Creating a Navy Officer

[Polaris]

Guys,

Hunter said:

And we are telling you that we don't find it 'unfair'. Likely because we aren't interested in who is 'more powerful or skilled' among us when we play. We all play to our own character's strengths.

Life ain't fair.

Last I checked T-20 wasn't life; it was a game. A game should be fair.

It isn't just a matter of competition either, it is a matter of CR. The CR of an encounter should be the average level of the party. However if you have a third level character who is an engineer (for instance) and a gunner who is 13th level, then the same CR that would bore the 13th level character will leave the third level one as shreds on the ground. This is the very nature of T-20.

"Real Roleplaying" is never IMHO an excuse for bad rules. It is quite clear at least to me that the Prior History rules were ported over from C-T with minimal thought with how they would interact with a completely different system.

You out and out admitted that there was no reason not to play a Vilani character in T-20. Are you listening to yourself?

I note that even in C-T there was a very negative reason not to: If you took those extra terms that the Vilani (or Aslan) race offered you, then you would gut your character's effectiveness (four aging rolls a term) before play even began!!! This is not so in T-20. In short, you paid for the privlege of extra terms in C-T....so can we at least agree that you should (but don't) in T-20?

Suggestion: Adjust the rules so that Vilani and Aslan characters wind up as old characters if they take their full terms. An old character has +2 Int,EDU,Wis but a -4(!!) in Str, Con, and Dex. I think most people would think twice before making that trade even with the extra levels.

-Polaris

 

[Polaris]

Far Trader,

You asked IMHO an excellent question. You said:

It has been a while, and Odin knows I've had my fair quarrel with D&D 'rules' through the ages, so mayhaps some of what I speak was my own fix for the party of diverse levels. I may be missing something (like sleep ) but I don't see how the effect of lowering the CR (and hence the total xp's per encounter) because of a newbie in an experienced party can allow the high levels to rise faster?

The key comes in how you calculate "encounter XP". If you take a look at the DMG, you first determine the CR of the encounter. There are some fairly standard guidelines (such as target skill DCs, level of enemy NPCs, and some situational/environmental modifiers). The actual level and skill of the party does not (intrinsically) enter into the basic CR of the encounter.

Then you calculate the party's average level. Once you have the party level, you then cross-reference it (there is a chart in the DMG for this) to the CR (as determined above) to get the encounter XP for the group (which is then divided evenly).

So how does this make higher level characters advance faster? It makes them advance faster than they should. Here's why: A group of four PCs, 3 are 10th and one is 2nd (using an admittedly extreme example). The average party level is 8. That means that for a CR 10 encounter, you could earn as much as 1000 more than they should for that encounter each because they are counted as 8th level rather than 10th. Likewise, the 2nd level guy gets XP as though he were eighth level (rather than second) and thus advances slower than he ought.

In short, the high level characters are getting more XP than they should for the challenge level in an unbalanced party while the lower level characters get less (for the challenge level). This is why high level characters in RPGA love to keep a first level "twink" in reserve just to boost their encounter XP.

I am not saying a GM can not control this to some extent, but as long as your system is based on the CR system (and since it is d20 it must use this system in some form), you still have the problem which is yet another reason unbalanced parties are a bad idea.

-Polaris

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
]Last I checked T-20 wasn't life; it was a game. A game should be fair.

We don't find it unfair. What part of that don't you grok? We enjoy the roleplaying challenge. It doesn't matter to me that a character I am playing is 5 or even 10 levels lower than another character in the party. My character will invariably have skills and abilities that are not available from the other characters.

It isn't just a matter of competition either, it is a matter of CR. The CR of an encounter should be the average level of the party. However if you have a third level character who is an engineer (for instance) and a gunner who is 13th level, then the same CR that would bore the 13th level character will leave the third level one as shreds on the ground. This is the very nature of T-20.

The engineer isn't going to be trying to man the ship's guns and the gunner isn't likely to be trying to fix the engines. They fulfill two seperate roles in the party.

"Real Roleplaying" is never IMHO an excuse for bad rules. It is quite clear at least to me that the Prior History rules were ported over from C-T with minimal thought with how they would interact with a completely different system.

Whatever you want to think...

You out and out admitted that there was no reason not to play a Vilani character in T-20. As you listening to yourself?

Yup I basically said if you want to be a munchkin then there is no reason not to play a Vilani. I don't play with munchkins so it's not an issue I have to really deal with.

I note that even in C-T there was a very negative reason not to: If you took those extra terms that the Vilani (or Aslan) race offered you, then you would gut your character's effectiveness (four aging rolls a term) before play even began!!! This is not so in T-20. In short, you paid for the priviledge of extra terms in C-T....so can we at least agree that you should (but don't) in T-20?

No it would gut your ability to survive in combat. It didn't really affect much else. On skills it didn't have much effect.

Hunter

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
I am not saying a GM can not control this to some extent, but as long as your system is based on the CR system (and since it is d20 it must use this system in some form), you still have the problem which is yet another reason unbalanced parties are a bad idea.

I must have missed that requirement in the d20 and/or OGL license.

T20 doesn't use the D&D experience system. Look on page 420 of the THB.

Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Polaris:
]Last I checked T-20 wasn't life; it was a game. A game should be fair.

We don't find it unfair. What part of that don't you grok? We enjoy the roleplaying challenge. It doesn't matter to me that a character I am playing is 5 or even 10 levels lower than another character in the party. My character will invariably have skills and abilities that are not available from the other characters.
</font>[/QUOTE]

I will never "grok" that 1+1==3 no matter how many times you try to ram that nonsense down my throat. That is a tad impolite true, but IMO it was merited after your 'grok' comment. I also add that CRs are determined by target DCs and those are related to your tag skills. If you are 5-10 levels behind, you are hurting the rest of the party. What part of that don't you grok? Even worse, since we are talking about real roleplaying, why would a bunch of seasoned vets (8-10th level) even bother with a 4th level 2 termer? [PCs are not supposed to have neon "PC" signs flashing over their heads either.]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
It isn't just a matter of competition either, it is a matter of CR. The CR of an encounter should be the average level of the party. However if you have a third level character who is an engineer (for instance) and a gunner who is 13th level, then the same CR that would bore the 13th level character will leave the third level one as shreds on the ground. This is the very nature of T-20.

The engineer isn't going to be trying to man the ship's guns and the gunner isn't likely to be trying to fix the engines. They fulfill two seperate roles in the party.
</font>[/QUOTE]

How could you design T-20 and have so little knowledge of how the d20 system works? I honestly want to know. The point is this: the target DCs for the encounter (whether it is gunnery based or engineering based) determine the CR. If the GM is forced to reduce the DCs for the engineer, then he is reducing the CR of the encounter and thus your lower level character is hurting the rest of the party (which is why IRL crack crews tend to hire crack crewmen). This hurts everyone including the GM who has to design the encounter. [Take it from a d20 Vet: It is much easier to design encounters with a balanced party of approximately the same level. In fact that is one important reasons levels exist in d20.]

Edit: It was pointed out that T-20 doesn't use quite the same XP system (and I note that below), but the same effect occures because of a disparity of levels. However, I am honest enough to point this out here.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Real Roleplaying" is never IMHO an excuse for bad rules. It is quite clear at least to me that the Prior History rules were ported over from C-T with minimal thought with how they would interact with a completely different system.

Whatever you want to think...
</font>[/QUOTE]

Ah yes....the "White Wolf" response. You are a game designer. You should know that balance is important at least in principle. Why not have a balanced game and good roleplaying. That can be done.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
You out and out admitted that there was no reason not to play a Vilani character in T-20. As you listening to yourself?

Yup I basically said if you want to be a munchkin then there is no reason not to play a Vilani. I don't play with munchkins so it's not an issue I have to really deal with.
</font>[/QUOTE]

So instead of addressing a valid issue of character balance....one you admitted existed, you decide to call me names instead (muchkin). That is reeeeaaaal smooth there Hunter. I don't care if you are the designer or not (or even the next incarnation of a supreme being)...that IMHO was uncalled for.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I note that even in C-T there was a very negative reason not to: If you took those extra terms that the Vilani (or Aslan) race offered you, then you would gut your character's effectiveness (four aging rolls a term) before play even began!!! This is not so in T-20. In short, you paid for the priviledge of extra terms in C-T....so can we at least agree that you should (but don't) in T-20?

No it would gut your ability to survive in combat. It didn't really affect much else. On skills it didn't have much effect.

Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]Hunter, you didn't answer the question. Why not adjust the max terms so that Aslan and Vilani characters are old if they take max terms? I offered a reasonable solution to a balance problem you admitted existed. I don't appreciate such a solution being slapped back in my face.

Edit 2: Remember that a system (including an RPG) is best analyzed when it is most unstable. This is almost design 101.

-Polaris

Edit: I stand corrected on the XP system (see I can admit to being mistaken), but that actually makes my case. See my next post if you doubt.

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

OK I stand corrected on the experience/CR except in one respect (random encounters). A random encounter is determined (AFAIK) by the CR system and thus the target DCs.

In addition, you realize this is making my case. Why would any party wish to hire newbies? Looking at the XP table on page 420, the lower level character hurts the entire party because less XP is awarded to everyone. That is a strong metagaming reason not to do it.

There is a strong RL reason not to do it either. If you have an elite crew, then you have certain standards you will want to maintain. Hiring people that don't meet these standards makes everyone else have to work harder....and if Traveller starships are like subs then that is a luxury no captain will tolerate for long....and PCs don't have a neon "PC immunity" tag that renders them exempt from this analysis.

-Polaris

Edit: As an aside, because the average party level is a mutliplier on the XP awarded, it means that higher level parties actually level at the same rate (which exacerbates this problem). That is because the XP requirement goes up sequentially, but the XP awards also goes up sequentially. For example a party of 4 people will always level after a full advanture (of average difficulty) because they will each get Levelx1000 XP (just enough for the next level regardless of level). OTOH, a group of 3 12th level characters and a 4th level character would only get 10,000 (rather than the normal 12,000) for the same adventure. This loss of XP hurts the entire party. In short, level imbalance is bad for everyone (and the low level PC is being selfish in this regard).

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Hunter,

OK I stand corrected on the experience/CR except in one respect (random encounters). A random encounter is determined (AFAIK) by the CR system and thus the target DCs.

In addition, you realize this is making my case. Why would any party wish to hire newbies? Looking at the XP table on page 420, the lower level character hurts the entire party because less XP is awarded to everyone. That is a strong metagaming reason not to do it.

There is a strong RL reason not to do it either. If you have an elite crew, then you have certain standards you will want to maintain. Hiring people that don't meet these standards makes everyone else have to work harder....and if Traveller starships are like subs then that is a luxury no captain will tolerate for long....and PCs don't have a neon "PC immunity" tag that renders them exempt from this analysis.

-Polaris

You assume that a 'qualified' character is available to fill all positions. Qualified in this case meaning equal in level to the average PC level. This is quite often NOT the case and thus folks who do have the skills but who are not as highly 'qualified' as might be desired get hired and become members of the crew.

Higher qualified personnel also cost a lot more to pay. That's why companies often lay off older workers to hire younger less experienced and cheaper workers.

Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

Given that free traders (as I understand traveller) usually rely on high risk assignments to make money (on routes that big companies find unprofitable) and often have small crews because of their small ships, it seems to me that finding highly qualified personelle would not just be a sound idea, it would be essential. I do know (from consulting) that small "Tiger" companies operate from this premise and operate quite sucessfully. I also admit that I have seen the attitude you have mentioned as well. [I also note that in a Class A starport in the heart of the Imperium, you should be able to find such personelle.]

OK then, in terms of RP, both might be justified. Now let's look at the metagaming issue a minute...and this is important because IRL the player can choose to be "qualified" or not.

If the player chooses to take anything less than max terms, then that player is hurting the rest of the party because they will have a less capable character on average with a lower level. That means that everyone else has to work harder to make up the difference and the entire party suffers in the experience point department to boot (because the lower leveled character will cause the party level to decrease).

That is selfishness on the metagaming level.

So you see the RL reasons and the metagaming reasons both dovetail to encourage players to take the most terms (get the highest level) they can with no real drawback (unlike CT where age was the drawback). That in turn possibly makes Vilani and Aslan characters too good with their high max term limit which only reinforces my basic point.

So you see, it is bad from a roleplaying PoV and a party PoV and a balance PoV.

-Polaris

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
I will never "grok" that 1+1==3 no matter how many times you try to ram that nonsense down my throat. That is a tad impolite true, but IMO it was merited after your 'grok' comment. I also add that CRs are determined by target DCs and those are related to your tag skills. If you are 5-10 levels behind, you are hurting the rest of the party. What part of that don't you grok?

Umm you seem to be the one attempting to ram things down folks' throat. I have more than once said that if you wish to play T20 that way you are more than welcome to. I have even given suggestions on how you might easily accomplish this. You are the one that is insisting we are wrong and should change things to suit your views.

Even worse, since we are talking about real roleplaying, why would a bunch of seasoned vets (8-10th level) even bother with a 4th level 2 termer? [PCs are not supposed to have neon "PC" signs flashing over their heads either.]

Lets see, the character is the only one available to fill the position? How about, the character is a relative of another party memeber. Or maybe the character is the son of the group's current Patron. Or perhaps the character is a noble and has influence. Or better yet, how about the character has skills and abilities that others in the group don't have?

How could you design T-20 and have so little knowledge of how the d20 system works? I honestly want to know. The point is this: the target DCs for the encounter (whether it is gunnery based or engineering based) determine the CR. If the GM is forced to reduce the DCs for the engineer, then he is reducing the CR of the encounter and thus your lower level character is hurting the rest of the party (which is why IRL crack crews tend to hire crack crewmen). This hurts everyone including the GM who has to design the encounter.

That assumes that T20 uses the D&D CR and experience system. It doesn't as it is written.

[Take it from a d20 Vet: It is much easier to design encounters with a balanced party of approximately the same level. In fact that is one important reasons levels exist in d20.]

Gimme a break with the d20 vet stuff. Most of us here have played d20 games for awhile. Your experience with the system is no more extensive or knowledgeable than any one else. Perhaps if your name were part of the original D&D3e writing crew I would give you more credit, but since it is not you have no more room to speak on the subject than anyone else.

Ah yes....the "White Wolf" response. You are a game designer. You should know that balance is important at least in principlec. Why not have a balanced game and good roleplaying. That can be done.

White Wolf response my butt. You stated and I quote ‘It is quite clear at least to me that the Prior History rules were ported over from C-T with minimal thought with how they would interact with a completely different system.’

I said ‘whatever you want to think.’ You weren’t involved in the design so you have no clue as to what actually went on.

So instead of addressing a valid issue of character balance....one you admitted existed, you decide to call me names instead (muchkin). That is reeeeaaaal smooth there Hunter. I don't care if you are the designer or not (or even the next incarnation of a supreme being)...that IMHO was uncalled for.

If all you are worried about is getting the most maxed out character you can, that is what I call muchkinism. Thus if the only reason you want to play a Vilani over any other character is because you can get more cool skills, then you are a munchkin as I define them.

I don’t have a problem with someone playing the game that way, It’s just another style of play. Not one I subscribe to, but no less valid than my own.

Perhaps you would prefer the term ‘min-maxer’ instead?

Hunter, you didn't answer the question. Why not adjust the max terms so that Aslan and Vilani characters are old if they take max terms? I offered a reasonable solution to a balance problem you admitted existed. I don't appreciate such a solution being slapped back in my face.

No one has 'slapped back in your face' the suggestion you made, I just don’t see a need to change it. It is quite easy for a GM to set up a houserule that covers this.

No set of rules is ever going to satisfy everyone. That is what houserules are for. No one here is telling you not to play the game that way. In fact we have gone out of our way to encourage you to do so if that is what you wish to do.


Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Polaris:
I will never "grok" that 1+1==3 no matter how many times you try to ram that nonsense down my throat. That is a tad impolite true, but IMO it was merited after your 'grok' comment. I also add that CRs are determined by target DCs and those are related to your tag skills. If you are 5-10 levels behind, you are hurting the rest of the party. What part of that don't you grok?

Umm you seem to be the one attempting to ram things down folks' throat. I have more than once said that if you wish to play T20 that way you are more than welcome to. I have even given suggestions on how you might easily accomplish this. You are the one that is insisting we are wrong and should change things to suit your views.
</font>[/QUOTE]

In this case you are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you designed the game or not, nor does it matter how many agree with you on these boards. Imbalance in a system is a bad thing and should be addressed. Asking individual GMs to rebalance rules that should have been tested from the beginning is simply irresponsible. There is not much room for opinion here.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Even worse, since we are talking about real roleplaying, why would a bunch of seasoned vets (8-10th level) even bother with a 4th level 2 termer? [PCs are not supposed to have neon "PC" signs flashing over their heads either.]

Lets see, the character is the only one available to fill the position? How about, the character is a relative of another party memeber. Or maybe the character is the son of the group's current Patron. Or perhaps the character is a noble and has influence. Or better yet, how about the character has skills and abilities that others in the group don't have?
</font>[/QUOTE]

We are talking about an Imperium that is thousands of years old with a population in the 10s of trillions. There is no reason a qualified person might not exist. See my post above about metagaming selfishness.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
How could you design T-20 and have so little knowledge of how the d20 system works? I honestly want to know. The point is this: the target DCs for the encounter (whether it is gunnery based or engineering based) determine the CR. If the GM is forced to reduce the DCs for the engineer, then he is reducing the CR of the encounter and thus your lower level character is hurting the rest of the party (which is why IRL crack crews tend to hire crack crewmen). This hurts everyone including the GM who has to design the encounter.

That assumes that T20 uses the D&D CR and experience system. It doesn't as it is written.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Already addressed. In this case while the XP system is different, the lower level character still makes the rest of the party suffer as I already explained.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
[Take it from a d20 Vet: It is much easier to design encounters with a balanced party of approximately the same level. In fact that is one important reasons levels exist in d20.]

Gimme a break with the d20 vet stuff. Most of us here have played d20 games for awhile. Your experience with the system is no more extensive or knowledgeable than any one else. Perhaps if your name were part of the original D&D3e writing crew I would give you more credit, but since it is not you have no more room to speak on the subject than anyone else.
</font>[/QUOTE]

I consider my knowledge of d20 to be quite extensive thank you. You don't have to be on the design team to have extensive d20 experience. Besides which, those of you with d20 experience know I am right. Levels and DC target numbers exist for a reason. For that matter, that is why some races have "racial levels" (otherwise known as ECL) because of game balance. Of course that also implies that levels matter.

Ask any d20 vet and unless they have a particular axe to grind, they will tell you that I am right on that issue.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Ah yes....the "White Wolf" response. You are a game designer. You should know that balance is important at least in principle. Why not have a balanced game and good roleplaying. That can be done.

White Wolf response my butt. You stated and I quote ‘It is quite clear at least to me that the Prior History rules were ported over from C-T with minimal thought with how they would interact with a completely different system.’

I said ‘whatever you want to think.’ You weren’t involved in the design so you have no clue as to what actually went on.
</font>[/QUOTE]

I was actually attempting to be polite and give the public benefit of the doubt. I know that those rules were ported with very little thought (as were the Damage Control Rules but that is another topic). How do I know? Simple logic based on what was printed (and was not edited out). I quote from page 120 of the T-20 handbook:

Apply Aging Effects: If the character has aged to the point where they need to make a roll on the aging table (page 114), they should do so now.

You never have to make aging rolls on any aging table in d20. This is not something that would have passed the edits had the rules not been ported with little thought.

So you see, I do have a leg to stand on and I can even point to evidence that backs my position.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
So instead of addressing a valid issue of character balance....one you admitted existed, you decide to call me names instead (muchkin). That is reeeeaaaal smooth there Hunter. I don't care if you are the designer or not (or even the next incarnation of a supreme being)...that IMHO was uncalled for.

If all you are worried about is getting the most maxed out character you can, that is what I call muchkinism. Thus if the only reason you want to play a Vilani over any other character is because you can get more cool skills, then you are a munchkin as I define them.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Horsefeathers. Hunter you know as well as I do (as does everyone else here) that the term 'munchkin' is a pejorative. You also directly equate it with "min-maxing", but this is not true either. In fact a playtester is supposed to min-max because a system is best understood when it is most unstable. A Min-Maxer simply wants to get the most out of the ruleset within the concept in question. A munchkin is something else and has become so pejorative that even gamers can't agree on an exact definition. Thus my ire was well earned and directed because IMHO that was a deliberate insult.

I don’t have a problem with someone playing the game that way, It’s just another style of play. Not one I subscribe to, but no less valid than my own.

Perhaps you would prefer the term ‘min-maxer’ instead?

See above. It seemed quite clear that you do in fact have a problem with min-maxing from your response. I also note that assuming I am a person that simply wants the most goodies is assuming quite a deal. I might also be concerned about how badly a system might break as a game master or even a concerned player. If a game master hasn't considered Min-Max possibilities and how they can be exploited then IMHO that GM has not done his job.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Hunter, you didn't answer the question. Why not adjust the max terms so that Aslan and Vilani characters are old if they take max terms? I offered a reasonable solution to a balance problem you admitted existed. I don't appreciate such a solution being slapped back in my face.

No one has 'slapped back in your face' the suggestion you made, I just don’t see a need to change it. It is quite easy for a GM to set up a houserule that covers this.

No set of rules is ever going to satisfy everyone. That is what houserules are for. No one here is telling you not to play the game that way. In fact we have gone out of our way to encourage you to do so if that is what you wish to do.


Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]While it is true that no set of rules can handle all situations, can you at least not take greater care to insure that a price is paid for gaining more experience than anyone else? C-T did that with some very harsh aging rules. Since d20 aging rules are much kinder than C-Ts is seems obvious to me that something needs to replace them as disincentive. Pretending a problem doesn't exist does not solve the problem, and don't kid yourself. The problem exists.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
In this case you are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you designed the game or not, nor does it matter how many agree with you on these boards. Imbalance in a system is a bad thing and should be addressed. Asking individual GMs to rebalance rules that should have been tested from the beginning is simply irresponsible. There is not much room for opinion here.

Polaris, please try a little harder to be more polite in what you post - saying someone is "simply irresponsible", making judgement blanket statements like "you are wrong" and then negating others' points of view by saying "There is not much room for opinion here" is pretty rude. Try convincing people by your logic, not the strength of your emotions or beliefs.

Originally posted by Polaris:
We are talking about an Imperium that is thousands of years old with a population in the 10s of trillions. There is no reason a qualified person might not exist. See my post above about metagaming selfishness.

I work for a fantastic IT consulting company. Somehow we must have missed the point here, because we hire everyone from graduates to very experienced consultants, and heck our directors have tons of experience. I've also served on the crew of a competitive racing yacht, and guess what? Despite our need for the best of the best, we had a range of experience - mostly because the skipper liked us, we had the necessary minimum skillsets and we could do the job for what he was willing to pay (peanuts in this case). A more expensive crew may have been better, but still would have had some sort of a mix of seasoned pros and talented rookies.

Originally posted by Polaris:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Ah yes....the "White Wolf" response. You are a game designer. You should know that balance is important at least in principle. Why not have a balanced game and good roleplaying. That can be done.

White Wolf response my butt. You stated and I quote ‘It is quite clear at least to me that the Prior History rules were ported over from C-T with minimal thought with how they would interact with a completely different system.’

I said ‘whatever you want to think.’ You weren’t involved in the design so you have no clue as to what actually went on.
</font>[/QUOTE]

I was actually attempting to be polite and give the public benefit of the doubt. I know that those rules were ported with very little thought (as were the Damage Control Rules but that is another topic). How do I know? Simple logic based on what was printed (and was not edited out). I quote from page 120 of the T-20 handbook:

Apply Aging Effects: If the character has aged to the point where they need to make a roll on the aging table (page 114), they should do so now.

You never have to make aging rolls on any aging table in d20. This is not something that would have passed the edits had the rules not been ported with little thought.

So you see, I do have a leg to stand on and I can even point to evidence that backs my position.
</font>[/QUOTE]I can't believe you thought that saying that Hunter's response was "the "White Wolf" response", along with derogatory explanation of the term was you "attempting to be polite"?!

Anyway, I can't find your quote on pg.120 of my THB, although there is an aging table on pg.114. Can you please tell me the paragraph number so I can see it for myself?

Thanks

 

[womble]

Polaris

First off, I'm going to start by a) getting something wrong and b) doubtless getting up your nose. However, all I am going to tell you is the impression I have gained of your definition of fun.

From what you have written in this thread and based only on that evidence, it seems to me that your definition of 'fun' (which, I think we are all agreed is the objective of a game) differs radically from Hunter's and other posters in this thread, and mine own. It seems to me that, for you, the fun part is in getting experience and going up levels. I deduce this from your comments about "...hurting the party..." and "...everyone else has to work harder...".

Now, a point of language: "you" has replaced the impersonal and archaic "one". If Hunter (or anyone) says "If you are green you must be grass", then no matter how fallacious their statement, "you (impersonal)" cannot assume that the comment was directed at "you (personal)".

A question: how directly does D20 (D&D3e?) experience map over into T20? Lots of people have agreed that "he who gets the drop wins" because of the one hit lethality of the modified combat system. Surely this deeply mitigates the gross differences in BABs for combat. Any other skills are likely to vary drastically between characters anyway unless they all play one-class-specialists in similar classes.

In a roleplaying game, "Fair" has a much broader interpretation than more competetive games, since the players are all cooperating to have a good time. Sure, it's easier on the Ref if everyones a similar level, but it's even easier if they're all the same level and same classes and easier still if they're all completely identical, but I don't know any roleplayers who'd play that last situation for more than one or two sessions, as an experiment. The differences in emphasis between a 10th Level Academic and a 10th Level Marine make a Ref's job even harder than the differences in capability between a 10th level Marine and a 4th Level one. At least the Marines would both be rolling dice in the firefight, when the Academic might not even have a weapon.

 

[womble]

By Polaris:

"...Imbalance in a system is a bad thing and should be addressed..."
I disagree with you.

"...There is not much room for opinion here..."
That would be your opinion, then. Stating opinion as fact is as invalid a debating strategy as ad hominem attacks. In my opinion.

"...Asking individual GMs to rebalance rules that should have been tested from the beginning is simply irresponsible..."
And is what all RPGs have done since the days of D&D, CT and TFT. A ruleset never satisfies everybody; they all need some adaptation to different groups' playing styles.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Polaris:

Rather I am stating what should be obvious: games should be fair

Asking different players to have widely different character levels is unfair.

I so want to play a game of Call of Cthulhu (BRP or d20 it does not matter) with you.

Or say Gurps with differing point level characters. Or any game really. And maybe throw in a kid PC for extra fun and roleplaying possibilities.

Casey

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

First of all, I misread the page number (my mistake). You will find it on page 126 of the Traveller Handbook under Item number 8 on the left hand column (which gives a checklist for how to handle terms for prior history). You will find that my quote is depressingly accurate.

Secondly when a person is wrong they are wrong. Unbalanced characters are bad in any game, even an RPG. Now because it is an RPG, I will agree that there can be more lattitude than in most games, but the underlying principle is sound....and to address Casey's point, I have seen only two exceptions that worked (CT caused a lot of grief with it's prior history...indeed in the gaming circles I am familiar with it was sort of a joke). The two places where imbalanced characters really work are "Call of Cthulu" and "Paranoia" and that is because both denigrate the importance of individual skill (both academically and in combat). That is because both tend to chew up PCs of any levels by a deliberate design decision. [I also dislike both but that is not the issue here.]

Look, the solution as Hunter mentioned is simple: Limit terms to 7 for all players. I don't think that goes far enough. I would add a recommendation that all players be within two levels of each other as well after character creation (and this can be done without altering Prior history that much).

As for bab not being important in combat?! In T-20 (at least the basic book) there are very few ways you can improve your attack bonus above Bab+Dex Bonus. In addition, your defenses can be quite high for mid-level characters. In such cases, Bab (and thus level) certainly does matter (if not as much as DnD proper).

Geez, what else can I say? It just isn't right to allow 4th and 13th level characters to adventure together, and in an Imperium of trillions there are few in character reasons to do it either. So don't. My beef (such as it is) is that the rules out of the book should reflect that balanced parties are desirable (because they are...indeed in many cases essential).

-Polaris

Edit Afterthoughts:

1. Define 'minimum' skillsets (no don't do it for real....making a point). That point is that getting people that the 'skipper likes' and have 'mimimum skill sets' is tantamount IMX to getting people that are "qualified". Why? Because quite often people do work for the challenge of it (more common than you might believe even for highly qualified people). My point is that you have a large pool to draw on in the Imperium which helps a great deal.

2. Everyone here has been talking about how a good GM can balance encounters out for everyone regardless of level. I conceed this. I am not talking about good GMs. I am talking about new or mediocre-average GMs who will likely try to run the system out of the box (and why not?) These are the GMs that need the most help and these are the GMs that will get completely blindsided by the gross differences in level and experience. Since these are the people that sell games (new customers), catering to their needs should matter more than most. The grognards (such as myself admittedly) can houserul, but please consider the plight of the poor noob GM that has to deal with a 3rd level character in a party of 11th level characters.

 

[Tom Schoene]

Polaris, everything you've argued about what's "right" and "wrong" may be perfectly true for you and your gaming group(s) but it's not universally true for all gamers or groups.

I've run a GURPS Traveller game where the PCs ranged from 80 to 250 points, which is just about the same as your 4th level and 13th level comparison in T20. The differences in levels worked quite well, because the game focused far more on the PC's personalities and social roles than on their combat capability. Some of the low-point PCs were technical specialists and had their specific moments to shine, others were not terribly competant but had important social niches and very fun personalities. (For example, the 80-point wastrel nephew was actually more fun to play than the 150-point starship captain in many ways.) None of the players complained that their PC was too low level or unskilled to be fun.

However, I can see that other groups would hate this set-up, since some PCs were not very helpful in every scene.

So what I'm saying is that it DOES come down to individual play styles. In some groups -- like mine -- where role-playing is mainly about character personality, levels and skill points matter a whole lot less. Other groups that place more emphasis on combat and skill rolls may have better reasons to wory about balance. If so, that's when the GM may need to think about a house rule to even out levels.

 

[Polaris]

Tom,

That may be true for your group assuming you had a masterful GM. Unfortunately for the more average GM, points, skills, and levels do matter because it is a lot harder to make everyone feel involved.

That is the key issue....fun. It is far more difficult to make an 80pt character feel useful in a group with 250pts in GURPS (and I have played GURPS quite a bit including GURPS Traveller).

I also note that G:T unlike T-20:

1. Explicitly warned against grossly imbalanced point totals for almost exactly the same reasons I have mentioned.

2. The core rule set assumed that everyone would be balanced (start with the same point value).

In short, the imbalanced party was optional for G:T and recommended for advanced play only.

Neither of this is true in T-20 which is why I am complaining. The core ruleset should be balanced from character to character....any varience IMHO should be handed on a group by group basis.

-Polaris

Edit Afterthought: I note that in the 'new T-20' campaign thread on the main T-20 board all the charcters range from 7-10th level with the vast majority being 8 or 9 (the pure Vilani of course has 10). In addition, all the other T-20 groups I have heard of including my own (an admittedly small sample) also have level deltas of no more than 2 or so.

Doesn't that tell you that GMs recognize this as a problem even if the designers don't seem to? [I have run tests on the background generation system...it does /not/ as a matter of random die rolling produce characters within a 2 level delta normally.]

 

[lightsenshi]

I have found that three or four terms generally leads to characters in the sixth (yes, he rolled really badly) to tenth (yes, he rolled good) level.

It's not too bad a disparaging disarray, especially given how lethal the combat rules are.

 

[Polaris]

lightsenshi,

Actually I consider a 4+ difference to be too much. IMC I simply would have spotted the unlucky SOB (keeping everything else the same) enough XP to make him 7th or 8th level.

As I player, I would refuse to play a 6th level character in a party with 10th level characters. It is as simple as that....and I would let my GM know that ahead of time (as I did in my current T-20 campaign....and the GM agreed with me and put a 1 level delta on all final characters).

-Polaris

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Falkayn,

Secondly when a person is wrong they are wrong.[..] Unbalanced characters are bad in any game, even an RPG.

The two places where imbalanced characters really work are "Call of Cthulu" and "Paranoia"

Ok so you can come up with at least two games that are not bad for you with differing levels of characters. For some people t20 works as well in this regard, it doesn't for you. There's nothing stopping even new GM's from making all PC's in a t20 party the same level, esp. if they are brand new or only familiar with D&D3E but there's no reason to force or tell them to. The world goes on.

Look, the solution as Hunter mentioned is simple:

But there's no need for everyone to adopt this, esp. those that don't think there is a problem in the first place.

I'll not comment on your view of CoC except to say to each his own and that the other BRP games work just as well as CoC for me (and in using "unbalanced" characters) but do not have SAN loss, Mythos beasties, etc.

In parting, (I've no interest in extending this thread any further beyond this post) I'll add some links to articles by Monte Cook, author of D&D3E's DM's Guide *and* Call of Cthulhu d20 and long time Call of Cthulhu Keeper:

The Evolution of Munchkin
Rules Are Rules (But Nothing More)

He sums up things far better and even-handed than I can.

Casey

"The purpose of horror roleplaying is to have fun." CoC 5.6.1 page 24, Purpose of Play.