A thought on contributions

[scottishstorm]

Lately, I've been trying to reshape the character generation process so players have an element of fairness in the attribute auction.  By "fairness" I mean, simply, that building powers is at the compromise of attributes.  To an extent, this makes sense.  But, if you look at the canon examples, the power uses are not necessarily stat weaklings.  All of the redheads shine as examples here, of course, with Fiona & Brand likely the #1 and #2 ranks for psyche respectively and Bleys being a justifiable #2 or #3 rank warfare with at least competitive ranks in other attributes.  They are archetypes that may be difficult to emulate as a new character/player due to powers eating up so many of those initial 100 points.

Pattern + Trump =90 points (in theory, 10 points left for attributes and extras)
Shapeshift + Logrus = 80 points (20 points left)
Pattern = 50 points.  (A significant 50 points left for extras.)
Broken Pattern (I forget if it's 10 or 15 points.  I've temporarily misplaced Shadow Knight.  But, it leaves 85 or 90 points for possible extras)

Contributions can, of course, add a possibility of 20 extra points to one's character sheet.  These extra points are like a salary and will go away (need to be paid back) if the player stops making contributions.

So, here's my idea to help balance things out a little.  There's one obvious flaw with it, which I'll discuss later:  Limit initial contribution points by the total expenditure in powers.  

 Less than 60 points = no additional points for contributions (*)
60+ points in powers = up to 10 points for contributions (*)
75+ points in powers = up to 20 points in contributions

(*) Players may still do contributions from the beginning.  And, these contributions are still worth the same.  Only, if they are attribute-heavy to begin with, then they will only receive benefit (points) from these contributions starting from the first points reward onward.

This way gives someone who wants, say Pattern + trump a chance at a high ranking attribute because their pool of points is potentially 120 rather than potentially 100 for someone initially focused on attributes.

Flaws & comments:

First, I think that incorporating partial powers is a superior suggestion to this one.  But, some GMs seriously shy away from partial powers (why, I'm not sure).  The major flaw with this idea is some people enter the attribute auction 'pure', meaning they'll let their character take shape from this point onwards, with no initial concept.  There is merit in this.  Such a player could easily spend, x-many points in the auction, leaving them only a little short to get basic Pattern (all they want for the character).  The concept does not warrant bad stuff.  The player is willing to do contributions and it'd be tough as a GM to flat-out say "No".

Just to sum up this babble, powers and attributes are equally nifty.  It's a legitimate choice to base part of your concept on one or some mixture of both.  But, the hefty initial cost of powers tends to shut beginning characters out of attributes.  With a rank system, these characters may never catch up.

[scottishstorm]

As an amendment, I think part of the problem here certainly stems from the absolute values of a fixed-cost power system.  While attributes have no effective ceiling and can be improved indefinitely by minute amounts, fixed-costs powers are "all or nothing" with only two stages to master (exalted powers are "beyond mastery" in isolated aspects of the power only).

Another strong argument for partial powers, IMO.

[jibbajibba]

I am all with partial powers.
They are not only better at the Char gen phase they are also better for handling experience. You don't need to save up 40 points to buy trump and suddenly you knwo it all. You invest 5 or 10 points of xp and you get a little bit of knowlege and you can always add to that.

I would say that you wouldn't expect a 100 point charcter who represents the Coral or Martin type character to have Trump and Pattern in any case but I would definitely say it feels better to have 20 points in Trump, 30 points in Pattern and some stats than be unable to build that concept at all.

I really never understood why the powers come packaged like that. The only reason I can think of is to prevent munchkinism where players pick the best bits of lots of powers and to make the game more than just point buy.

[Croaker]

I don't like your idea, scottishstorm, because it is unfair. If a player wants to play a benedict or gerard-type, he'd have less points and be "penalized"? No no no no.

Anyway, while we're at it, I've always been bugged by the fact that, even if your campain lasted 10 years and you did an awesome log, you'd gain no more for contributions than if your gale lasted 2 months.
Moreso, gaining 20 points from contributions with 100-pts characters is very different from gaining those same points with 500-pts characters.

So, I've been treating contributions as a % from the character points.

[scottishstorm]

I don't like your idea, scottishstorm, because it is unfair. If a player wants to play a benedict or gerard-type, he'd have less points and be "penalized"? No no no no.

How is it unfair from that perspective?  Do the math.

Hypothetically, there are seven players.  One is going for a 'Gerard type', another going for a 'Benediuct type', one playing a Chaosian with Logrus, another an Amberite with Pattern & trump.  Of the remaining three, maybe assume one is going for power words + Pattern, and last two  just Pattern + attributes.  (this is, of course, assuming people strongly considering their concepts before the auction, which I already admitted isn't always the case)

Shapeshift + Logrus guy will be spending 80 points in powers and decides to opt for 20 points worth of contributions, giving him (100-80 +20) 40 points for other stuff

Trump + Pattern guy, again will be opting for 20 points in contributions, giving him (100-90 +20) 30 points

"Benedict wannabe" is only going for Pattern, giving him 50 spare points.  Same for "Gerard wannabe" and two others.  None, none of these players can take advantage of points from contributions, but they also have the most to potentially spend in the auction (50)

Pattern+power words guy will be spending 60 on powers, giving him the option of only 10 points in contributions (50 to spend on other stuff, since he opts to do a 10-pointer contribution)

Player 1 (Logrus Master) - 40 points to potentially spend in the auction
Player 2 (Pattern TA) - 30 points to potentially spend in the auction
Player 3 "Benedict wannabe" - 50 points to potentially spend in the auction
Player 4 "Gerard wannabe" - 50 points to potentially spend in the auction
Player 5 Pattern +PW - 50 points to potentially spend in the auction
Players 6 & 7 also have 50 points to potentially spend in the auction

The auction is still lopsided.  Those without extra powers still have advantage, , but players one and  two are at least in the running for a potential #1 if they bid smartly.  Alternatively, players 3,4,6 & 7 could have an extra 20 points for the auction (50 vs 30 is nasty.  70 vs 30 is a shut-out)

"Benedict wannabe" also opts to do a journal and campaign log.  At the first AP reward, he has an additional 20 points to play around with.  Surprise, surprise, he dumps them on warfare, leaping far ahead of the others!

[Ivanhoe]

I like partial power but ususally refuse players to take them during creation. I consider that the possibility to take -10 or -25 in attributes is a good way to get those missing points and I encourage players to do so. I believe that players with weaknesses and very strong specialty are more interesting than medium characters in everything. A #1 in warfare or psyche should not go for less than two negative attributes !

[jibbajibba]

I like partial power but ususally refuse players to take them during creation. I consider that the possibility to take -10 or -25 in attributes is a good way to get those missing points and I encourage players to do so. I believe that players with weaknesses and very strong specialty are more interesting than medium characters in everything. A #1 in warfare or psyche should not go for less than two negative attributes !

Odd .... Do you find that works?
A rank 1 warfare guy that can only fight for 15 minutes or can get brain fried from a trump link or falls over if a ranked Strength guy blows on him
How does it relate to the characters we meet in the Merlin Chronicles who we assume to be the template for PCs .. Merlin, Luke, Jurt.

I ususllay start with 200+ point characters because I want to replicate the feeling of the books not run a watered down version. From this perspective I find Partial Powers are great and in however many games I have had some characters that were similar but none that were very similar and I have never had a boring PC.

[Ivanhoe]

Well, the other component that probably makes it work is that my players were not aware of each other's stats. We did a hidden one-turn auction where they only knew their own rank (both their rank as PCs and their ranks when counting elder amberites)

I had a 70 or 80 Warfare character in one of my games that beat Caine in a swordfight when it was needed but was really aware that she needed to avoid eye or skin contact. Another was confident that any prisoner brought to him should be able to be brain-raped but he usually compensated for poor strength and warfare by having a personal guard. That actually encouraged team-work (or rather, clan-building ;-) ) and the use of minions. That made for interesting 100 points character. Interestingly, when given XP at the end of scenarios, they usually preferred to improve their edge than to compensate their disadvantage (there you could either learn to copy a trump or go from -25 to -10 in strength, what do you think ?)

I like the idea that every superman needs his/her kryptonite. I also think that the difference between having 0 and -10 in an attribute is less important than having 40 or 50. The goal is to outmatch other people, not to be outmatched by the smallest margin possible. With even 10 in Warfare you know that a swordfight against an Amberite or a Chaos lord is a bad idea. And if all you have is medium range attributes, you may have no card to play. But with a 60+ attribute, here is your chance at taking down even elders.

And about Merlin's chronicles, well, I am one of those who consider them like badly executed fanfiction. I felt it really enlightening to learn that between Corwin's and Merlin's chronicles, Zelazny began to play RPGs. It has all the symptoms of the Beginner's Disease Of Munchkiness Desire.

[scottishstorm]

I had a 70 or 80 Warfare character in one of my games that beat Caine in a swordfight when it was needed but was really aware that she needed to avoid eye or skin contact.

Wait a sec.  Caine engaged in a fair fight?  Was he high?!


More seriously, as for the difference between -10 and 0 being less severe than 40 to 50.  I couldn't disagree more.  You're welcome to your opinion, of course.  But, to me the difference between -10 and 0 is actually rather severe.  To effect, it's the separation between 'good human' and superhuman.   As an example, a -10 strength character may be able to lift 300-400 lbs of dead weight while a 0 strength character can lift cars.  On the other hand, the difference between 40 and 50 (assuming a rank system isn't used) is relatively minor.  I believe there is a sort of diminishing returns on stats, actually.  (ie: 150 warfare is plainly better than 100 warfare, but the difference is no where as extreme as the difference between 0 and 50 warfare, IMO.  While we're at it, I think 0 vs 50 is comparable to -10 vs 20 in terms of relevance)

[jibbajibba]

Well, the other component that probably makes it work is that my players were not aware of each other's stats. We did a hidden one-turn auction where they only knew their own rank (both their rank as PCs and their ranks when counting elder amberites)

I had a 70 or 80 Warfare character in one of my games that beat Caine in a swordfight when it was needed but was really aware that she needed to avoid eye or skin contact. Another was confident that any prisoner brought to him should be able to be brain-raped but he usually compensated for poor strength and warfare by having a personal guard. That actually encouraged team-work (or rather, clan-building ;-) ) and the use of minions. That made for interesting 100 points character. Interestingly, when given XP at the end of scenarios, they usually preferred to improve their edge than to compensate their disadvantage (there you could either learn to copy a trump or go from -25 to -10 in strength, what do you think ?)

I like the idea that every superman needs his/her kryptonite. I also think that the difference between having 0 and -10 in an attribute is less important than having 40 or 50. The goal is to outmatch other people, not to be outmatched by the smallest margin possible. With even 10 in Warfare you know that a swordfight against an Amberite or a Chaos lord is a bad idea. And if all you have is medium range attributes, you may have no card to play. But with a 60+ attribute, here is your chance at taking down even elders.

And about Merlin's chronicles, well, I am one of those who consider them like badly executed fanfiction. I felt it really enlightening to learn that between Corwin's and Merlin's chronicles, Zelazny began to play RPGs. It has all the symptoms of the Beginner's Disease Of Munchkiness Desire.

I can see the benefit of selling a stat to get an edge but selling 2 stats ... to easy to exploit. I think the difference lies in the Chaos and Human ranks. for me A to 10 is a much smaller gap than C - A. I guess that is because I have been in too many point buy games where 'disadvantages' seldom come up. With me they are going to come up

Have you considered giveing tham 200 points and starting with human rank stats ?

[Ivanhoe]

It wasn't a fair fight with Caine, he thought it would be an easy win and had tricks left. But this was the moment my player chose to show that she had an edge in swordfighting that people did not expect and she was wise enough to stop the fight and excuse flatly just after humiliatingly disarming Caine. ;-)

I know that having superhuman strength is convenient, but having two more ranks in an attribute can be more than convenient. When there is a chain to break, they don't ask for Fiona or Random if they feel like helping, they send Gerard. Sure that can be a handicap : when cleaning an accident scene you don't lift cars or helicopter parts, you don't break solid doors open neither do you hunt elephants with bare fists, but this is in my opinion easier to cover with good roleplaying than not having a single edge on an enemy.

Have you considered giveing tham 200 points and starting with human rank stats ?

I'm not sure I see the difference... I usually like my players to create their characters and observing that they would need 10 or 20 more point, then suggesting that with 2 or 3 in psyche they are not going to be that great wizards anyway... And that it is more interesting to be a legendary strongman than a mediocre wizard and an average Amberite athlete.

[jibbajibba]

It wasn't a fair fight with Caine, he thought it would be an easy win and had tricks left. But this was the moment my player chose to show that she had an edge in swordfighting that people did not expect and she was wise enough to stop the fight and excuse flatly just after humiliatingly disarming Caine. ;-)

I know that having superhuman strength is convenient, but having two more ranks in an attribute can be more than convenient. When there is a chain to break, they don't ask for Fiona or Random if they feel like helping, they send Gerard. Sure that can be a handicap : when cleaning an accident scene you don't lift cars or helicopter parts, you don't break solid doors open neither do you hunt elephants with bare fists, but this is in my opinion easier to cover with good roleplaying than not having a single edge on an enemy.



I'm not sure I see the difference... I usually like my players to create their characters and observing that they would need 10 or 20 more point, then suggesting that with 2 or 3 in psyche they are not going to be that great wizards anyway... And that it is more interesting to be a legendary strongman than a mediocre wizard and an average Amberite athlete.

Well from human you could get rid of the artificial 25 10 jumps and just give points well just an idea...

[Ivanhoe]

Oh, I see. Giving the possibility of having -19 in an attribute for instance. I gave this possibility for later experience gains.

[RPGPundit]

I've thought of this from time to time but never implemented it.

RPGPundit