Balance... whatever it is

[Gnarsh]

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.

You could make the same argument for any occupation in the list though. You could just start all characters with a standard cultural skill level plus bonus. You could just hand them X*years in points to spend on whatever skills they want. But then you'd have no idea what a "typical" merchant's skills were, or a "typical" sailor, or a "typical" footpad. You could certainly just make stuff up (and as a GM you often will do just that), but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some sort of guideline. If nothing more then having a sense of relative skill. Is the local guardsman better at fighting then the local tavern owner? Sure. We assume that's the case, but how much better? Why?

In a game in which there are no character classes, the *only* thing that differentiates one person from another is their skills. Having some sort of templates and examples of typical skill sets based on broad occupations is incredibly useful I think. I never viewed those as some kind of limitation or restriction on the player characters. It's background. It gives you a starting point. It gives you continual relative reference points as well (how skilled will that master sailer be in comparison to the newbie who just joined the crew last week?).

And you never know. One day a player might just come up to you and want to play something other then a soldier. Perhaps even roleplay a young farmer who's family just got killed by some evil bad guy and now he wants to join your band of stalwart adventurers and fight against him. But that's a plot that's never happened, right?

[Atgxtg]

Yes. Gnash is right. If the GM were running a campaign that had little combat, and dealt with politics and trading, then the value of some skills would be raised and others lowered. A farmer could be very important in a campaign where the GM doesn't gloss over the difficulties of feeding the populace in a preindustrial society.

At least one RQ product did have players rolling their farming skills to keep the stead going, and producing enough food to feed everyone.

If 90% of gamers don't do anything except fighting, then I think that is their problem, not a problem with the game. All those skills exist for a reason.

[Triff]

If 90% of gamers don't do anything except fighting, then I think that is their problem, not a problem with the game. All those skills exist for a reason.

Actually, that might not be a problem at all, for them. Lots of people like scenarios with a lot of combat. The "balance" issue we are discussing is really just based upon different preferences. There's enough followers in both camps that both camps should be thrown a bone.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Actually, that might not be a problem at all, for them. Lots of people like scenarios with a lot of combat. The "balance" issue we are discussing is really just based upon different preferences. There's enough followers in both camps that both camps should be thrown a bone.

SGL.

:thumb:

Yup. I'm just worried about where some might be aiming when they throw. Several had said it is a matter of choice from the beginning, and some have been told that "it won't work for everyone".

Everyone might not want to try it, but that doesn't it it wouldn't work for then if they did. Not that their choice not to try it bad, just that they should be aware that it is an option.

[Kloster]

...

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.

...

They are. The rules specifically say 'Choose or roll'. It is GM's work to refuse something he find unbalancing, uninteresting or problematic.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[deleriad]

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?

Actually, this strikes me as a GM/player problem, not a system problem. Part of the role-playing side of the game is to deal with the random reversals that the dice deal you. If the GM and the player wish the character to stay in play then how do they deal with it. For example, does the GEAS mean that he must actively distrust the non-Humakti? Now the player has to play a character with an instinct to trust his friends who is worried about what his God thinks. What a brilliant role-playing opportunity. Does he tell his friends? Who does he confide in? Does he go to his Sword and ask for guidance?

Or maybe the GEAS actually implants a seed of distrust in his heart and now he has to play someone who has conflicted feelings. He knows he should trust but his spirit is telling him to beware all who do not show his faith.

Or maybe the GEAS is turning him into an emotionless member of the faithful. By distrusting this simply means that his ability to trust is dying as he becomes more Humakti.

One of the joys about RPGing is responding to vagaries of dice rolls from time to time. Each group has to make their own decisions about when to roll the dice and when to re-roll the dice and how to respond to them. Of course, everyone has a different thing they enjoy about RPGing. For me its about the balance between the game and the roleplaying and randomness is an integral part of that.

[frogspawner]

Actually, this strikes me as a GM/player problem, not a system problem. ...

You're dead right, of course. In fact, I felt the GM had fiddled things a bit and rushed him to Initiate status anyway (perhaps seeking balance with other characters? I can't remember). So I just took it at face value, and said the character wouldn't return to a now-distrusted group - much more logical to just stay with his Priest (and me roll up a new one). But thanks for your interest.

The "get out of a Geas" question is one for the Fate Points thread. See you all there!

[soltakss]

In a game in which there are no character classes, the *only* thing that differentiates one person from another is their skills.

These are some of the things that differentiate between people:

• Skills
  
• Background
  
• Culture
  
• Religion
  
• Personality
  
• Species

Skills are only one part of it.

Having some sort of templates and examples of typical skill sets based on broad occupations is incredibly useful I think. I never viewed those as some kind of limitation or restriction on the player characters. It's background. It gives you a starting point. It gives you continual relative reference points as well (how skilled will that master sailer be in comparison to the newbie who just joined the crew last week?).

Yes, I like templates. I'm not that keen on generic backgrounds and prefer the idea of Homelands from HeroQuest.

[Enpeze]

These are some of the things that differentiate between people:

• Skills
  
• Background
  
• Culture
  
• Religion
  
• Personality
  
• Species

Skills are only one part of it.

Yes, I like templates. I'm not that keen on generic backgrounds and prefer the idea of Homelands from HeroQuest.

Yes this is the best way to handle the topic. The cultural background defines if one is a good sailor to earn the titel "master sailor" or just an poor amateur who bought the titel from the authorities. The term "master sailor" is purely arbitrary because there are no guidelines in the rules if a "master" is 50% or 150%.

The term get only some sense if you know if this "master sailor" comes from dry Mongolia or from 15th century Venice.

[Nightshade]

They are. The rules specifically say 'Choose or roll'. It is GM's work to refuse something he find unbalancing, uninteresting or problematic.

And its a game system's job to not make him have to more than he must. The fact other people seem to disagree with that is why I say my participation in this thread is basically pointless; the premise most of the people I'm debating with is so different we might as well not be in the same hobby in some ways.

[Trifletraxor]

And its a game system's job to not make him have to more than he must. The fact other people seem to disagree with that is why I say my participation in this thread is basically pointless; the premise most of the people I'm debating with is so different we might as well not be in the same hobby in some ways.

Big post eaten by the net! Argh!!! :mad:

Okay, here we go again (shortened down to the main points):

I think Kloster have a point here. The RQ3 rules specifically state that an option is to let the players chose their occupation, which is what I usually do. Unless we're starting up a new group, with everyone as inexperienced farmers, but that can be fun too (and "balanced"). On the issue about whether to drop a newborn farmerboy amoung a group of Humakti heroquesters, I totally agree with you Nightshade.

SGL.

[Gnarsh]

These are some of the things that differentiate between people:

• Skills
  
• Background
  
• Culture
  
• Religion
  
• Personality
  
• Species

Skills are only one part of it.

Heh. You are correct. I should have qualified that as "the only things that differentiate characters that directly affect game balance are skills".

Within the context of overall "game balance", only skills really matter (ok, spells, abilities, and whatnot, but you get the point). Background matters specifically because of the skills that result (which was Nightshade's point). Culture matters because it affects what cultural skills you may have. Religion matters because it determines both what special skills may be available and what spells your character may learn. Species matters because it determines that base stats and skills your character will have.

Most of those things (including personality) also have significant roleplaying importance, but this thread was about game balance. How you "balance" those aspects are purely up to the GM. You can decide exactly to what degree playing a dark troll may disadvantage someone in your campaign (ranging from "instantly suicidal" to "not at all"). As a GM, you get to decide all on your own whether the player who's snaky get's punished for doing oddball things, or gets rewarded. There's a classic story in our game about a hobbit tossing a stone into a pool "just because" and the fallout it caused (hobbits are evil. Really!).

But all those things are "flavor", and not so much "balance". Systemic game balance, such as the kind Nightshade was talking about derives from skills. My original observation was that in RQ (and BRP systems in general), the negatives from having lower skills aren't nearly as harsh as they are in other games. You're free to choose not to have large skill gaps between characters in an adventure, but the game system itself is much much much more forgiving if/when it happens.

[soltakss]

Big post eaten by the net! Argh!!! :mad:

Annoying, isn't it?

I think Kloster have a point here. The RQ3 rules specifically state that an option is to let the players chose their occupation, which is what I usually do. Unless we're starting up a new group, with everyone as inexperienced farmers, but that can be fun too (and "balanced"). On the issue about whether to drop a newborn farmerboy amoung a group of Humakti heroquesters, I totally agree with you Nightshade.

What does BRP Zero say about Character Generation? Is it random or can you choose? Are their many different occupations for each period or is it ultra-generic?

[Daefaroth]

<snip>

What does BRP Zero say about Character Generation? Is it random or can you choose? Are their many different occupations for each period or is it ultra-generic?

You can choose and there are different occupations for each period. However, the book does point out that the same template may be able to be used across time periods. Ex. A noble with a high degree of diplomatic ability and some weapon skills is rather generic. Change the weapon skills to fit the period and you're off and running.

It's not quite that simplistic but it's close enough.

[Gnarsh]

Actually, that might not be a problem at all, for them. Lots of people like scenarios with a lot of combat. The "balance" issue we are discussing is really just based upon different preferences. There's enough followers in both camps that both camps should be thrown a bone.

SGL.

I think the bigger point here is that if you want to run a campaign in which nothing matters except combat skills, and/or want to make sure that everyone has similar levels of combat skills, the you're complete free to ignore the occupation tables and associated die rolls and allow characters to have whatever skill levels you think are appropriate.

Those people are not hurt in any way by the fact that those tables and options are available within the game system. However, insisting that the tables shouldn't be in the game because you don't use them in your campaign *does* hurt those who want to use them (for whatever reason). You can always choose not to use an existing rule. But you can't choose to use a rule that doesn't exist. Seems pretty abundantly obvious to me...

[Nightshade]

hurt those who want to use them (for whatever reason). You can always choose not to use an existing rule. But you can't choose to use a rule that doesn't exist. Seems pretty abundantly obvious to me...

If the occupational tables were presented as the option, rather than the inverse, I'd agree with this. However, I believe as presented the opposite was the case.

(I'll also note its entirely possible to use a rule that doesn't exist; if that wasn't true custom and house rules wouldn't be possible).

[Gnarsh]

If the occupational tables were presented as the option, rather than the inverse, I'd agree with this. However, I believe as presented the opposite was the case.

I don't see how this make any difference in a GM's ability to use whatever his preference is. I'm also not sure that either was the "rule" while the other the "option". The tables were there. The rule was "either roll on the table, or choose".

Considering that at the beginning of this thread you didn't know that occupations could be changed, it seems a bit odd for you to be playing ruleslawyer as to whether some specific component of the occupation tables was an optional rule or not.

It just seems like you're going out of your way to find a reason to be against something. Something you apparently didn't use anyway. Hence, why I'm puzzled.

(I'll also note its entirely possible to use a rule that doesn't exist; if that wasn't true custom and house rules wouldn't be possible).

Sure. And you "can" choose not to use the random rolls. One of those is a much easier and less burdensome thing to do...

[Nightshade]

I don't see how this make any difference in a GM's ability to use whatever his preference is. I'm also not sure that either was the

It doesn't make any difference in what he can do, but it does in what many GMs _will_ do; most GMs using RQ3 would use the rolls because that's what was presented as a default.

Considering that at the beginning of this thread you didn't know that occupations could be changed, it seems a bit odd for you to be playing

More accurately, I'd forgotten it. I'm sure I knew it at one time, but since it was in the same category as picking them in the first place, I didn't consider it all that relevant back in the day, nor do I consider it any more now when I've been reminded of it.

ruleslawyer as to whether some specific component of the occupation tables was an optional rule or not.

Since it has quite a bit of impact as to usage in the field, I don't think its odd at all.

It just seems like you're going out of your way to find a reason to be against something. Something you apparently didn't use anyway. Hence, why I'm puzzled.

I _did_ use it for quite some time; in fact, when using RQ3 proper I never did otherwise, because I didn't find simply picking acceptable either. It wasn't until I saw the RQ4 take on the matter that I had anything I liked any better.

Sure. And you "can" choose not to use the random rolls. One of those is a much easier and less burdensome thing to do...

And if I thougt it was particularly hard for a GM to put together occupations from a description of how they did it, I'd agree with the latter being burdensome. The latter also has the virtue that it allows the GM to decide for himself what's appropriate for previous experience professions in his game, rather than taking what the people who put the tables together decided. So as it is, the default approach in RQ3 appear to be the worst of all worlds.