tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post4645807647951475752..comments2023-05-27T11:14:02.426-04:00Comments on Some Space to Think: Cutting Grass and Pruning DaisiesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-86212101546776376412010-05-31T15:51:20.006-04:002010-05-31T15:51:20.006-04:00@doctorjab: check out the Spirit of the Century SR...@doctorjab: check out the Spirit of the Century SRD: http://www.faterpg.com/dl/sotc-srd.html#character-creationPeter Sturdeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17497825830919480329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-6351951237437080582010-05-30T13:54:18.653-04:002010-05-30T13:54:18.653-04:00"Phased character creation"? Sorry if I ..."Phased character creation"? Sorry if I missed it in a previous post but I'd love an explanation of this...<br /><br />DrJabdoctorjabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01240903100302048632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-57932277709272071602010-05-28T10:40:40.372-04:002010-05-28T10:40:40.372-04:00Mechanical balance only really works if there is o...Mechanical balance only really works if there is only a small focused opportunity to make use of the rules. For example, 4E is almost perfectly balanced, because it is totally focused on the battleboard combat. [In my opinion, much too tightly focused.] But as you increase the focus of the game, and the actions that can be undertaken, mechanical means of achieving balance become quite inefficient.<br /><br />One bugbear is balanced character generation systems. Thing's like <i>Champions</i> and <i>GURPS</i> which give you a pool of points to "purchase" your character. But this balance mechanism is totally illusionary in actual play, since, unless the characters are identical, one character is going to end up being better than the other at certain things. It then becomes the duty of the gamemaster to balance things, by providing something for each character (say a kindly stage and a proud warrior as a polarised example) to do. But if it's going to be the case that the gamemaster is going to have to balance the game <i>anyway</i>, why not abandon the pretence from the start. Why not allow the players to have the characters they want in the first place, without messing around with the point system. Or for that matter, any other method of mechanical balancing.<br /><br />[My solution to this is to add up the points afterwards. It is a useful <i>gamemaster</i> tool for determining the appropriate power level of the game. Even better, if I take the <i>median</i> point value as the default campaign setting, then higher valued characters will naturally tend to attract more Bad Stuff, whilst lower valued characters attract more Good Stuff.]<br /><br />The feeling I get (and it is only really a feeling), is that many modern game designers want their rules to be able to control the play of the game. Which I think is an illusionary goal. Every group is going to have a different feel and dynamic. But when people are immersed in the depths of writing the rules they want to try and make the rules enforce a certain style of play. Which makes it very difficult for them to say "we leave it up to you to decide." Since their focus, in writing, is generally on the mechanics, then they tend to feel that the mechanics should address any perceived problem, when really the problem is a supremely mutable one. A Learnean hydra.<br /><br />I'm not sure I've said this at all well. But to paraphrase John M Ford, there are three versions of a game. The game the author writes. The game the players play. And the pale reflection where both meet under the pale moonlight. <br /><br /><i><shrug></i> YMWV.Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.com