30 to choose from, or 30 on the character sheet?

I want a character which can fit with normal handwriting on an index card. That means about a dozen traits, leaving room for personality stuff such as likes and dislikes, and a portrait in one corner. Equipment on the back. Fits in a pocket with dice and a pencil!

Sorry, posted to the wrong thread.

Mate, what is this, "Post Random Shit In JimBobOz's Threads Day"? Go start your own threads, Wil!

*shakes fist in Righteous Geek Rage*

Quote from: JimBobOzMate, what is this, "Post Random Shit In JimBobOz's Threads Day"? Go start your own threads, Wil!

*shakes fist in Righteous Geek Rage*

Nah, just posted to this thread on accident.

Quote from: JimBobOz30 to choose from, or 30 on the character sheet?

30 to choose from.  

I like systems to be structured, but small and simple.

QuoteI want a character which can fit with normal handwriting on an index card. That means about a dozen traits, leaving room for personality stuff such as likes and dislikes, and a portrait in one corner. Equipment on the back. Fits in a pocket with dice and a pencil!

I've been musing over this a little bit.  Assuming a game is reasonably simple and follows fairly standard RPG structure, I think characters can fairly easily be defined by (ideally) 6 attributes and 30 possible skills.  I came up with these numbers based on years of painstaking research in the field* and some logical deduction.

A typical group of four characters would mean that each character could potentially have 6-8 unique skills (ie, unique within the party).  With attributes, that's about 12-14 things written on a character sheet.  Include some kind of running tally of health status (ie, hitpoints or whatever), luck points (or whatever equivalent), and you still have a bit of space left over character descriptors such as name, age, height and weight.

IMHO, things like personality should not be written on a character sheet.  A character's personality is determined by how they are roleplayed, not by words on a sheet.

Oh, and I'm starting to think that Advantages/Disadvantages are rather superfluous in most game systems too.  I played d6 Star Wars for many, many happy years without the need for any steenking advantages or disadvantages.  I reckon a typical Star Wars character could be recorded on an index card.  A Savage World's character could, too.

FWIW, I don't like index card-sized character sheets.  I like my character sheets to be a nice, healthy A4 sized.  Having said that, it's nice if a system is simple enough that a character could fit on an index card... with the extra space being used for notes and stuff.  

And cheeto's stains.

* ok, I actually decided whilst spending the last 15 minutes on the crapper.

Quote from: JimBobOzAm I alone? Is there something I'm missing? Do we have to detail every last bit of a character to be able to play them? Or what?

I prefer both kinds of short skill lists.  Short number of total skills (I, too, normally like a number around 30 +/- 10) and short number of skills on a character sheet.

I have a funny story about too many skills on a character sheet (and there weren't even that many skills on the character sheet in this example)...

Years ago, we were playing a homebrew magic and technology game.  Two of the PCs were in combat with some bad guards trying to kill them.  One PC is a master at gun combat gets his gun knocked out of his hand after a few rounds so he draws his sword, which he's also pretty good it.  That gets knocked out of his hands, too, after a few rounds.  His character gets the snot beaten out of him for a few rounds fighting unarmed and unskilled and suddenly the player looks up from his character sheet and exclaims, "I'm a grand master in unarmed combat!"  He hadn't used that skill in the game and forgot he had it.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIMHO, things like personality should not be written on a character sheet.  A character's personality is determined by how they are roleplayed, not by words on a sheet.

That does not match well how I've seen you game, choosing Aspects in Fate like "Brash" for your character - a personality trait.

For my part, I like a few notes on personality to guide the roleplaying, not dictate it. Something like GURPS, choosing Disadvantages which affect how you roleplay your character, that's okay. That's because you choose which ones to take, and get points for them; so by sacrificing freedom of action in one area, you increase freedom of action in another.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkOh, and I'm starting to think that Advantages/Disadvantages are rather superfluous in most game systems too.  I played d6 Star Wars for many, many happy years without the need for any steenking advantages or disadvantages.  

I don't think so. You can do without 'em, but it helps round a character out if you can say that they're cowardly or have some contacts in the underworld in Mos Eisely or whatever.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHaving said that, it's nice if a system is simple enough that a character could fit on an index card... with the extra space being used for notes and stuff.

Well, this ties into what you were saying about a character's personality being developed in play - they'd start off index-card-sized, but as they meet people and do things, the notes would fill the rest of the A4 page. "Jennifer in Eigentown, nice norks, slapped me but still likes me. Harold in Eigentown, spilled a drink on him, he tried to stab me, I ran away."

I think it depends on the genre (are different technologies each sufficiently important to the game to warrant separate treatment, will people research things, or invent them, or build them, etc etc) but generally speaking I like the extra character differentiation a broad set of skills gives you - and most of the time that means each character will have more skills than in a system like Feng Shui or Unknown Armies.

I like the idea, for example, that some gun-bunnies might know how to shoot a gun very well, but have no idea at all what to do when the gun breaks, or no idea how to obtain one on the street, while others might have completely different combinations of those related abilities.  Feng Shui explicitly rolls those into one skill, and it makes perfect sense in that system, but it's not something I'd generally do.

I think True20 is about right for the level of complexity of skill lists that I personally enjoy.

RPGPundit

There's a thread over on the andy hackard game forums that asks if gurps 4e has too many skills.


I'd day most versions of traveller had too few skills, and some traveller characters had as few as 3-4 skills.

As for me, I'd rather have too long a skill list than the alternative. If some skills are useless, ignore 'em.

Quote from: Ian Absentia*By the way, where did this method come from?  I recall it being attributed to someone in the RPG community some years back, but it seems likely that it predates RPGs.

Sounds a bit like Everway.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat does not match well how I've seen you game, choosing Aspects in Fate like "Brash" for your character - a personality trait.

Well... that's the Fate mechanics for you, I suppose.  I created a "Brash" Aspect because I wanted to be able to invoke it any time I did something stupid.  Which was a lot.  Quite a lot.  

QuoteFor my part, I like a few notes on personality to guide the roleplaying, not dictate it. Something like GURPS, choosing Disadvantages which affect how you roleplay your character, that's okay. That's because you choose which ones to take, and get points for them; so by sacrificing freedom of action in one area, you increase freedom of action in another.

Nice in theory, but in practice I find it can complicate a system very quickly.  As happens in GURPS, which tries to codify and cost all the advantages and disadvantages.  Creating and maintaining a character becomes an exercise in book-keeping.  And it can become restrictive - for example, during the course of the game a character might make a new contact, but in GURPS terms, if they don't have the points to actually purchase the Advantage then they aren't really a contact.

QuoteI don't think so. You can do without 'em, but it helps round a character out if you can say that they're cowardly or have some contacts in the underworld in Mos Eisely or whatever.

If I want to play a cowardly character, then I act cowardly.  If I want contacts in the Mos Eisely undereworld, then I spend ranks in "Streetwise", more specifically, "Streetwise: Mos Eisely"

Sometimes, less is more.

I've gone from liking the big long list of skills to the more shorter form.  

Unknown Armies made their skills cover a large area that would normally be broken down into several individual skills in any other game.  That really worked well for the setting.  

As mentioned most version of Traveller were skill light also.  Especially the original little black books.  But some of those skills were pretty broad also and they were more aimed at 'must have' types of abilities than anything else.

Quote from: peteramthorUnknown Armies made their skills cover a large area that would normally be broken down into several individual skills in any other game.

Not really. There are 10 skills which everyone starts with, and are described in detail, what it means to have one in 20s vs one in the 80s, etc. There are another 20 skills which have descriptions of what they do, but not of their levels. And there are 40 skills which are one word or phrase examples, with no explanation. So that's 80, and it actually covers very little. The examples are as specific and narrow as "Ping Pong" or "Cadging Drinks," or "Getting Sympathy." On that level of detail, you're looking at probably 1,000+ possible skills, compared to a few hundred even for GURPS or Rolemaster.

The skills in UA cover quite small areas, it's just that your character can't get many skills. In a "street level" campaign, you'll have 235 skill points to spend, maxing out at 55; in the 30s to 40s is a "professional" sort of level, so you're looking at about 8 skills (few players will choose to have 5x 47%, or 20x 12%, but will choose a few around 50 and a few others around 20), plus the 10 starting skills. So, in a UA "street level" campaign, you're looking at 12-24 skills in total per character, and over half of them aren't overlapping.

UA's actually one of the worst if you don't like long skill lists. That they were too lazy to give a lot of examples doesn't change it.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWell... that's the Fate mechanics for you, I suppose.  I created a "Brash" Aspect because I wanted to be able to invoke it any time I did something stupid.  Which was a lot.  Quite a lot.  

Using the rules as an excuse for being daft?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNice in theory, but in practice I find it can complicate a system very quickly.  As happens in GURPS [...] a character might make a new contact, but in GURPS terms, if they don't have the points to actually purchase the Advantage then they aren't really a contact.

That's why the GM needs to be reasonably generous with the CP. Around 4 or 5 a session works quite well, I've found. But it is a pain to keep track of, yes, if you don't enjoy that fiddling about with numbers.

When I was running it, I was toying with the idea of a character sheet which had the Aspects up the top, and then under that, three columns - Skills, Crafts & Lores, and Relationships. You'd just note down everyone you knew and how strong the bond was between you, good or bad. You'd be able to improve that with xp, as with other stuff. But in the end I didn't bother, everyone seemed happier just roleplaying it out.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIf I want to play a cowardly character, then I act cowardly.  If I want contacts in the Mos Eisely undereworld, then I spend ranks in "Streetwise", more specifically, "Streetwise: Mos Eisely"

I guess the idea behind putting it all in mechanics is to ensure some degree of consistency in the roleplaying. Because let's face it, there are some crap roleplayers out there, this session's character going "ew" at an oiled-up wrestler will be next session's homicidal maniac stabbing at a giant mute beserk albino. If stuff's written down, you can try to enforce some consistency, so that, okay, they don't roleplay well, but they're at least more or less consistent.

It also helps the GM plan for future sessions if the characters are somewhat consistent. If you know that this guy is cowardly, that guy brash, the other guy scholarly, then you've a reasonable idea of what they might do in certain situations. But if they're just a blank ipece of paper in personality terms, then...?