From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Development in Point Systems
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:39:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep27.204810.10022@Princeton.EDU> mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>This debate came up a long time ago, so I'll put down the conclusions
>that I had last time. Point balance is all fine and well when a
>character is being created, but after the character has been created,
>point balance should be tossed out the window. Character development
>after that should be set by what happens in the game, irregardless of
>points.

	I tend to ignore "point balance" completely.  I normally set
a point limit for my players to keep them centered in a general
"power" area (although they will always deviate in various areas of
course!), and I would, on occasion, give certain characters more
points than others, if my players weren't so determined to stick to
what I gave them.  I also strongly encourage them to ONLY take
disads and quirks that they feel will flesh out their character and
not just so they get more points.  (They find out later on why -- I
keep a full list of disads and quirks and make absolutely certain
that they come into play...most of my players tend to avoid
pyromania these days...)

>As an example, reputations, contacts, allies and enemies in GURPS and
>Hero both cost and give points. These features often change after a
>gaming session by actions of the characters. Requiring points spent
>for new allies and contacts earned through roleplaying is as silly as
>giving out excess points for new enemies. (granted, disadvantages
>earned in roleplay are often recommended not to have any balancing
>points in the books, but this argues my point)

	I never liked the idea of giving out points to players in
the first place (I figured that if they were good roleplayers, I'd
reward them myself during the game...and if they were bad
roleplayers, well...).  To force people to pay for things which they
earned through hard work and suffering seems stupid.  (Although if I
DID hand out points at the end of game sessions, I would definitely
require them to pay points for allies/patrons that they gained
without any work at all...or that patron/ally would come with their
own set of enemies, etc to offset the cost...)
	I make my players work for just about everything they get.
If not, how do they know that they were good?  AD&D has experience
points, but I don't like exp...it seems too much like one's score in
a video game.  ("I broke one million!  YAH!")
	My players can look back at their characters and compare
what they were to what they are now, what they have accomplished,
what they have sacrificed.  They have stories to tell their friends
about their adventures and about adversaries that they have
defeated.  Much better than points....

>A character uses lots of swordplay will probably get somewhat better
>with a sword. A character who uses a lot of DEX skills will probably
>be a bit more agile and coordinated over time. Likewise for mental
>skills. If you really want to be unpleasant to characters, make sure
>that unused skills start to fade over time. Exercising strength will
>make one stronger. In superhero systems you can do the same for power.

	I don't like the idea of unused skills fading.  For one
thing, it depends on the skill and the person.  Some things you'll
be rusty at first (like bike riding), but you'll be up to snuff in
no time (or so it was with me).  Unfamiliarity may make a person
rusty over time, but they will quickly pick it up again (usually...
again, it depends).
	But since the ONLY way for my players to ever get better in
a thing is to train and study it, then that is what they do.  They
don't wait for the Holy Hand of the GM to grant instant benefits and
they don't expect it to happen (although on occasion, if a character
has extensively used a skill and attempted to LEARN from that use
and to ENHANCE his skill during this period I may grant a bonus).

>As for rewarding players at the end of a session. Many systems have
>karma points or hero points or whatever, that can be spent to aid die
>rolls or in some cases to get new skills out of the blue. (though I'd
>prefer to see roleplay to justify getting the new skill)

	I agree.  No such thing as karma points in my game.  There's
the dice and there's the GM.  That's it.  If you roll bad, blame it
on your dice.  If I let you survive, then maybe it's because you
deserve it.  (Although GM intervention happens less and less these
days...my players know that they'll have to survive on their own...
I'm a fickle diety...heheheh)

>The thing about this concept is that it can be immediately applied to
>any game where points are normally handed out as a reward. Instead of
>generic points being handed out commonly, hand out specific points for
>specific effects. (negative points can be handed out for new enemies
>and other new problems, you win some you lose some...) and
>occasionally hand out generic points as a reward for some really
>special behavior.

	I don't ever hand out points.  The rewards of role-playing
should be enough for my players.  Only in extreme situations do I
allow players to gain points for a SPECIFIC skill or stat.  All
character growth must take place as training and studying, not in
"Oh, I shot my laser twice in the last game, do I get points?"
	Extremely innovated uses of skills and the like will
probably give the player some points for that skill.  Not:  "I use
psychology to determine the bad guy's next move."  (In fact, I might
penalize the character in the future for something lame like
that...)
	My players never noticed the difference in the beginning and
now they just don't care.  My games work and that's what really
matters to them.
>-- 
>    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mad Scientist, Priest of Shub-Internet
>    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
>mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
>"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy