill bonuses (which could be over a dozen valuable skills). 

Going from 66 to 86 in a stat increases the skill bonus for all skills that use that stat by +4.  At low levels that's not much advantage because your DP could be better spent increasing 10 skills by 1 rank each (in favored categories) and getting +5 in those skills, but once you reach the point where the skill bonus for ranks suffers from diminishing returns, then you are better off just increasing your stats until they reach 91 across the board (which is permissble in HARP since there are no Max stats).

That is my personal issue with the skill development system.  Eventually players move forward by increasing stats and individuality begins to blur as characters all can become high stats across the board.  I'd say high level HARP character options need to be expanded so that players spend their DPs on skills and enhanced abilities, rather than cranking up the stats.

I actually find that stats generally have very little impact on determining character individuality. With very few players excepted, a Re and In stat of 51 generally doesn't prevent a player from coming up with a string of good ideas for his/her character to voice during gameplay (though it should and I usually try and remind my players to be mindful of their stats when role playing).

It's true that when PCs hit higher levels, they have fewer incentives to buy skills/talents/etc--so there's significant impetus to just plow what they can into stats, which eventually just generates more DPs and so compounds the lack-of-options issue.

On its own though, the dynamic DP issue doesn't really seem to be a problem, and I wonder if adding new skills/talents/abilities and introducing the Static DP system is just double-killing the issue. Buying 20 DPs into a stat essentially means: +4 to skills using that stat, and a net gain of +4 DPs after 5 levels. That's not bad in and of itself. I realize that boosting two different stats by 20 each means that skills using both stats would get +8 and +8 DPs after 6 levels (from the 1st) but, again, that doesn't seem like a problem to me (they spent 40 points to get that, the cost of Eloquence).

The real culprit is what you mentioned: lack of options to spend DPs on at higher levels. Expanded skills/talents/class-specific abilities/etc. If this issue is solved, I think the Dynamic DP issue ceases to be a problem.

[Thom @ ICE]

Agreed.... If we can provide options to help consume some of those DPs at high levels the issue goes away and character development continues.

Sidenote - You brought a smile to my face with your reference to players playing their stats for In and Re.  That is one of my pet peeves about roleplaying in general.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Maybe I've just gotten lucky with what players I had, but I've found having a smart person trying to play a character less intelligent than the player to be less of a problem than a medium smart person trying to play a character smarter than he is.

 

One of the fondest gaming memories I'll ever have was of my niece, who is flatly brilliant, playing a "dumb as a bag of hammers" dwarf named Dain Brammidge.

 

[Ecthelion]

The real culprit is what you mentioned: lack of options to spend DPs on at higher levels. Expanded skills/talents/class-specific abilities/etc. If this issue is solved, I think the Dynamic DP issue ceases to be a problem.

Agreed.... If we can provide options to help consume some of those DPs at high levels the issue goes away and character development continues.

I tend to disagree. For a power-gamer (which I tend to be) the incentive of, in the long run i.e. ~level 10 or higher, improving your stats without any negative impact on the available DPs is just to high to not invest heavily in stats. When using the 550 points for stats option from the HARP core rules and then invest 20 DPs into stats every level until all stats are at a value of 91, then the number of DPs per level improves until at, around level 10, you reach 72 DPs. And from around level 10 on, through this increasing number of DPs, the character got back all DPs he pumped into stats. So, on the extreme sides, for a development of these first 10 levels, you have the choice of either letting your DPs stay at ~40 or so from level 1 on, having 440 DPs to spend for skills and talents (double DPs in level 1), or you can pump 20 DPs into stats every level, having spent ~440 DPs for skills and talents plus 200 DPs for stats. For a power-gamer that's and easy choice (unless you plan to only play your characters until level 5 or so)...

Unfortunately though, this kind of character development leads to quite boring characters that usually have 91 in all stats and afterwards only have their stats raised by very small amounts, i.e. they all look more or less the same stat-wise. Therefore IMO the current approach for raising stats is broken, since it encourages such poor character development - at least it does so for those who like to get the most out of the system for their characters.

A few relatively easy ways to fix this come to my mind:
a) Fixed DPs: Stats then only get improved if it fits the character concept (character player style) or to improve the relevant skills (power-gamer style).
b) A much reduced allowed number of DPs that may be put into stats improvements, e.g. 5 points. This delays the "break-even", where you got all DPs pumped into stats back via improved DPs per level, until very late levels, so that, at least for non-epic campaigns, you won't ever hit this "DP break-even".
c) Allow stat imrovements only up to a certain value, based on the initial stat value. E.g. it might only be allowed to increase stats until they are 20 (or 10) points higher than at character creation. That would mean that a stat initially set to 50 could be raised up to 70, and a stat initially set to 80 could be raised until it reaches 100. The obvious downside is that it would be required to track the initial values.
d) A combination of b) and c).
e) Stats cannot be increased via DPs but you have a random chance of having it increase when reaching a new level. Requires some more dice rolling upon reaching a new level. And somehow it does not really feel HARP-like.

All these alternatives (and you could probably come up with even more variants) have their pros and cons. The IMO easiest approach is to set the stats to a fixed value. I must admit though, that I think this is a bit boring. I always enjoyed it when my Rolemaster characters reached another level and their stats increased and thereby also their total number of DPs. Thereby the character came a bit closer to those epic characters of the game world in terms of stats. And better stats also gave a slightly higher number of DPs. So Rolemaster uses variant e), but, since this IMO somehow does not fit for HARP, I personally would prefer variant b), which has smaller stats gains (which also I prefer) and a very much reduced incentive for power-gamers to abuse the system by increasing stats.

YMMV

[NEPHiLiX]

@Ecthelion

These are definitely interesting options (I especially like the variable thresholds, and think it would be great to make them pay more to boost them higher than 20 past the original score on a graded scale, i.e.: 1:1 to buy the first 20 to a stat, 2:1 for the next 10, 3:1 for the next 5), but I disagree with your assessment--although I think that has, at its root, everything to do with the differences in the type of game we run.

Now, you have more experience than I do as a power-gamer, admittedly, but let me juggle this around for a moment: using 550 points on stats yields 4 66s, 4 71s, and one 73 (for optimal DP yield). In order to get all those stats to 91, the player will have to put out 236 total DPs over 12 levels.

After constant, stat-focused spending (20DPs per level) since level 1, the level 6 power-gamer now has the same # of DPs available as the non-power-gamer after stat purchases, but has been unable to buy as many points in skills/talents in comparison to the regular gamer (thus increasing survivability of the former at these earlier levels). From levels 7-10, the power-gamer is playing good catch-up, and by level 10-12, to be sure, the power-gamer has become a juggernaut of development doom. But that gamer is really taking a chance with the bare-bones development of his character up to that point (lower RRs, lower skill-bonuses, fewer skills, fewer talents, etc). I mean, if someone wants to make an armored walking axe with hit points, I guess that's their perogative, but doesn't the campaign suffer? Aren't social and other non-combat skills essential to gameplay too?

It's for this reason that the HARP system to me seems to be geared toward players who develop their stats in a balanced way: i.e.: slower stat development in tandem with a more robust skill/talent selection with specialization in a few areas. If they want to risk being the player with no skills to speak of at lower levels, that's on them (i.e.: you don't have any skill in navigation? Then no, you can't automatically get there because you saw the place on a map. 1 rank in swimming? Good luck getting across that river, Grognak. Nothing in Foraging/Survival? No food for you out here unless you want to eat that Orc you just killed and be branded a cannibal. No Duping/Public Speaking? Then no, the order won't let you explore the sacred catacombs).

Don't these DPS players just rely on non-DPS players to carry things until combat arrives (or until they reach higher levels)? My players hammer on other players who rely on other PCs to pick up their slack. "Listen Grognak, you've got +95 in your axe and 86 stats in everything because I could read a map, could swim with you in tow, because I've been finding your damn food, and because I was able to sweet talk the clerics. Your character's a chump".

So it still seems to me that the HARP system (dynamic DPs and stat costs) creates considerable pressure for balanced development. Yes, that pressure can be resisted, but in so many ways I think that's why this system has so much finesse. Yes, the system can be taken advantage of, but it shouldn't be easy to do that unless other players enable it. Grognak would be a terrible choice for a single player adventure unless it all took place in a gladiators' arena.

[Thom @ ICE]

I find it interesting that you both are talking about high levels in the 10-12 range.

I'm thinking level 20 or so.   

Levels 1-6 you build your skill sets so that your well rounded and have a few strong points.
Levels 6-10 you focus on your strong points and begin slowly increasing stats.
Level 10-15 you really key in on stats, generally bringing everything up near 80's to 90's.
Level 16-20 you buy get your stats up to 91 and then 96 across the board - then develop skills that have nothing to do with your character's personality.....

This last set is (IMO) where I see a gap and needs to be developed - especially for non-spellcasters. 

The increase in DP or static DP doesn't become an issue until you've gotten into that 10+ level where you really start increasing stats for no other reason than to increase the DP's, so you can again increase the stats until you've max'd and can now take 60 DP and spend them to multi-class and then gain 20 ranks at one time in a spell that you'd normally never take.  Those higher levels should be where the High Adventure of HARP realy kicks in.. at least that's my thoughts on it.

[NEPHiLiX]

I find it interesting that you both are talking about high levels in the 10-12 range.

I'm thinking level 20 or so.   

Levels 1-6 you build your skill sets so that your well rounded and have a few strong points.
Levels 6-10 you focus on your strong points and begin slowly increasing stats.
Level 10-15 you really key in on stats, generally bringing everything up near 80's to 90's.
Level 16-20 you buy get your stats up to 91 and then 96 across the board - then develop skills that have nothing to do with your character's personality.....

This last set is (IMO) where I see a gap and needs to be developed - especially for non-spellcasters. 

The increase in DP or static DP doesn't become an issue until you've gotten into that 10+ level where you really start increasing stats for no other reason than to increase the DP's, so you can again increase the stats until you've max'd and can now take 60 DP and spend them to multi-class and then gain 20 ranks at one time in a spell that you'd normally never take.  Those higher levels should be where the High Adventure of HARP realy kicks in.. at least that's my thoughts on it.

Totally agree with your level progression table! But I think our discussion got carried into the what-you-could-do-if-you-pushed-the-system-to-its-limits hypothetical. With total focus on stats and a few key skills, assuming you survived, the benefits of 20th+ level can accrue early, in the 12th-15th range (because you'd have over 70DPs free and clear per level because your stat-DP debt is paid off by that time and by 12th you would already have caught up on the talents/skills that you neglected from 1st-6th).

[Ecthelion]

Now, you have more experience than I do as a power-gamer, admittedly, but let me juggle this around for a moment: using 550 points on stats yields 4 66s, 4 71s, and one 73 (for optimal DP yield). In order to get all those stats to 91, the player will have to put out 236 total DPs over 12 levels.

For optimal DP yield an assignment of 91,91,91,91,91,31,31,28 at lvl 1 is better. To get these stats to 91, the player will have to put 186 (!) DPs into stats. A stat of 91 requires 92 DPs => 8 x 91 requires 92 * 8 = 736 DPs in total. 736 DPs minus the 550 points from the fixed 550 points assignment leaves 186 DPs to invest over the course of level 1-10. With "DP-optimized" stats, like the ones I listed above, the break-even in terms of DPs gets reached with level 11. With more evenly distributed stats it gets reached a bit earlier, but at the cost of less total DPs overall.

After constant, stat-focused spending (20DPs per level) since level 1, the level 6 power-gamer now has the same # of DPs available as the non-power-gamer after stat purchases, but has been unable to buy as many points in skills/talents in comparison to the regular gamer (thus increasing survivability of the former at these earlier levels). From levels 7-10, the power-gamer is playing good catch-up, and by level 10-12, to be sure, the power-gamer has become a juggernaut of development doom.

Agreed, being able to spend 72 DPs per level is really a lot.

But that gamer is really taking a chance with the bare-bones development of his character up to that point (lower RRs, lower skill-bonuses, fewer skills, fewer talents, etc). I mean, if someone wants to make an armored walking axe with hit points, I guess that's their perogative, but doesn't the campaign suffer? Aren't social and other non-combat skills essential to gameplay too?

Two things to consider:
a) You usually play with a group of characters. With such development, where you invest a lot of DPs into stats, it is clearly more difficult to broadly invest into a lot of skills. But your fellow characters can compensate for weaknesses you have in one area and vice versa (also see below).

b) With such optimized stats as above, a character has 90 DPs in lvl. 1, can have 45 in lvl. 2, 49 in lvl. 3, 52 in lvl. 4, 54 in lvl. 5 and 58 in lvl. 6. Investing 20 DPs into stats per level means we have to reduce these numbers by 20 each to get the DPs available for skills and talents. A character with more evenly distributed stats as in your example and not investing into stats would have 72 DPs in lvl. 1 and 36 DPs every level after. Over the course of the first five levels (and afterwards the first character catches up again since the 38 DPs left after investing into stats are more than the 36 DPs of character two) the second character has accumulated 26 DPs more to invest in skills and stats than the first character. But compared to the total 216 DPs available that's merely 12% of that amount. These 12% don't mean that the character could really develop much more skills and talents. Honestly, 12% is only a bit, a rank here or there, or one or two skills developed a bit more. With such stat development a campaign will not suffer.

But I agree that, with more evenly distributed stats, where you have ~36 DPs to spend per level, pumping more than half of these DPs into stats will impact the ability to develop skills and talents tremedously.

Don't these DPS players just rely on non-DPS players to carry things until combat arrives (or until they reach higher levels)? My players hammer on other players who rely on other PCs to pick up their slack. "Listen Grognak, you've got +95 in your axe and 86 stats in everything because I could read a map, could swim with you in tow, because I've been finding your damn food, and because I was able to sweet talk the clerics. Your character's a chump".

That's an issue if you have different types of players, some power-gamers others not. If you all play the same style and pay attention that the PC group covers the most important skills, then it's, from my experience, not an issue.

So it still seems to me that the HARP system (dynamic DPs and stat costs) creates considerable pressure for balanced development. Yes, that pressure can be resisted, but in so many ways I think that's why this system has so much finesse. Yes, the system can be taken advantage of, but it shouldn't be easy to do that unless other players enable it. Grognak would be a terrible choice for a single player adventure unless it all took place in a gladiators' arena.

IIRC there were some threads here in the forums where problems with stat-dependent DPs came up. So, somewhat in contrast to your assessment above, there seems to be an issue with this for some people.

[NEPHiLiX]

For optimal DP yield an assignment of 91,91,91,91,91,31,31,28 at lvl 1 is better. To get these stats to 91, the player will have to put 186 (!) DPs into stats. A stat of 91 requires 92 DPs => 8 x 91 requires 92 * 8 = 736 DPs in total. 736 DPs minus the 550 points from the fixed 550 points assignment leaves 186 DPs to invest over the course of level 1-10. With "DP-optimized" stats, like the ones I listed above, the break-even in terms of DPs gets reached with level 11. With more evenly distributed stats it gets reached a bit earlier, but at the cost of less total DPs overall.

My players usually try and come up with their character personality in the development stage and try as best they can to translate that into stats. I hadn't even considered putting in so many ultra low/high scores right off the bat to get a DP yield like that--I didn't even know that could be done. That's...scary...

b) With such optimized stats as above, a character has 90 DPs in lvl. 1, can have 45 in lvl. 2, 49 in lvl. 3, 52 in lvl. 4, 54 in lvl. 5 and 58 in lvl. 6. Investing 20 DPs into stats per level means we have to reduce these numbers by 20 each to get the DPs available for skills and talents. A character with more evenly distributed stats as in your example and not investing into stats would have 72 DPs in lvl. 1 and 36 DPs every level after. Over the course of the first five levels (and afterwards the first character catches up again since the 38 DPs left after investing into stats are more than the 36 DPs of character two) the second character has accumulated 26 DPs more to invest in skills and stats than the first character. But compared to the total 216 DPs available that's merely 12% of that amount. These 12% don't mean that the character could really develop much more skills and talents. Honestly, 12% is only a bit, a rank here or there, or one or two skills developed a bit more. With such stat development a campaign will not suffer.

An interesting point, but what this comparison has done is minimize the fallout of this kind of development by comparing my level 1 load-out to yours, rather than an identical load-out at level 1. Using your load-out for both at Level 1, by Level 6 the non-powergamer would have a total of 315DPs, while the powergamer would have 363. However, Player 1 has spent 315 DPs on skills/talents by this point, while Player 2 has spent 243 DPs on Skills/Talents (having spent 120 DPs so far on stats). That's a lot to be without at those formative levels (that's 72 DPs, or 36 ranks). Player 2 needs to spend ~60 more DPs to get all of his stats up to 91 over the course of the next 3-4 levels. By Level 11, Player 1 has spent a total of 540 DPs on Skills/Talents, while Player 2 has spent 449 (from a larger total of 635 minus 186 for Stats = 449). 101 DPs is a lot (that's 50 ranks) to not have spent on skills/talents by this point.

Furthermore, while Player 2's stat bonuses will compensate for the lack of ranks/talents somewhat, it will take until Level 15 for Player 2 to have outspent Player 1 on skills/talents (again, assuming no stat purchases on the part of Player 1 and that Player 2 has stopped at 91s).

Player 1 at Level 11 = 540 DPs, +45 at Level 12 = 585, Level 13 = 630, Level 14 = 675, Level 15 = 720

Player 2 at Level 11 = 449 DPs, +72 at Level 12 = 521, Level 13 = 593, Level 14 = 665, Level 15 = 737

In other words, it took the power-gamer 14 levels to spend the same number of DPs as the non-power gamer on Skills/Talents--at which point Player 2 will leave Player 1 in the dust. Also, Player 1 would have been wise to have started shifting some of those excess DPs into stats before this point. However, at that point, they are excess DPs.

Now I realize that spending DPs on stats isn't a waste, I don't mean to suggest that at all, I'm just using this example to demonstrate that this kind of power-gaming stat-spending comes at a considerable cost that, IMO, is easier to digest by spending DPs on stats more slowly and that the dynamic DP system might need tweaking (some combination of the alternatives you suggested in your first post), but it hardly needs an overhaul.

[Ecthelion]

An interesting point, but what this comparison has done is minimize the fallout of this kind of development by comparing my level 1 load-out to yours, rather than an identical load-out at level 1.

Yes, this was a deliberate choice only to illustrate that it is possible to create characters that don't let the campaign suffer (as was your fear in an earlier posting), because if a standard character with evenly distributed stats who does not invest heavily into stats won't let the campaign suffer, then a character with optimized stats but investing 20 DPs per level into stats, but who only has ~12% less DPs at the worst point, won't do either. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, it pays out at around level 10-12.

[NEPHiLiX]

An interesting point, but what this comparison has done is minimize the fallout of this kind of development by comparing my level 1 load-out to yours, rather than an identical load-out at level 1.

Yes, this was a deliberate choice only to illustrate that it is possible to create characters that don't let the campaign suffer (as was your fear in an earlier posting), because if a standard character with evenly distributed stats who does not invest heavily into stats won't let the campaign suffer, then a character with optimized stats but investing 20 DPs per level into stats, but who only has ~12% less DPs at the worst point, won't do either. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, it pays out at around level 10-12.

Ah. But my fear wasn't that stats--optimized or not--would make the campaign suffer--I just used a 66s and 71s load-out because my players generally never start a stat below 51 so whatever the load-out is in this sense it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other when it comes to determining DPs. They usually put in a 91 or two, a couple of 86s and the rest lower. My fear was rather that those characters with optimized stats for DPs and heavy stat-spending were going to be threadbare in the skills/talents department. That would make the campaign suffer, IMO.

Essentially, the drive toward Static DPs is overkilling a problem with the Dynamic DP system that could be easily rectified with a little tweak here and there. There's no real need for a Static DP system.

[ReaperWolf]

Essentially, the drive toward Static DPs is overkilling a problem with the Dynamic DP system that could be easily rectified with a little tweak here and there. There's no real need for a Static DP system.

Unless your table mix consists of optimizers and casual gamers. The optimizers have a tremendous advantage over the others because they're willing to penny-pinch and explore builds to maximize their returns where as the casual players, such as my wife, just want to enjoy the game. Casual players, such as my wife, don't have the time or interest to tinker but in the past when someone came to the table with charts and graphs and an urge to exploit the system, the casual players were less than pleased.

It's your game, use whatever rules or make tweak that make you and your players happy. That's what it's all about but for some of us, fixed DPs are a solution to many a problem, as for myself, fixed DPs make it a lot easier to balance pregenerated characters for demo games at both local game stores and game conventions. Fixed DPs ensure all the characters at least have a semblance of balance of abilities in comparison with one another.

For my recent HARP events at Winter War 2011, I gave out 28 DPs +4 per level so the 3rd level characters had 140 DPs.

>>ReaperWolf

[jasonbrisbane]

Monsters start witha straight 75 in all stats.

Players are supposed to be heroes and more powerful so at least a 76 would be a minimum IMHO.

Otherwise the game name will have to change to low adventure role play !

[NEPHiLiX]

Essentially, the drive toward Static DPs is overkilling a problem with the Dynamic DP system that could be easily rectified with a little tweak here and there. There's no real need for a Static DP system.

Unless your table mix consists of optimizers and casual gamers. The optimizers have a tremendous advantage over the others because they're willing to penny-pinch and explore builds to maximize their returns where as the casual players, such as my wife, just want to enjoy the game. Casual players, such as my wife, don't have the time or interest to tinker but in the past when someone came to the table with charts and graphs and an urge to exploit the system, the casual players were less than pleased.

It's your game, use whatever rules or make tweak that make you and your players happy. That's what it's all about but for some of us, fixed DPs are a solution to many a problem, as for myself, fixed DPs make it a lot easier to balance pregenerated characters for demo games at both local game stores and game conventions. Fixed DPs ensure all the characters at least have a semblance of balance of abilities in comparison with one another.

For my recent HARP events at Winter War 2011, I gave out 28 DPs +4 per level so the 3rd level characters had 140 DPs.

>>ReaperWolf

There are other kinds of gamers beside the chart-wielding power-gamer and the laid-back casual gamer types. My players for example, are definitely not power-gamers, but would balk at being called "casual". They are serious gamers (we play 1-3 times a week for 5-9 hours a session). And while my players don't try and squeeze every ounce of advantage out of the system--they're still focused on making great characters with a good background, durable raison d'etre, believable stats and skill load-outs, and an interesting personality). They also very often come up with great ideas and then say, out of character: "I'd love to do that, but my character would never even consider it (or would never have thought of that)".

My other point is that your optimizers are no more "optimized" than  my serious players. In fact, if you read my responses closely, you'll notice that my point is that power-gaming via heavy stat-spending puts you at a disadvantage for at least 10-12 levels in the skills/talents department, during which time your power-gamers need to totally orchestrate their skill-development with each other or rely on the more organically-developed PCs to keep the story flowing. Essentially, they're living on time provided by the organic developers.

What my examples above alluded to was the advantage that is to be yielded via much slower stat development, which yields a much more consistently-sustainable build from the lowest to the highest levels. For tournament play, sure, the power-gamer has the distinct advantage because that PC is only around for a weekend then that's it. But for those who don't play fire-and-forget characters, things become a lot clearer.

The Dynamic DP system is not broken.

[jasonbrisbane]

Players who roleplay as oppopsed to being power gamwer min maxers go up levels quicker and have more fun as their characters have personal goals that tend to get achieved quicker, and these also drive the game more than simply "set" adventures...

Imho....

[Ecthelion]

jasonbrisbane, it should be noted, though, that good roleplaying and trying to create a good character (power-gaming only in its extreme form) is not mutually exclusive. As NEPHiLiX mentioned, his players are of this type. And IMO in our group we are also good roleplayers, even if we squeeze much out of the system to create good characters.

[GrumpyOldFart]

From my point of view, the whole purpose of the chargen mechanics is to translate the character concept as completely as possible into game terms. Fine and good, but in that context grumbling about "min maxing power gamers" rather assumes that the person with the kind of commitment necessary to becoming an Olympic athlete doesn't actually exist, doesn't it? What else would you call such a hyperfocused, obsessive personality in game terms?

And don't leave out the models, the rock stars, the first generation Wall Street icons, the people who go from "drop-out" to "millionaire", etc. Aren't they all just "min maxing power gamers" in the real world?

[NEPHiLiX]

From my point of view, the whole purpose of the chargen mechanics is to translate the character concept as completely as possible into game terms. Fine and good, but in that context grumbling about "min maxing power gamers" rather assumes that the person with the kind of commitment necessary to becoming an Olympic athlete doesn't actually exist, doesn't it? What else would you call such a hyperfocused, obsessive personality in game terms?

And don't leave out the models, the rock stars, the first generation Wall Street icons, the people who go from "drop-out" to "millionaire", etc. Aren't they all just "min maxing power gamers" in the real world?

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this. The power-gaming player became an issue in this context because it seems as though it's the power-gamers that see the Dynamic DP system as inherently flawed, which it isn't. If what you're suggesting--and I'm not sure that you are--is that power-gamers are the gamers with Olympic-level focus, I completely disagree. Taking a Mage every time with maxed out ranks in Magic Darts just because that's a killer spell without peer (at least before the official ruling on it a short while ago) then proceeding to use it every encounter, at every chance, is not evidence of an Olympic-level focus and it further ignores some of the other exceptional components of a roleplaying game. Making believable/organic characters, restricting your character to his stats (playing your character's Re and Sd) and persona, creating a dynamic dialogue, and doing your best to add flavor to the story line is extremely important to excel at, too. Your Olympic (extreme) power-gamer may know how to run and jump real high every single time, but this is a pentathalon where more than that matters.

Again though, I'm not quite sure what you were driving at in your original post so I may be making a point that's totally out of sync with your comment above. If so, I apologize in advance.