Niche Protection

[auyl]

Depends on the GM as well. If he/she isn't building sessions that play on everyones strengths then yes, pc's will start having similar builds.

[Baulderstone]

1 hour ago, nDervish said:

I don't have extensive enough BRP experience to say whether it's true or not, but the complaint I usually hear is just the opposite, that, as the game progresses, characters become increasingly similar because of the way that skill progression works.  You get to roll for improvement in every skill you use meaningfully, so carry a golf bag of weapons and you can roll to improve every weapon; look for opportunities to sneak, so you can roll to improve that; etc.  But the roll to improve gets less likely as the skill gets higher, so the people who started out low will catch up with those who started high.  Play long enough and (so the complaints claim) everyone will have all the same skills at roughly the same (high) level.

I'm sure the complaints are exaggerated, of course.  Having actually read the rules, I know about training for focused development and that the GM can shut down players who "tick hunt" too obviously and so on.  But I can also see how BRP could be played in ways that make the complaints more-or-less accurate.

It's also worth pointing out that the game the OP is using doesn't use ticks. Characters get a number of Improvement Points every session that they spend to make Improvement Rolls. 

[Sean_RDP]

51 minutes ago, nDervish said:

I don't have extensive enough BRP experience to say whether it's true or not, but the complaint I usually hear is just the opposite, that, as the game progresses, characters become increasingly similar because of the way that skill progression works.  You get to roll for improvement in every skill you use meaningfully, so carry a golf bag of weapons and you can roll to improve every weapon; look for opportunities to sneak, so you can roll to improve that; etc.  But the roll to improve gets less likely as the skill gets higher, so the people who started out low will catch up with those who started high.  Play long enough and (so the complaints claim) everyone will have all the same skills at roughly the same (high) level.

I'm sure the complaints are exaggerated, of course.  Having actually read the rules, I know about training for focused development and that the GM can shut down players who "tick hunt" too obviously and so on.  But I can also see how BRP could be played in ways that make the complaints more-or-less accurate.

Sure you can power game BRP in all of its iterations. You can generally do that with any RPG. Some are even design to encourage it.  There is a difference between something that is a system issue and something that is a play style issue. Of course that one sentence could define 90% of the acrimony every RPG system has received ever :).  It has never been an issue in games I have played or run using BRP in any version. 

[Archivist]

Yes. I'm lucky that way. The D100 family doesn't use ticks.

[soltakss]

6 hours ago, nDervish said:

I don't have extensive enough BRP experience to say whether it's true or not, but the complaint I usually hear is just the opposite, that, as the game progresses, characters become increasingly similar because of the way that skill progression works.  You get to roll for improvement in every skill you use meaningfully, so carry a golf bag of weapons and you can roll to improve every weapon; look for opportunities to sneak, so you can roll to improve that; etc.  But the roll to improve gets less likely as the skill gets higher, so the people who started out low will catch up with those who started high.  Play long enough and (so the complaints claim) everyone will have all the same skills at roughly the same (high) level.I

If you have unlimited experience then that can happen. However, I have restricted experience for a long while now and that allows PCs to specialise.

 

[Sunwolfe]

6 hours ago, nDervish said:

...I can also see how BRP could be played in ways that make the complaints more-or-less accurate.

I suppose theoretically this could be, but I haven't seen it manifest in my personal games as player or GM...not in 30+ years of BRP based gaming. Shrug. Of course, each player/GM's BRP may vary.

Cheers!

[Questbird]

9 hours ago, nDervish said:

I don't have extensive enough BRP experience to say whether it's true or not, but the complaint I usually hear is just the opposite, that, as the game progresses, characters become increasingly similar because of the way that skill progression works.  You get to roll for improvement in every skill you use meaningfully, so carry a golf bag of weapons and you can roll to improve every weapon; look for opportunities to sneak, so you can roll to improve that; etc.  But the roll to improve gets less likely as the skill gets higher, so the people who started out low will catch up with those who started high.  Play long enough and (so the complaints claim) everyone will have all the same skills at roughly the same (high) level.

I'm sure the complaints are exaggerated, of course.  Having actually read the rules, I know about training for focused development and that the GM can shut down players who "tick hunt" too obviously and so on.  But I can also see how BRP could be played in ways that make the complaints more-or-less accurate.

It's hardly a game-breaker even if players do 'tick-hunt'. And as you say, it's easily shut down (if it really bothers you). Here's some ways:

1. Only require skill rolls for significant challenges where the outcome is important
2. Don't allow 'me-too' skill rolls
3. (Ray Turney did this in Fire and Sword) abandon the 'ticks' altogether and just give the players a random number of free checks at the end of the session, for any skill

Those just stop the 'min-maxing' but not the trend towards sameness. However if your characters really do live that long and are always doing exactly the same things as each other, don't you think it's reasonable for them to acquire similar skill sets? It would still take quite a bit of game time to make it so.

 

[Joerg]

10 hours ago, soltakss said:

If you have unlimited experience then that can happen. However, I have restricted experience for a long while now and that allows PCs to specialise.

 

My campaigns rather had the problem that there wasn't enough advancement into the levels of competence I feel most comfortable when running a game.

Specialisation wasn't a problem, either. The previous experience system even of RQ3 (modified by Vikings) allowed for professions that the people were identifying themselves by, like boat builder or carpenter (all of these with a mandatory background in farming, too). There is a limit how much a rather new Viking colony on Celtic shores can support single purpose characters, so having a somewhat broadened background seemed the right thing to do.

[jux]

This is an interesting point about BRP that the OP has pointed out. I have noticed it myself. To me the problem is not that many characters end up similar when they all develop their skills to maximum - this is an absurd scenario. As BRP is more on a simulation side of things, character development goes very slowly. How much time would it take get the majority of most important skills to +80% ... I'd say more than 100 sessions, so already this is something a system should not worry about. (I recently read about Shadow of the Demon Lord RPG, where the author designed a game that assumes the average campaign takes about 10 sessions - I fully agree on this philosophy)

Ok, but my problem with BRP is when the starting characters start to look too similar. The selling point of BRP has always been that it is dynamic and open - you can build any character you want! Right? I have witnessed that instead of getting to be good at anything, you are denied of being good at anything. If you want to be #1 fighter, you may have the strongest attributes, most suitable background, but you still get your ~50-60% fighting skill and the master fisherman in your party is only ~15% worse than you.

So I think the challenge of BRP future design would be to provide a way to create a character that could be very good at something.

But as in real life and simulation - all characters are not equal, but in our game we would prefer this, at least on some level. To provide some balance, min-maxing should be very 'expensive'. I like that part in Savage Worlds - you can be average or weak/strong either mentally/physically, but not in both and all abilities are equally important. This is the key thing I find lacking in d100 where there are so many skills but 3-4 of them are at least 10 times more important than the rest. While BRP has very solid skill system, I find it needs something additionally. Everything is not a skill - perception is not a skill! Listen is not skill.

Yeah, just some thoughts ...

[Archivist]

Yes, Jux, that's what I noticed. It's not an issue in things Dark Heresy 2, where you have lots of talents and things that instantly customize your character. It's still an issue in D100, but not Pirates and Dragons. Again, I'm not sure it's an "issue," just something I noticed.

[SDLeary]

Actually, I think a lot of this has more to do with the mindset of game players than it does with the system. You could easily make a cook, a librarian, a farmer, and on with BRP. Most will not like these characters though, as they do not fit into the bog standard for adventuring. 

You could start out with a premise for the characters. Something along the line of ...you are all from the same village, and NONE of you are nobles or warriors.

Several BRP supplements also have things that approximate feats talents that could be pulled in if wanted.

SDLeary