From: CX6L <CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Character Development in Point Systems
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:09:44 GMT

I have found that even with the best roleplayers, who have the
least interest in power or grimness, there is a desire to avoid
stasis. While it does remain consistant with reality to only
improve what was used extensively in the game, there is the matter
of drama and appropriateness to weigh in, too. While it may be
realistic to say that Joe Thug who just swung his broadsword a
lot can only raise, say, Broadsword, Fast-Draw Sword and ST, it
could be that Joe Thug has the career goal of becoming a leader
of a band of mercenaries, and really wants to learn Tactics to
qualify for the job. As such, the player could rightfully argue
that despite th fact he never "used Tactics" (whatever *that*
is supposed to mean, in real-life), constantly fighting at the
small-unit level is a good excuse to put points into a new
Tactics skill.
     In my campaign, I do give out "general points" for roleplaying
on a per-session basis, and then a small "general point" award for
completing the task at hand *at the end of the adventure*. Since
the average adventure in my campaign takes 8 to 14 sessions, each of
about 8 hours in length (real-time), the roleplaying award outweighs
the "doing things" award by about 10:1 in significance.
     However, as the average character in my campaign uses literally
dozens of skills throughout the adventure, and often scores of spells,
there are so many things that they could justifiably improve that
I feel it is unfair to arbitrarily improve certain things: so I
allow "general points" to be spent to improve the players' choice of
abilities that were of significant use. I also allow players to
buy new skills appropriate to their concept with these points as
long as the new skills were either skills used by default on the
adventure on a regular basis, or were "background" skills they
would have picked up passively, such as languages. It would be unfair
to assign points to skills which just don't fit the character, or to
skills the player has no interest in. Real-life people only learn and
remember things which they are interested in. As well, there are always
a lot of options for Reputation, Patrons, Allies and often Wealth
at the end of each adventure, and I allow characters to pick and
choose which they prefer to buy using their points. I don't feel
it is terribly fair to arbitrarily award everyone a Status 2
knighthood at the end of the adventure when, say, one party member
is a Robin-Hood who hates nobles and would rather have an equivalent
Ally Group to assist him; and another PC is a foul necromancer who'd
rather become Unaging from a secret elixir, or find a tome of dark
sorcery and learn it. Point-balance is not an issue, but remember
that extreme point-imbalance compromises character survival, even
if the players are not unhappy about the inequivalence!
     Finally, "general points" are necessary to improve attributes
and obtain buyable advantages (eg-Combat Reflexes) that would flesh
out the character conception. No one should *start* with, say, an IQ 18
mage, but why shouldn't a PC be allowed to freely buy IQ (at double
cost, for sure) to achieve their goal of being a supremely powerful
mage? Even if the adventures are mainly non-magical? After all, the
PC should be able to apply wisdom in the ways of the world to other
deeds.
     I've run 6 to 9 PCs (it varies) in my latest campaign, which is
about 2.25  years old. They were started at the 150 point level and
now average about 425 points each. All the improvement but about
maybe 25-35 points worth was "general" points. Despite the high power
level and great amount of improvement, all the characters are quite
balanced, & are *very* well-developed and well-played as personalities.
The "general points" have served to allow each player to craft their
original characters into the powerful adventurers they hoped to be
way back at the start, and many have undergone exciting and dynamical
changes in attitude and outlook which are totally within character,
and simply reflect their reaction to the world around them. The "general
points" I've given out were *not* abused, and no one has evolved
unnaturally or away from their stated career path, and yet all have
really developed.
     I present this as a case *for* "general" point awards for character
development! (I recognize that some players are more abusive than mine,
and agree the points made above may not hold so true in this case!)

______________________________________________________________________
|      From the Most Holy Keyboard of:                               |
|      Dr Manfred Kromm, Reverend of the Temple of the Squid God,    |
|      Professor of Quantum Parapsychology.                          |
|____________________________________________________________________|
|           )                               "This won't hurt a bit.  |
|  |========|OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>------      Afterwards . . . you'll |
|           )                                see things MY way!"     |
|____________________________________________________________________|