Realism vs Equal Opportunity in RPGs
Stephen Baillie
capable in all respects, and so give both sexes exactly the same
attribute generation rules. I've put together a (computer) RPG of my
own, and thought I'd tie attribute generation directly to a players
choice of sex and race.
As it stands, my characters have base scores of 5 in the attributes
strength, dexterity, constitution and power. These do what they usually
do in RPGs; the only slightly unusual one is power, which controls
magical ability, spell point maximums, and spell point recovery.
Now if you choose to play a male character you get +2 str, while
choosing a female one gives you +1 dex and +1 pow. All attribute
advancement is flat cost, flat bonus, so the net gain is the same in
both cases. There is no connection demanded or implied between a
player's sex and that of their character (but see my second link at the end).
Similarly, humans get +1 each to str, dex and con, dwarves +1 str and +2
con, and elves +2 dex and +1 pow, for a total of +3 in each case.
This seemed to me to be a nicely aesthetic way of doing something quite
close to point based stat allocation, while maintaining the traditional
difference between these fantasy races, and the actual differences
between males and females (well, apart from the power bit - but if you
assume the existance of magic, it makes a sort of sense). There are no
classes in the game, as it is a skill based system, but some skills
require particular attribute values (male humans and dwarves can't learn
any spells without deliberately increasing their power).
Now many pieces of equipment require minimum skill levels to use. Axes
have a str requirement, bows have a dex requirement. I've got some
feedback from a beta tester expressing concern that this may generate
complaints of sexism. While my primary defence against such claims is
reality, I would be interested to hear whether having male characters be
automatically stronger than female would put people off an RPG.
It affects combat style, as armour mostly has strength requirements, so
female elves can't get much armour at all (padded/quilted only), and
female humans and dwarves cannot wear really heavy armour (currently no
metal armour) without improving their str (which is possible, but you
have to spend development points on it).
I'll be interested to hear what your responses are!
Thanks,
Stephen.
PS Links for those who object to my claiming that men are stronger than women:
UK Ministry of Defence report which includes some hard data on physical
differences between the sexes:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/ewaf_full_report.pdf
And an interesting article which seems to indicate a noticable inherent
resistance to playing a character of the opposite sex:
Richard Vickery
> Now if you choose to play a male character you get +2 str, while
> choosing a female one gives you +1 dex and +1 pow. All attribute
> advancement is flat cost, flat bonus, so the net gain is the same in
> both cases. There is no connection demanded or implied between a
> player's sex and that of their character (but see my second link at the end).
>
> Similarly, humans get +1 each to str, dex and con, dwarves +1 str and +2
> con, and elves +2 dex and +1 pow, for a total of +3 in each case.
My homebrew had the same sort of system, and no players had a
problem with it.
Cheers
Richard V
Torben Ægidius Mogensen
> Most RPGs state flatly that men and women are assumed to be equally
> capable in all respects, and so give both sexes exactly the same
> attribute generation rules. I've put together a (computer) RPG of my
> own, and thought I'd tie attribute generation directly to a players
> choice of sex and race.
> Now if you choose to play a male character you get +2 str, while
> choosing a female one gives you +1 dex and +1 pow. All attribute
> advancement is flat cost, flat bonus, so the net gain is the same in
> both cases.
If you are able to increase your attributes at linear cost, the
modifiers have no effect at all except, perhaps, to change the minimum
and maximum values for each attribute. If you use a non-linear cost
system and apply the modifiers after you have bought increases, then
it does have an effect, but then having the same sum for the modifiers
does not necessarily equate identical value, since a +2 modifier will
be worth more than two +1 modifiers. Not that this is important
unless you believe all attributes are equally important to all
characters.
Similar approaches have been used in many RPG's, for example Powers &
Perils, where you roll attributes and add the modifiers. No further
modification of the native attributes are possible (though you can
raise your current attribute up to a multiple of the native
attribute). The modifiers do not add up to the same total (ranging
from totals of -2 for a female dwarf to +7 for a male faerry or female
elf).
Torben
Brian G. Vaughan
> Most RPGs state flatly that men and women are assumed to be equally
> capable in all respects, and so give both sexes exactly the same
> attribute generation rules. I've put together a (computer) RPG of my
> own, and thought I'd tie attribute generation directly to a players
> choice of sex and race.
I guess the first thing that crosses my mind is, what's the benefit of
realism here? Given that real world medieval armies didn't have female
soldiers at all, what's really more realistic about encouraging characters
in heavy armor wielding melee weapons to be male, and characters characters
in light armor wielding ranged weapons to be female? Making no distinction
between male and female stats leaves decisions about gender to the player.
> As it stands, my characters have base scores of 5 in the attributes
> strength, dexterity, constitution and power. These do what they usually
> do in RPGs; the only slightly unusual one is power, which controls
> magical ability, spell point maximums, and spell point recovery.
>
> Now if you choose to play a male character you get +2 str, while
> choosing a female one gives you +1 dex and +1 pow. All attribute
> advancement is flat cost, flat bonus, so the net gain is the same in
> both cases. There is no connection demanded or implied between a
> player's sex and that of their character (but see my second link at the
end).
That's irrelevant, anyway, unless you're worried about alienating men who
want to play male archers, and women who want to play female melee fighters.
> Similarly, humans get +1 each to str, dex and con, dwarves +1 str and +2
> con, and elves +2 dex and +1 pow, for a total of +3 in each case.
Using these numbers, the distinction between male and female is greater than
the distinction between human and dwarf. Since dwarves are imaginary,
there's no way to assess what the realistic distinction would be. My sense,
though, is there ought to be a greater difference between different species
then there should be between genders.
> This seemed to me to be a nicely aesthetic way of doing something quite
> close to point based stat allocation, while maintaining the traditional
> difference between these fantasy races, and the actual differences
> between males and females (well, apart from the power bit - but if you
> assume the existance of magic, it makes a sort of sense). There are no
> classes in the game, as it is a skill based system, but some skills
> require particular attribute values (male humans and dwarves can't learn
> any spells without deliberately increasing their power).
>
> Now many pieces of equipment require minimum skill levels to use. Axes
> have a str requirement, bows have a dex requirement. I've got some
> feedback from a beta tester expressing concern that this may generate
> complaints of sexism. While my primary defence against such claims is
> reality, I would be interested to hear whether having male characters be
> automatically stronger than female would put people off an RPG.
Realism isn't everything. Adventurers in a fantasy RPG are inherently
unrealistic, anyway. It seems an unnecessary complication.
> It affects combat style, as armour mostly has strength requirements, so
> female elves can't get much armour at all (padded/quilted only), and
> female humans and dwarves cannot wear really heavy armour (currently no
> metal armour) without improving their str (which is possible, but you
> have to spend development points on it).
>
> I'll be interested to hear what your responses are!
Why add a rule that adds nothing to a game, but might make players angry?
Peter Knutsen
Stephen Baillie wrote:
> Most RPGs state flatly that men and women are assumed to be equally
> capable in all respects, and so give both sexes exactly the same
> attribute generation rules. I've put together a (computer) RPG of my
> own, and thought I'd tie attribute generation directly to a players
> choice of sex and race.
I always use the term "character generation" about an automated
process, e.g. "rolling up a character for a game of D&D", and the term
"character creation" for an interactive process, e.g. "spending
points to create a character for a role-playing gaming campaign",
because I see the two activities as having very, very little in common.
> As it stands, my characters have base scores of 5 in the attributes
> strength, dexterity, constitution and power. These do what they usually
That attribute set makes me suspect that your game will be mainly
about violent kinds of conflits.
> do in RPGs; the only slightly unusual one is power, which controls
> magical ability, spell point maximums, and spell point recovery.
>
> Now if you choose to play a male character you get +2 str, while
> choosing a female one gives you +1 dex and +1 pow. All attribute
> advancement is flat cost, flat bonus, so the net gain is the same in
> both cases. There is no connection demanded or implied between a
Yup: The net gain is zero. Nothing. Nada.
If your system is as you've described it, it makes no difference
whatsoever whether one creates a male or female character.
> player's sex and that of their character (but see my second link at the end).
>
> Similarly, humans get +1 each to str, dex and con, dwarves +1 str and +2
> con, and elves +2 dex and +1 pow, for a total of +3 in each case.
Likewise completely pointless.
> This seemed to me to be a nicely aesthetic way of doing something quite
To me it seems utterly stupid. It' is rules without any real purpose.
Now, I *like* rules, but only when they serve a function. Yours don't.
> close to point based stat allocation, while maintaining the traditional
> difference between these fantasy races, and the actual differences
Your rules maintains no such thing. It is as easy/cheap to make a DEX
9 Dwarf as it is to make a DEX 9 Elf.
> between males and females (well, apart from the power bit - but if you
> assume the existance of magic, it makes a sort of sense). There are no
> classes in the game, as it is a skill based system, but some skills
> require particular attribute values (male humans and dwarves can't learn
> any spells without deliberately increasing their power).
>
> Now many pieces of equipment require minimum skill levels to use. Axes
> have a str requirement, bows have a dex requirement. I've got some
> feedback from a beta tester expressing concern that this may generate
> complaints of sexism. While my primary defence against such claims is
> reality, I would be interested to hear whether having male characters be
> automatically stronger than female would put people off an RPG.
Male characters aren't *automatically* stronger in my homebrew system,
but the point-buy structure is such that they are *more* *likely* to
come out with a higher Strength, while female characters are *more*
*likely* to come out with a lower Strength (only for species with a
significant degree of sexual dimorphism, of course - as in not Dwarves).
> It affects combat style, as armour mostly has strength requirements, so
> female elves can't get much armour at all (padded/quilted only), and
> female humans and dwarves cannot wear really heavy armour (currently no
> metal armour) without improving their str (which is possible, but you
> have to spend development points on it).
>
> I'll be interested to hear what your responses are!
I think you're going about things entirely the wrong way.
First of all, the "flat cost" thing completely defeats your purpose.
You're not the only one doing that, though. Some years ago I used to
GM someone else's freeware RPG system, Quest FRP, which did the exact
same thing.
There were no sex-based modifiers (by the time I started using the
system - it had had such modifiers in earlyer versions), but Dwarves
would get a bonus to Dexterity and Constitution and Will, but a
penalty to Agility, and to the Height roll. Halflings (who are half
Human and half Faerie, i.e. Half-Elves) would get a bonus to Magic
Talent and Agility and Dexterity, but a penalty to Strength and
something else (I've forgotten what it was).
But since attributes were largely flat cost, that ended up making no
difference for 99% of player characters. It wasn't completely flat
cost. The attribute scale used had 12 as average, and was only flat
cost up to 18 (which was supposed to be high, but felt exceedingly
mediocre in terms of skill learning speed differences), and since very
few players would want attributes above 18, it made no difference for
them, so they might cheerfully play an Agility 16 Dwarf, or a Strength
16 Halfling (I think they had, respectively, Agility -2 and Strength
-2, so a value of 17 would have been more expensive, in being outside
the "flat cost" range).
The problem was that there was a "free point trading" zone, within
which there was no discouragement from any kind of point trade. Thus
players of Dwarves might cheerfully sell down Constitution and Will,
and buy up Agility, as long as they stay below the value of 19 (- the
modifier).
So you'd be much better off abandoning the flat cost "idiology".
My homebrew RPG system uses a scale where 3 is average, and 1 or 0
represents a very low value, and 8 is usually the Human maximum
(anything above 8 is superHuman).
You get a pool of general type points, Goodie Points, which you
distribute among four types of sub-points, for Attributes, Advantages
(anything intrinsic that isn't an Attribute or a Skill), Skills and
Perks (extrinsic advantages, like Wealth, Reputation, Rank, Legal
Enforcement Powers). GPs translate into APs, DPs, SP and PPs according
to a non-linear formula.
Any starting character begins with 3 in all attributes. Then species
package attribute value modifiers are applied (which are conveniently
+0 to all attributes for the Human species, and also for almost all
other species for all attributes). After that you buy up or sell down,
according to a species-determined cost scheme.
The basic attribute cost scheme, which applies to 9 of the 12 Human
attributes, goes as this (Strength and Size depends on your sex, and
Hardiness costs a lot more than the others):
Att. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cost -12 -3 0 4 16 36 64 100
A species package can then modify the cost scheme for any given
attribute, to reduce (move closer to zero) or increase (move farther
away from zero) all costs. Some species packages also apply a flat
modifier to the attribute value, but that is rare.
Not so long ago I decided that I might as well do the same with
Humans, to take sexual dimorphism into account. At the same time, I
would also make Strength and Size cheaper (somewhat cheaper for
females, much cheaper for males), since I felt that those two
attributes are less desirable than the other ones (Dexterity, Agility,
Perception, Intelligence, Will, Charisma, et cetera, those that you
use to learn skills with, and roll for in important situations).
At one point I had Perception being cheaper for Blind characters,
thinking that a good way to represent the fact that Blind people tend
to use their ears and noses a lot, but later on I opted for a
different solution to that problem (letting Blind characters buy,
relatively cheaply, a bonus to Perception only applicable to Taste,
Smell and Hearing rolls).
Here are the costs for Strength and Size for male and female Humans:
Att. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Strength(m) -8 -2 0 3 12 27 48 75
Strength(f)-12 -3 0 4 16 36 64 100
Size(m) -4 -1 0 2 8 18 32 50
Size(f) -8 -2 0 3 12 27 48 75
This means that players, when creating characters, are more likely to
buy up Strength and Size when making a male Human character, and less
likely to sell down Strength and Size when doing so, and when making a
female Human character they are less likely to buy up Strength and
Size, and more likely to sell down Strength and Size.
You won't see the effect just on a single created character, but that
is comparable to picking up a single woman, off the streets, and
testing her Strength - there *is* a chance that she will turn out to
be stronger than the average male, but since she's a single specimen
we can draw no valid conclusions from that. You will see a pattern
among the hundreds of created characters, of males being stronger and
larger than females, just as you would if you randomly picked 100
women and 100 men from the streets, and tested their Strength.
(There are also maximums, based on sex and on species, with male
Humans being able to have a Strength as high as 9, but female Humans
being limited to a Strength of 7 and a Size of 6).
It may look as if men get something and women get nothing, i.e. that
women are being short-changed, but that is wrong. If anything it is
the other way around: Players creating female characters get a
wonderful opportunity to sell down the largely useless Strength and
Size attributes (they are only really useful in combat), getting good
compensatory points for doing so, points which they can spend on
buying something that is actually useful, like Charisma or
Intelligence or Dexterity.
Non-Human species also get such modified cost schemes, so that a
pattern will emerge, of them being basically different, tending more
towards higher X and lower Y. Dwarves are, by far, the best defined
non-Human species so far.
They get more expensive Agility, but cheaper Will, and a flat +1 bonus
to Constitution, on top of which they buy normally. The cost scheme
goes like this:
Att. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Agility(d) -16 -4 0 5 20 36 80 125
Will(d) -12 -3 0 4 16 36 64 100
Const.(d) -27 -12 -3 0 4 16 36 64
Other[1] -12 -3 0 4 16 36 64 100
[1] Except Hardiness, the cost of which I will not touch upon at the
moment, because its very high cost is due to how the combat/Wound
system works.
As you can see, the cost of Constitution has simply been shifted one
column to the right, reflecting the fact that Dwarves are very, very
tough.
Agility costs more to raise, meaning that very few players will buy up
the Agility of their Dwarf characters, and those who do it will buy it
up only slightly (don't seriously expect to see *any* Agility 6
Dwarven PCs at all, and only very *few* such NPCs), while
proportionally more players of Dwarven than of Human characters will
choose to sell down Agility.
The situation with Will is completely reversed: Many players of
Dwarven characters will go "I might as well..." when seeing how cheap
it is to buy up Will, and thus increase Will even though character
conceptual justification is tenous. (But this is basically good - you
don't need justification for giving a Dwarven character a Will of 4).
This approach basically works. It does what it should do. It achieves
differing averages between the sexes and between the species.
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen.
[...]
> And an interesting article which seems to indicate a noticable inherent
> resistance to playing a character of the opposite sex:
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=415043
I don't like systems which try to force me to play a female character,
by giving to female Humans bonuses to attributes which I consider
highly desirable, thus penalizing me for preferring to play a male
character.
The "bonus" effect in FFRE is very weak, since I can also choose to
"sell down" Strength if making a male character (I'll just get *less*
compensation than if it was a female character), but I think systems
which gives significant bonuses to other attributes (like giving
females higher, or cheaper, Agility, Strength, Charisma or Magic) are
out of line. I like playing characters who are sneaky or magical or
both, so I dislike systems which claim that female Humans are
intrinsically better suited at such endavours, such as Brian
Gleichman's "Age of Heroes" (a freeware system which Brian recently
withdrew from the WWW, as part of a general retreat) which gives
female Humans a bonus to both Agility and Intuition (i.e. Magic), in
return from a (from my point of view) utterly irrelevant penalty to
Strength (and Size).
[1] But for those of you who care, I can relate that he told me in
email that he *is* still roleplaying. He only retreated from online,
not from the hobby itself.
--
Peter Knutsen
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 05:04:07 +0200:
> Stephen Baillie wrote:
>> Most RPGs state flatly that men and women are assumed to be equally
>> capable in all respects, and so give both sexes exactly the same
>> attribute generation rules. I've put together a (computer) RPG of my
>> own, and thought I'd tie attribute generation directly to a players
>> choice of sex and race.
> I always use the term "character generation" about an automated
> process, e.g. "rolling up a character for a game of D&D", and the term
> "character creation" for an interactive process, e.g. "spending
> points to create a character for a role-playing gaming campaign",
> because I see the two activities as having very, very little in common.
There are, AFAIK, no "pure" random systems, so it's irrelevant. Most
random systems have a number of decision points. The only difference is
that some systems have random processes between the decision points, and
some use deterministic processes in between.
It's also a misuse of common gaming terminology, where the two are
synonyms.
>> do in RPGs; the only slightly unusual one is power, which controls
>> magical ability, spell point maximums, and spell point recovery.
>> Now if you choose to play a male character you get +2 str, while
>> choosing a female one gives you +1 dex and +1 pow. All attribute
>> advancement is flat cost, flat bonus, so the net gain is the same in
>> both cases. There is no connection demanded or implied between a
> Yup: The net gain is zero. Nothing. Nada.
> If your system is as you've described it, it makes no difference
> whatsoever whether one creates a male or female character.
That can be trivially fixed by also modifying the maximum score an
attribute can be improved to.
Plus, it does have a psychological effect on the players, even if it
doesn't force them to do anything.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"The computer is incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid.
Man is unbelievably slow, inaccurate, and brilliant.
The marriage of the two is a force beyond calculation." -Leo Cherne
Peter Knutsen
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
>>I always use the term "character generation" about an automated
>>process, e.g. "rolling up a character for a game of D&D", and the term
>> "character creation" for an interactive process, e.g. "spending
>>points to create a character for a role-playing gaming campaign",
>>because I see the two activities as having very, very little in common.
>
>
> There are, AFAIK, no "pure" random systems, so it's irrelevant. Most
> random systems have a number of decision points. The only difference is
Old D&D let you choose a class: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf,
Elf or Halfling. Everything else was automated. You could essentially
write a computer program and tell it to churn out characters ("make 7
Elf, 2 Mage, 2 Dwarf") and it would create character sheets with the
same amount of detail and individuality as the sheet of a
human-created character.
> that some systems have random processes between the decision points, and
> some use deterministic processes in between.
>
> It's also a misuse of common gaming terminology, where the two are
> synonyms.
Nope, I find the "generation" vs "creation" distinction is highly
useful. Especially since it neatly divides old school systems from
modern ones (i.e. ones designed within the last 25 years).
>>Yup: The net gain is zero. Nothing. Nada.
>>If your system is as you've described it, it makes no difference
>>whatsoever whether one creates a male or female character.
>
>
> That can be trivially fixed by also modifying the maximum score an
> attribute can be improved to.
Or by making it more expensive to raise above a certain magnitude,
like above +6 over the base value, it costs double, above +9 it costs
quadruple.
The problem is, Quest FRP *did* that, but it achieved effectively
nothing. You'd see lots of Strength 16 Halflings and lots of Agility
16 Dwarves, and that is undesirabe (the "lots" part - a *few* such
people would make the game world feel more realistic).
> Plus, it does have a psychological effect on the players, even if it
> doesn't force them to do anything.
That effect is very minor. Especially given my attitude towards
character creation rules. I do whatever I damn well want to, within
the rules, except if they are so absurdly easy to optimize that I
simply refuse to play. I am immune to pressure trynig to make me not
make certain choices or combinations of choices, and I refuse to give
the GM the right to reject a character that was created according to
the rules that the GM originally gave me.
The bottom line is that flat cost simply doesn't work. Its only
attraction, which I understand to be exceedingly strong for some, is
the simplicity of it.
--
Peter Knutsen
Travis Casey
>>>I always use the term "character generation" about an automated
>>>process, e.g. "rolling up a character for a game of D&D", and the term
>>> "character creation" for an interactive process, e.g. "spending
>>>points to create a character for a role-playing gaming campaign",
>>>because I see the two activities as having very, very little in common.
>>
>> There are, AFAIK, no "pure" random systems, so it's irrelevant. Most
>> random systems have a number of decision points. The only difference is
>
> Old D&D let you choose a class: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf,
> Elf or Halfling. Everything else was automated. You could essentially
> write a computer program and tell it to churn out characters ("make 7
> Elf, 2 Mage, 2 Dwarf") and it would create character sheets with the
> same amount of detail and individuality as the sheet of a
> human-created character.
Nitpick: That's "Basic D&D" (and the expansions of that branch of the
family). The original D&D allowed picking both a race and a class.
Further, it's not true. Basic D&D allowed rearranging attribute points to
move points into the prime attribute of your chosen class, at a cost of
lowering an attribute by two points to raise your prime attribute by one.
From a game statistics point of view, no character is complete until
equipped, especially in D&D, where equipment determines several major
statistics (armor class, damage value). Equipment was not random; the
amount of money one had to buy it was, but after that, the player could
freely choose what to buy.
Lastly, there are several things which are freely chosen which may not
matter from a combat statistics point of view, but do matter for
roleplaying. The character's sex, age, height, weight, background, etc.
were left up to the player.
>> That can be trivially fixed by also modifying the maximum score an
>> attribute can be improved to.
>
> Or by making it more expensive to raise above a certain magnitude,
> like above +6 over the base value, it costs double, above +9 it costs
> quadruple.
>
> The problem is, Quest FRP *did* that, but it achieved effectively
> nothing. You'd see lots of Strength 16 Halflings and lots of Agility
> 16 Dwarves, and that is undesirabe (the "lots" part - a *few* such
> people would make the game world feel more realistic).
Were there really "lots" of such people, or were there just a lot among the
player characters? In most normal game worlds, player characters are a
very small fraction of the population, and many games explicitly posit that
player characters are *supposed to be* unusual. I don't know if Quest is
one of them, but, for example, AD&D certainly is.
>> Plus, it does have a psychological effect on the players, even if it
>> doesn't force them to do anything.
>
> That effect is very minor. Especially given my attitude towards
> character creation rules. I do whatever I damn well want to, within
> the rules, except if they are so absurdly easy to optimize that I
> simply refuse to play. I am immune to pressure trynig to make me not
> make certain choices or combinations of choices, and I refuse to give
> the GM the right to reject a character that was created according to
> the rules that the GM originally gave me.
>
> The bottom line is that flat cost simply doesn't work. Its only
> attraction, which I understand to be exceedingly strong for some, is
> the simplicity of it.
Correction: it doesn't work for you or the groups you've played with. It
may (and, by report, does) work for others.
--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Robert FISHER
>
> Old D&D let you choose a class: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf, Elf
> or Halfling. Everything else was automated. You could essentially write
> a computer program and tell it to churn out characters ("make 7 Elf, 2
> Mage, 2 Dwarf") and it would create character sheets with the same
> amount of detail and individuality as the sheet of a human-created
> character.
>
Hmm. Old D&D let you choose Fighting Man, Cleric, or Magic User. The D&D
Basic Set introduced races-as-classes, and it gave you options during
character creation you'd be wise (IMHO) to consider.
For classic Traveller, you could write a computer program to generate
characters that wasn't too different from doing it by hand. The primary
decision point (Which service do I try to enroll in?) already had a
random mechanic you could choose (or be forced to use). Other decision
points (Should I try to find anagathics? Should I reinlist or muster
out?) could be hard coded since 90% of the time players answered them
the same way. The process could even outfit the characters with some gear.
In fact, I think the supplements of NPCs were computer generated.
--
Robert FISHER
(Replies via email presumed to be spam. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Alignment is also chosen, and that's a very significant trait.
>>> Plus, it does have a psychological effect on the players, even if it
>>> doesn't force them to do anything.
>> That effect is very minor. Especially given my attitude towards
>> character creation rules. I do whatever I damn well want to, within
>> the rules, except if they are so absurdly easy to optimize that I
>> simply refuse to play. I am immune to pressure trynig to make me not
>> make certain choices or combinations of choices, and I refuse to give
>> the GM the right to reject a character that was created according to
>> the rules that the GM originally gave me.
>> The bottom line is that flat cost simply doesn't work. Its only
>> attraction, which I understand to be exceedingly strong for some, is
>> the simplicity of it.
> Correction: it doesn't work for you or the groups you've played with. It
> may (and, by report, does) work for others.
Indeed. Most players aren't as deliberately adversarial to the Judge
as Peter. Character creation is a conversation with my groups, *not* a
mechanical process. I like mechanics, but they have to be tempered with
human contact. That's why I still play P+P RPGs, rather than just
playing MUDs or CRPGs all day.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:00:15 GMT:
> For classic Traveller, you could write a computer program to generate
> characters that wasn't too different from doing it by hand. The primary
> decision point (Which service do I try to enroll in?) already had a
> random mechanic you could choose (or be forced to use). Other decision
> points (Should I try to find anagathics? Should I reinlist or muster
> out?) could be hard coded since 90% of the time players answered them
> the same way. The process could even outfit the characters with some gear.
You get a decision of which of several tables of skills to roll on
every term (or twice a term, for scouts). If you choose deliberately,
you'll produce very different styles of character. Mustering-out gear
is pretty minimal, too. In practice, you had to buy a ton of gear.
> In fact, I think the supplements of NPCs were computer generated.
Yes, and their skills often didn't make much sense, because the table
was randomly-chosen. You could make characters just as sensible in any
point-based game by choosing random skills.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Lastly, there are several things which are freely chosen which may not
>matter from a combat statistics point of view, but do matter for
>roleplaying. The character's sex, age, height, weight, background, etc.
^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
There were tables for these in the Dungeon Master's Guide. I do
not think that many used them. As to background, there was a social
standing table.
>were left up to the player.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Stephen Baillie
> process, e.g. "rolling up a character for a game of D&D", and the
> term "character creation" for an interactive process, e.g.
> "spending points to create a character for a role-playing gaming
> campaign", because I see the two activities as having very, very
> little in common.
Isn't it lucky for me then that I used neither of your loaded terms?
What I was aiming for was a point-spending system where the points can
only be spent in particular blocks, so your choice of race and sex IS
your point spending.
> That attribute set makes me suspect that your game will be mainly
> about violent kinds of conflits.
Or that I feel that quantising social attributes defeats the purpose of
role-playing. But there's a long tradition of violent conflicts in
RPGs, so even if your suspicions were correct, that wouldn't necssarily
be a bad thing, would it?
> Yup: The net gain is zero. Nothing. Nada.
>
> If your system is as you've described it, it makes no difference
> whatsoever whether one creates a male or female character.
I think I see where you're getting lost. You are presuming that one can
buy (and sell) attributes during character creation. That is not the
case - there is a flat model for attributes, but they can only be
increased, and only during play, not during character creation. This is
a deliberate choice to make character creation workable over a rather
low player bandwidth.
> To me it seems utterly stupid. It' is rules without any real purpose.
> Now, I *like* rules, but only when they serve a function. Yours don't.
Does it make a difference if I'm not actually using your presumed
mechanism for character creation?
> Your rules maintains no such thing. It is as easy/cheap to make a DEX
> 9 Dwarf as it is to make a DEX 9 Elf.
In the long run, yes. But that all happens in game play, and hopefully
one's formative years (early levels, however you want to think about it)
will affect one's long term development.
> I think you're going about things entirely the wrong way.
Thank you for the insight into your home-brewed system.
Steve.
Travis Casey
> Travis Casey <efi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [snip]
A [snip] which cut out a crucial bit of info...
>>Lastly, there are several things which are freely chosen which may not
>>matter from a combat statistics point of view, but do matter for
>>roleplaying. The character's sex, age, height, weight, background, etc.
> ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> There were tables for these in the Dungeon Master's Guide. I do
> not think that many used them. As to background, there was a social
> standing table.
There is no "Dungeon Master's Guide" in *Basic/Expert/Etc.* D&D, which is
what was being discussed. That's *Advanced* D&D, which is a different
game.
>>were left up to the player.
--