From: bell@monet.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Character Detail
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:17:27 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Jean Giblin writes something half-seriously that I agree with in all
seriousness, with a few minor exceptions:

In article <1992Nov19.172200.1654@bmerh85.bnr.ca> basestu@bmerh691.bnr.ca (Jean Giblin) writes:
>In article <Bxz050.GvF@access.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>>Is it possible to have a PA system in which there are distinctive skill
>>levels and meaningful stats and in which it is not possible to come up
>>with a non-optimized character that is less effective in every way
>>then a similar but optimized character?

Yes!  Actually, this is not entirely necessary.  It's ok for the system
to break down for extreme cases, but it should work for common cases.
Anti-GURPS people often mention the case of the low statted but skilled
veteran being too expensive relative to the young, high-statted beginning
adventurer.  For any reasonable character, it should not be possible to
create another reasonable character that is at least equal in every
respect and in some cases is superior to the original character.

>The problem with a system that allows one character to be better in all   
>ways to another, while still being of the same amount of points, is because
>you can buy the same thing in different ways (yeah yeah, that's obvious).

Bingo!

>BUT WAIT!! Do we need stats?

Ahh, here you go wrong.  The problem is not that we don't need stats, but
that as far as Point Allocation that attempts to balance characters is
concerned, stats should have NO impact on skill levels.  Stats have
effects outside the skills system, such as lifting ability, damage done,
and so on, that people would still buy stats for even if they did not
affect skills.  Correct, GURPS players?

>Skill packages are just ways of cheapening costs.  They lead to over 
>optimization.  They gotta go too.  Is there a way in your system to
>buy bonuses to skill groups, or to have skill bonuses leak out to other     
>skills?  TRASH THEM!

YES! YES!  I said this already, and I meant it.

>Now, this was meant half-seriously.  After all, such a system WOULD remove
>'optimization' in the sense you mentioned (after all, you either bought the
>skills or you didn't..) but Minimaxing would be rampant.

The place you fail here is identifying things as skills that aren't, but
are in fact directly affected by stats.  You make your own problem by
creating new skills where you don't need them.

If you leave in stats, but eliminate their effects on skills *as far as
the point allocation system is concerned*, everything works out fine and
balanced.

But wait, you say, then doesn't that mean (for example) that the best
fencer in the world will have a low dex?  Well, no.  Point balancing is
only for beginning new characters.  It *is* perfectly acceptable (in
my view of point allocation, and the above rule for consistency) to
have limitations on skills such that, for example, you need to have a
15 DX to get your fencing skill up to 20.  Point balancing doesn't
require that you accept any combination of stats and skills.

Suppose, for example, your rules system gives elves a bonus to skill
costs in bow.  Is an elven marksman with a 17 bow skill any less powerful
than a human with the same skills and stats?  No, unless there are other
effects of being elvish that make him less powerful, and thus justify
the elf being fewer points.

   Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy