Yeah, I meant "Character Law" for RMFRPG. My bad (again)
If the book I got is regarded the balanced one I agree with phild here and am glad I never saw the unbalanced version
Althought I do get the idea of Talents n Flaws, I dont think they are handled that well. IMHO they should represents character traits more than simple bonuses to skills n rolls. Of course such traits should have a gamemechanic system to support it. But which Fighter wouldn?t take some of the fighter talents to become a even better fighter, then again all fighters would become even better...
If we said we had a design decision saying everything that makes a character better (training wise) is represented by skills becoming Everyman instead of having Everyman, Occupational, and +X options all mixed up. Then wouldn?t it be easier to balance it out (talent vs talent wise at least)?
If a character has a better sense of (hearing, smell,etc) then its +X to that specific sense.
And what if a Talent came with a specific Flaw instead of it being based on Y points. EG: Eloquence, because you spend your life being accustomed to relying on other means of persuation than physical combat, your Body Dev is lessened.
And please please, include in the rules that this Talent cannot be taken by (insert specific profession/race). EG: Power which gives you Y ranks for spells choosen within your own base, open and closed realm. But nothing (in the rules) prevents an thief from learning a few spells this way. I know you cant get any base lists because as a thief you dont have any, but you can get open/closed spelllists. I dont know the idea behind Power so I dont know if it was meant "only" for spell users or if it was meant as a pick me up some spells for all professions. I can of course ban it from my campaign but then I have to play the bad guy, plus have to actually sit down and read all the talents/flaws and have the surplus to determine which are balanced and which are unbalanced. IMHO I bought the book with the assumption that the book?s designers had done that for me
I like to quote phild here which seems to share my views (hope its alright phild
)
I want to know what the "canonical" view is for 3 main reasons:
1. I like to think that game designers have half a mind as to game balance when they send products out. Pre-balanced products save me at least part of a headache in evaluating how a given supplement or rule will fit into my game.
2. Players are awkward cusses, and anytime something can be spelled out in a book that I can roll up and thump them with, rather than invoking the GM Credo "It's my game, so there!", the better.
3. (and most pertinent to my current position) It's really hard to pull together character generation utilities when it's difficult to pinpoint what the official ruling on a matter is - yes, it's one thing to house-rule it, but it'd be nice when sharing my unlikely-ever-to-be-completed spreadsheet with the world to be able to say "yup, thems the rules"
Just some ideas going through my head (havnt done any math to check it out).
