Balance... whatever it is

[drohem]

Sure, but when I've seen enough people do so (and I have) you'll just have to accept that some naysaying on it isn't going to sell me on the contrary.

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

[Atgxtg]

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

Yeah. Both methods have thier advntages, flaws and fans.

A point/build type of creation gives you more control, and lets you play what you want to play, but limits you in reaching certain character concepts.

A ransom method give you a lot more variety in the characters, but might give you a result that a player (or GM) doesn't like. While there has been a lot of comment about inferior/useless characters, what hasn't been mentioned much is the possibility of rolling a character who is superior to the existing group. Roll high stats, and get 12 years of experience, and end up with a character with 90% weapon skills.

Come to think of it, the old Yelmalio gift that gave a 90% spear skill could completely disrupt a GM who wanted "balanced" characters. If Rurik leave the farm and gets that during character creation, he probably just "leapfrogged" the rest of the group.

[Nightshade]

Yes, you're senario is subjective. I did state that I find your senario unlikely. As far as statistically possible, just look at the Occupation tables.

I have. But remember, as I've noted, this isn't one random roll, but at least two interacting (more when you factor random attribute generation).

Are you saying that your typical campaign experience is that one player has a young farmer while every other player has generated an experienced warrior type?

I'm saying my experience is that over a decent sized group of characters generated, one or more will be sufficiently substandard as to show the problems I'm discussing relative to the others. This simply isn't that hard; just the age roll alone can do it, and being a 2D6 roll, the probability of occasionally getting a really low roll isn't all that low; a 17-18 year old comes up one time in twelve. Nor is farmer the only marginal occupation. I've simply used the 17 year old farmer as the example because its pretty much the extreme example, but there are others that are less extreme while still problematic (the sailor I mention in my prior post, for example).

[Nightshade]

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

I saw plenty of people have fun with it too, or I wouldn't have used it for so long. But its not the people having fun that are the problem, and I'm not at all convinced they _needed_ the random generation to have their fun; the fact the random generation _can_ kill it for others is what then needs defense, and the only consistent defense I've seen of that is based on the assumption there's an intrinsic virtue in forcing people to play a variety of characters, which seems to be a case of projecting one's fun on other people.

[Nightshade]

The inverse applies to me as well: I seen enough people have fun and enjoy the random character generation system of RQ3 that some naysaying on it isn't going to make believe that it's inheirently flawed.

Also, I have to note one other thing: the fact that some people haven't seen it doesn't make it not a problem. If its a problem for anyone, its a problem; the only question is how wide spread the problem is. That's hard to demonstrate one way or another, but the best you can do is do some analysis on the maths of the rules. Of course if you can't even get people to agree that there's the possibility of a problem with it (as some don't) then no useful discussion can be had.

[Nightshade]

A ransom method give you a lot more variety in the characters, but might give you a result that a player (or GM) doesn't like. While there has been a lot of comment about inferior/useless characters, what hasn't been mentioned much is the possibility of rolling a character who is superior to the existing group. Roll high stats, and get 12 years of experience, and end up with a character with 90% weapon skills.

Its a potential problem, but it usually requires a larger number of optimal rolls to come up, and doesn't produce some of the downsides of the inverse; the character will start out better than the rest of the party, but unless he's better in everything, they still have something to do while they close the gap. The superior rolled character tends to be more of a problem for the GM than the players.

Come to think of it, the old Yelmalio gift that gave a 90% spear skill could completely disrupt a GM who wanted "balanced" characters. If Rurik leave the farm and gets that during character creation, he probably just "leapfrogged" the rest of the group.

Well, that's an issue with Glorantha, to tell the truth; there are a number of cults that just have dramatically overpowered features compared to others. Fortunately that's solved by simply not playing in Glorantha, heretical as that is to some RQ fans.

[Atgxtg]

Its a potential problem, but it usually requires a larger number of optimal rolls to come up, and doesn't produce some of the downsides of the inverse; the character will start out better than the rest of the party, but unless he's better in everything, they still have something to do while they close the gap. The superior rolled character tends to be more of a problem for the GM than the players.

But your own argument proves the point of unbalanced campaigns.

Well, that's an issue with Glorantha, to tell the truth; there are a number of cults that just have dramatically overpowered features compared to others. Fortunately that's solved by simply not playing in Glorantha, heretical as that is to some RQ fans.

[drohem]

Also, I have to note one other thing: the fact that some people haven't seen it doesn't make it not a problem. If its a problem for anyone, its a problem; the only question is how wide spread the problem is. That's hard to demonstrate one way or another, but the best you can do is do some analysis on the maths of the rules. Of course if you can't even get people to agree that there's the possibility of a problem with it (as some don't) then no useful discussion can be had.

If one person finds it a problem, then I don't see it as a problem. I see it as that person's issue. RQ3 didn't force random character generation down anyone's throat: it was the default method and the rules expicitly provided other options for those who didn't like completely random generation.

Also, I would like to note that useless and inferior characters are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that it is poor role-playing skills that would cause a player to dismiss a character due to inexperience from age or lack of combat skills due to occupation.

In addition, it a poor game master that doesn't tailor their game so that every character, whether inferior or superior, can meaningfully contribute to the session at hand and over all campaign.

Specifically addressing your example of the sailor, I would say that it was a failing of that GM not to include some elements into the sessions and campaign that would allow the use of some of the sailor's skills and abilities.

[Atgxtg]

My favorite method in RQ3 was to start off as 15 year olds as was the default in RQ2. You get a sense of accomplishment reaching 90% sword skill when it started off at 10%.

[Gnarsh]

I guess I'm just not getting the argument here. Is this a balance issue? Sure. But, it's one that trivially addressed by a GM based on the needs of his players and his game. As I and several others have pointed out again and again, there's no requirement that you make your players roll on those tables if you don't want to. It's your game. Play it how you wish.

IMO, there's nothing wrong (and a whole lot right) with having game rules that include such tables. While some may think that the results are a problem, they're free to not use them. If the tables don't exist, then those who do prefer to have some sort of random factors for player generation don't have rules to use.

A good game should have such things, if for no other reason then to present those playing the game with that exact choice. And that's a very good thing...

[frogspawner]

Yeah. Both methods have thier advntages, flaws and fans.

A point/build type of creation gives you more control, and lets you play what you want to play, but limits you in reaching certain character concepts.

...

Come to think of it, the old Yelmalio gift that gave a 90% spear skill could completely disrupt a GM who wanted "balanced" characters.

I prefer a system where you have a few points, rather like Fate Points, to spend in character creation which can be used to tweak the character as you prefer (better stats, better heritage...). If you don't, you can spend 'em to get a few extra skills instead.

As for Gifts/Geases, yes, they're a menace! I once had an interesting character (Humakti baboon) who managed to reach Initiate status, raised his Int like he'd always wanted - and got the geas "distrust all non-Humakti". The other players' characters weren't Humakti, so he was out of the campaign. For me, it killed him stone dead - worse than any critical, because you can't Dodge/DI out of it... or could you spend a Fate Point?

[Nightshade]

But your own argument proves the point of unbalanced campaigns.

Not sure I understand your response here; can you elaborate?

Well, that's an issue with Glorantha, to tell the truth; there are a number of cults that just have dramatically overpowered features compared to others. Fortunately that's solved by simply not playing in Glorantha, heretical as that is to some RQ fans.

Or it might not be something that has to be "solved". If player balance isn't that big a deal, it isn't a problem.

[Nightshade]

If one person finds it a problem, then I don't see it as a problem. I see it as that person's issue. RQ3 didn't force random character

And if it was one person out of all gamers, I'd find that a relevant statement, but given I've personally seen it be an issue for at least a dozen people at one time or another, and heard of many more, that's clearly incorrect, so I return to my statement that the only question can be how widespread a problem it is.

generation down anyone's throat: it was the default method and the rules expicitly provided other options for those who didn't like completely random generation.

Except they clearly weren't the default case, and as such, if a GM had no problem with it but a player did, he was simply stuck. In addition, the alternate methods had their own issues.

Also, I would like to note that useless and inferior characters are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that it is poor role-playing

To a degree, but I don't think there's much subjectivity in saying that a character who does everything worse than other characters is inferior by a reasonable objective metric.

skills that would cause a player to dismiss a character due to inexperience from age or lack of combat skills due to occupation.

No, I'd say its a desire to have a character that doesn't feel like a second stringer. To dismiss that as poor roleplaying is to have an essentially pointlessly elitist definition of roleplaying.

In addition, it a poor game master that doesn't tailor their game so that every

And I'd characterize it as poor design that makes it necessary for him to do so. A routinely generated character shouldn't require extra effort on a GM's part to feel involved.

Specifically addressing your example of the sailor, I would say that it was a failing of that GM not to include some elements into the sessions and campaign that would allow the use of some of the sailor's skills and abilities.

And I'd claim that if I needed to do so in every session, that's the game expecting more than is reasonable. It shouldn't be necessary to make sure every adventure involves a boat to make a character feel useful.

[Nightshade]

I guess I'm just not getting the argument here. Is this a balance issue? Sure. But, it's one that trivially addressed by a GM based on the needs of his players and his game. As I and several others have pointed out again and again, there's no requirement that you make your players roll on those tables if you don't want to. It's your game. Play it how you wish.

By that standard, no character generation problems are a problem; after all, the GM can just fix them, right?

A good game should have such things, if for no other reason then to present those playing the game with that exact choice. And that's a very good thing...

The issue is that there are ways to produce that result without the choice of either using the random tables, or having no one ever chose those professions at all. The RQ4/AIG draft found a relatively easy way to do it. It wasn't rocket science. Even RQ2 didn't require it to this degree. It was simply poor basic design that served part of its users no better than the RQ1 and 2 methods, and part worse.

[Nightshade]

My favorite method in RQ3 was to start off as 15 year olds as was the default in RQ2. You get a sense of accomplishment reaching 90% sword skill when it started off at 10%.

That works if people want to start off completely inexperienced, but I don't think it'd serve the needs of most groups and campaigns very well.

[drohem]

And if it was one person out of all gamers, I'd find that a relevant statement, but given I've personally seen it be an issue for at least a dozen people at one time or another, and heard of many more, that's clearly incorrect, so I return to my statement that the only question can be how widespread a problem it is.

You stated that if one person had a problem, then it was problematic. This is a ridiculous claim. I would say that if even a dozen or more gamers had an issue out of the number of potential gamers out there, then it is still not a problem.

Except they clearly weren't the default case, and as such, if a GM had no problem with it but a player did, he was simply stuck. In addition, the alternate methods had their own issues.

The GM is the finally arbitrator in their game, so that statment is nonsensical. Find another game and GM if you don't like the rules the GM chooses.

To a degree, but I don't think there's much subjectivity in saying that a character who does everything worse than other characters is inferior by a reasonable objective metric.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I guess I can find value and potential in almost any character. The potential for objectively inferior characters is a possibility for any game system that uses random generation. Accept it or don't play a game with random generation.

No, I'd say its a desire to have a character that doesn't feel like a second stringer. To dismiss that as poor roleplaying is to have an essentially pointlessly elitist definition of roleplaying.

No, I'd say it's child mentality that forces them to always play superior characters. In any RPG game or group, there are players who will have to play second stringer to one or more characters. It's the nature of the beast, and to say otherwise is foolish.

And I'd characterize it as poor design that makes it necessary for him to do so. A routinely generated character shouldn't require extra effort on a GM's part to feel involved.

That is another ridiculous statement. All game sessions and campaigns require extra effort for the players and characters to be involved.

And I'd claim that if I needed to do so in every session, that's the game expecting more than is reasonable. It shouldn't be necessary to make sure every adventure involves a boat to make a character feel useful.

Now are you being ludicrous: there are plenty of ways to engage a sailor character without having a boat in every session.

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote-in-quote thing, so please don't read anything into it.

[Gnarsh]

By that standard, no character generation problems are a problem; after all, the GM can just fix them, right?

Um... Yes. It's as simple as saying to the player: "Gee. That new character's going to be underpowered for the adventure I've got planed. Go ahead and tack on an extra 7 or 8 years of experience if you want. Oh, and you're free to change profession to <list of professions> if you want. And if you can qualify along the way, feel free to add initiate experience, just remember to spend a point of power, and choose from one of <list of cults> available in the area...".

Seriously, what is the problem here? How on earth can you expect to run a game if you can't manage that? It's not like you're being asked to re-invent the wheel here. Every single thing in that conversation is common sense, the mechanics for doing it are right there in the rules, and any GM with half a brain shouldn't even have to think twice to manage it.

What do you do when a player wants to do something in a game you're running that you didn't think of and write down ahead of time? Just stand there looking confused and muttering about how there's no written rule for this, so you're not sure what to do? If you can't handle figuring out what to do if a player comes to you with a character that you feel wont fit into the game, I guess I don't know what to say...

The issue is that there are ways to produce that result without the choice of either using the random tables, or having no one ever chose those professions at all.

No. The choice is that you use the random tables as a guide and make any darn adjustments you want. It's not "either/or". The tables are provide in order to give you an idea of what sorts of skills someone actively working in a given profession would be expected to have. As a GM, you never have to use a rule that you don't like, and as a player, you don't have to play in a game you don't like.

Even RQ2 didn't require it to this degree.

And neither did RQ3.

It was simply poor basic design that served part of its users no better than the RQ1 and 2 methods, and part worse.

No. It was vastly better. If you don't see that, then you completely missed the point of the tables. Rolling on them for starting occupation and starting years was only the smallest component to them. The whole point was that you could derive any character based on occupation. You could use them between adventures as a guide for gaining skills when not adventuring. That was certainly an improvement over RQ2.

And yeah. What if I want to generate a group of farmers, or sailors, or thieves? I can do this because I have this set of tables that tell me what skills they'll gain and in what proportions. You're waaaaay to caught up on the whole "OMG! You have to roll random dice to determine your character's starting abilities". If you don't like that, then by all means don't roll randomly.

Those tables have utility well beyond just initial character creation. I'm amazed that you apparently somehow missed that.

[Nightshade]

Um... Yes. It's as simple as saying to the player: "Gee.

Then we have nothing more to say on the subject, because I don't believe that for a moment.

[Nightshade]

Now are you being ludicrous: there are plenty of ways to engage a sailor character without having a boat in every session.

When in all other ways he was less competent than every other character, unless your premise is that his capabilities are irrelevant to engaging him, I don't know any other way to read this.

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote-in-quote thing, so please don't read anything into it.

Acknowledged.

That said, I'm coming to the conclusion that my premise on this--that problems character generation cause players are genuine systemic problems--are also foreign enough to you that any further exchange is pointless.

[Nightshade]

Those tables have utility well beyond just initial character creation. I'm amazed that you apparently somehow missed that.

Since neither I, nor anyone I ever played with every found a need to actually generate the abilities for an NPC farmer, I didn't find any such utility, and while I won't deny the possibility of it existing for others, I do consider those who found it so most likely in the minority.

[drohem]

When in all other ways he was less competent than every other character, unless your premise is that his capabilities are irrelevant to engaging him, I don't know any other way to read this.

Acknowledged.

That said, I'm coming to the conclusion that my premise on this--that problems character generation cause players are genuine systemic problems--are also foreign enough to you that any further exchange is pointless.

Oh, come on Nightshade. Don't be so silly and melodramatic

It was just plain silly to say that the only way a GM can engage the skills and abilities of the sailor occupation was to present a boat in every session. There are plenty of other ways that a GM can engage the skills and abilities of a sailor without resorting to a boat in every session. You are an intelligent and imaginative person and I am confident that you could come up with plenty of other ideas to engage a sailor character.

Again, don't be so silly. I comprehend your premise. I simply disagree with it. I don't see RQ3's random character generation method or the optional character generation methods as a systematic problem; it's that simple. I can't honestly believe that you are trying to be condescending in your posts, but when you use words like 'foreign,' 'dismissive,' or 'elitist' it is hard to stay positive. I'm going to chalk it up to the nature of forums and the written word; without context things are easily taken the wrong way.

Seriously, I wished I still lived in Glendale. I grew up in Glendale and lived in the L.A. until a few years ago. I did most of my gaming and made my RPG purchases at the Last Grenadier in Burbank. Once in a blue moon, I would make up to that RPG shop on Colorado past the Pasadena City College (I can't recall the name at the moment :ohwell:). Anyway, I would love to discuss these things in person over a beer or cup of coffee.

[Gnarsh]

Since neither I, nor anyone I ever played with every found a need to actually generate the abilities for an NPC farmer, I didn't find any such utility, and while I won't deny the possibility of it existing for others, I do consider those who found it so most likely in the minority.

Perhaps you didn't generate them, but surely at some point you wanted to have some idea of what kind of skills a farmer might have? You've never played any scenario in which a combatant was anything other then a trained warrior? Sure, you could just make something up, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some kind of tables showing what sorts of skills they get, right?

The point is that there are a whole variety of professions that different people could work in. Farmer, while not terribly exciting, is going to be pretty common (in any sort of pre-industrial campaign setting of course). It would be a bit silly and shortsighted to have a set of rules for occupation experience and leave out what is arguably the most common occupation. Whether you choose to play any characters with that starting profession or not isn't really the point. The point is that farmers exist in your game world, so you may as well have rules governing what sorts of skills they'll have. You've got them for everything else, so why not? It's not like it detracts from the game to include them, right?

Maybe in your game no one ever plays or interacts with a farmer. Seems a bit odd, but whatever. In my game, we've had numerous scenarios in which knowing the skills of a farmer is useful. Let's see. Band of bad guys raiding the local farming community. Party arrives and rallies the locals into defending their town (with the party's help of course). That's a lot "better" storywriting then just having the mighty adventurers go off by themselves to kill off the bad guys, right? And during that fight, you might just find yourself next to a farmer wielding a scythe or hoe (they're in the weapons list for a reason, right?). And maybe, just maybe as a GM, it might help to know what that farmer's skill is...

Or hey! Maybe the party has been infected with disease or poison. They stumble into a small farming village, weak and desperate. What are the odds that someone has a good enough plant lore to find the healing herbs that will save them? Gee. Would have been awfully convenient to have some kind of rules to figure that out, right? Like say a profession called "farmer" with lists of skills that they gain over time...

Or... The party is traveling through some guys fields, when suddenly they're attacked by a roving band of broos. They're in a tough fight, there's a few farm hands in the immediate vicinity. If only we knew what kind of combat skills they might have so they could lend a hand...

I'm again somewhat mystified why this is viewed as a problem. As I and several others have pointed out, you are under absolutely zero obligation to force your players to roll for their age or their occupation if you don't want. But having the tables available to do it if you want, and a fairly complete list of possible occupations complete with skills gained over time is IMO incredibly useful. Certainly, it's better then only having a set of rules for soldier types, and then only telling you what skills they gain if they start at age 25...

[Nightshade]

Again, don't be so silly. I comprehend your premise. I simply disagree with it. I don't see RQ3's random character generation

And that's why I say this isn't going anywhere. If we have fundamentally different premises, most of our discussion is, by its nature, going to be talking past each other.

[Nightshade]

Perhaps you didn't generate them, but surely at some point you wanted to have some idea of what kind of skills a farmer might have? You've never played any scenario in which a combatant was anything other then a trained warrior? Sure, you could just make something up, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some kind of tables showing what sorts of skills they get, right?

Given the frequency in which it mattered, and the degree of detail needed for it, its largely a waste of space. I could give a farmer the base weapon value for culture and his modifier and feel just as good about it (and for an older farmer, I'm not sure I found the values given credible anyway--if you kept running the numbers up past the 20's, I think it could end up making him too _good_ a combatant at some point). So no, I really never found the need.

[drohem]

And that's why I say this isn't going anywhere. If we have fundamentally different premises, most of our discussion is, by its nature, going to be talking past each other.

Well, I wouldn't say talking past each other; I would say more like agree to disagree. We both understand each others premise.