No, there is no reason for characters to be created 'equal' because of a desire for 'game balance' and so forth and any idea that this is somehow a vital part of every game is hooey.

OK, so in Cold City, you get the same number of attribute points and traits, everyone has two hidden agendas and so on. So might see that as 'equal'. But, one person might choose traits that don't come into play very often, but they like because they are in keeping with the character. Another one might create a character who is instantly distrusted by the characters, making them 'unequal' in certain situations.

If I'm playing a game and I want to play a 16 year old runaway who joined up for a life of adventure and someone else wants to play a burly Guardsman with 15 years solid combat experience, that's because they are the character we want to play and tell stories about. Some form of equaliser is just daft. Of course a Guardsman who has been fighting for 15 years is going to be a way better soldier than a 16 year old stripling.

Actually, I played old pink box (Tom Moldvay edition) D&D last night and it was fascinating exactly how unequal the characters can be. You roll randomly for your attributes, you money (thus determining you equipment) and some character classes are just plain better than others. But it was fun and after rolling up a distinctly awe-uninspiring set of stats, I had a firm idea for a character and enjoyed playing him. Yep, the dwarf was way better at everything than the rest of us, totally unequal, but we all had fun!

I'm not sure where I am heading with this meandering ramble, actually. Suffice to say: in D&H, you shouldn't feel compelled to have a level playing field. A young ensign should be very different from a battle-hardened sergeant, a timid, newly enlisted private should be manifestly less able than a respected, able Colonel with 20 years in the cavalry behind him.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

To be an arse ache:

Balance is important. Well, sort of. But I don't mean it in the same sense that most Gurps or D&D conversations mean it.

By "Balance" I mean "Spotlight Time". So playing a raw recruit needs to be as much fun as playing the grisly veteran. Is the Veteran better at everything WRT being a soldier? Hell yes he is! Should he be? Obviously. Is that a problem? Does his presence in the group necessarily mean that the noob character has nothing to do?

If playing a noob is like playing a character with crap stats in D&D then I think there's a problem. If having a character who's crap at being a soldier doesn't mean there's nothing to do as a player, then everything's cool.

I've been in games which were Teh Suck back in the day. Like I was in a game Rifts once about 15 years ago where one player was a guy in a mech, one was a cyborg who pissed lasers and ate demons livers and another player was a bloke with a dagger. Fight breaks out (which was pretty much all that ever happened in this particular Rifts game), Mech and Cyborg have a fight and Stab Man hides behind a rock waiting for things to end. Which was pretty boring.

MY gut instinct is to agree with Rich, game balance is important to the majority of role-players I've encountered.

Sticking with the sim feel, isn't there a strong chance that a veteran will be nursing old war wounds from his many campaigns? Some sort of random injury table could be fun and alleviate some of the vet benefits.

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

The way the Mission system works means that every character has the same chance to have the spotlight as any other. That was another design goal, so that the game is not dominated by the officers. It's really down to the way the players use that system (its a whole handbag of player authoring) to develop and highlight the stories they want to tell about their characters.

So they get balance in that matter rather than simple skill balance.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

{Crossposted}

Or maybe something like players controlling rookies getting more narrative control over scenes or something? If you're into that type of thing. I'm not familliar with the game enough to be much help there I'm afraid.

Otherwise, what you'll likely see is groups of rookies and groups of veterans.

{EDITED TO ADD}

OK, that sounds like a decent way to distribute spotlight which will alleviate a lot of the problems. It's well worth being explicit about that in the text somewhere if you aren't already though. Make it clear that creating a character with no experience isn't going to saddle players with sod all to do because, like it or not, that's most players experiences of low stat characters.

Having been one of the playtesters I think it is fair to say that there is equal opportunity to for each player to be involved by way of the mission system.

The extent to which the Officer/Recruit relationship works is a player dynamic one and not something which I think mechanics are well disposed to dealing with.

The issue which was raised yesterday is one of lack of options, i.e. number of points available to spend. No one was suggesting that the rookie should be as good as soldier as the grizzled veteran but that doesnt necessarily mean they should have less points to spend.

If I choose to play a raw recruit then my soldiering type skills will be lower than the veteran. However, is there any reason why I shouldnt be able to spend points in other areas? The game as written includes many skills, measures and reputations, only a fraction of which have anything to do with soldiering.

In the raw recruit/veteran example the veteran would have lots of soldiering, first aid, siege, command type skills and relationships in and around the regiment. The criminal class raw recruit from last night could equally have points in larceny, criminal contacts, charm and influence.

To take the DnD example, if I were to suggest a game where you could choose your starting level between 1 and 8 it wont work if one person picks 1 and another 8. The variation is less in D&H but it is there and the question is, why should it be.

Taking the veteran and the recruit from your example:

If they both came from the same background why has the older one not got these skills etc. as well? He was once a recruit too. Did he forget those skills? Have the relationships atrophied over time? Or are they still strong?

In this example what is good for the recruit goose is also good for the veteran gander, surely. And thus the issue perpetuates.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

You could say that the older soldier has become so rusty in those pre-soldiering skills that he is no longer as good at them as the new recruit ... but that's not a very satisfying answer. What if the new recruit is a boy just out of his father's farm? Would the player spend lots of points in Animal Handling just to equalise things?

I think I'd personally be happier with the answer that the older character is just better ... so long as better doesn't equate to hogging all the screen time, or being more fun to play, or making the other characters redundant.

Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually

Neil, I know cock all about the source material I'm afraid. I watched an episode of Sharpe once, about 5 years ago. So I might be talking utter shite.

But my experience with most fiction is that the characters who are experienced soldiers tend to be good at giving orders and shooting stuff, while the less badass characters get spotlight time with their "other" skills, knowledge and contacts.

(Annoyingly, the only example I can think of for this is Invisible Boy in Mystery Men who has a completely crap power and no experience as a superhero, but know loads and loads of useful people. But that's like, a million miles from the source material being discussed.)

So, er, how does that work in the books?

Ok, as I see it the main question to answer boils down to this:

Why should my character concept result in a character who is arbitrarily mechanically stronger than your character concept.

I think having a bit fo a wiggle room between characters is fine, some minor mechanical variation isnt going to ring any concerns. The first draft made the gulf huge, in the second draft its still wide (although a little narrower if you adopt the reputation change suggested).

I still dont see the need for it.

While you may have the same screen time you are still left with less options and player choices beacause you have fewer points to spend. That is the sort of thing likely to feed into a degree of player resentment.

Reading Jonny Nexus' Game Night reminds me that everyone getting equal spotlight is not necessarily what some groups want either. (I'm specifically thinking of the Sleeper here. Though the aguments about player character usefulness and spotlight in that novel also shine light on many social contract issues.)

I feel that a game should allow everyone to have equal spotlight if they want, but also for groups to have differing spotlight if they want that too (normally it's the GM's call, but that can rankle some...). One way is to have a character that does less/more than others in the game as a way of allowing/controlling that. You then choose what you want to suit your investment in the game.

It might also be that you want the spotlight to be on the new recruits and it's the old guard who get less spotlight/or usefulness.

I think that the D&H Missions systems really allow the players to dictate the extent to which they are in the spotlight. You start with 3 missions, the group military one which everyone shares, your promotion mission and one personal mission.

Adding additional missions after those is predominantly down to the player although I imagine the GM might introduce new ones if appropriate.

Andrew

My flipside to your question would be -

Why should all character concepts have to be inherently balanced mechanically?

Why should a designer have to squeeze and manipulate source material into something that it clearly is not simply to satisfy the learned reactions of decades of D&D players screaming for so-called game balance? Why should a farm boy dragged from the fields by the recruiting officer have to be able to do umpteen different things.

In this game (and some others) you get to choose, freely, what age and experience your character has. Freely. You can choose the maximum experience and thats cool. You can choose less and thats cool too (as long as you are aware of the consequences).

Isn't it as bad to be making the player that wants to play the total noob spend all these extra points that have balanced them to everyone else on ephemera that they don't really want? How does that reinforce their concept?

What this reminds me of is a badly played game of Mornington Crescent. After three games of first turn wins it's only when someone goes 'Tottenham Court Road...' that people see that winning (or being equally powerful) is not the point of the game

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Fairness, equality, player empowerment, increasing marketability?

OK, why should you start off from a position of imbalance.

Give both characters the same number of points and let the noob save some of them up to spend during play. Being the fresh slate he learns the basics much more quickly than the elderly grognard improves his already impressive skills.

Also, wtf is Mornington Crescent?

Total straw man.

Unless the person is a small child they are going to be able to spend the points on stuff which is relevant. Even if you dont want to buy into too many skills the flexibility of the relationships means no points will ever go unused.

Unless of course your fressh faced farm boy is a friendless lone wolf orphan.

... is a game where the players name London tube stations until one of the names Mornington Crescent. Thats it. You win the game simply by stating Mornington Crescent. Thats the rules. The game itself is about bullshitting made-up rules at each other that get more and more complicated.

So you might say 'Tower Bridge' after you said 'Oxford Street' and I reply that as we are using Rules Revision 34b which was brought in following the debacle of the Dubrovnick Open, if you move from a station with an initial letter higher in the alphabet to one lower you are shunted and get two Sardine tokens. Oh and the Central line is now blocked until someone moves to a state of clink. etc.

So sure, everyone can be the top level. All power to them. And if they think having more numbers on their character sheet is going to make their gaming experience better and the story that their character tells better than well ... all power to them as well.

But is it neccessary?

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I like the idea of stored 'potential' for learning quickly. That mimics the Destiny Point business in MI:666 which, as I am sure you recall, I was a big fan of!

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Points don't have to equal knowledge of a skill. They can equal chances that this character will display that type of skill in this story.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Oh cripes this post turned into a big ole ramble. Sorry - hope there's something to be picked out of it.

Some random thoughts from the non-designer peanut gallery on the genre of Sharpe the TV show.

To my mind a great deal of the source material deals with conflicts of rank and experience, and the inequalities of same. Every episode of Sharpe has old low rank battler Sharpe getting done over by a high ranking nancy boy who hasn't ever seen action, or the pathos of young, patrotic, fresh faced Johnny Drummer Boy getting shot in the guts whilst he attempts to carry out orders from above. "I ain't let the King down 'ave I sir?"

Of course Sharpe always converts his excess of "senselessness of war and the death of innocents" points into "dodge bullets and kill Frenchies" points. And it seems in the TV series it is best to either be very experienced (Sharpe) or very idealistic (Little Johnny Drummer Boy) or very well connected (High ranking toff who never sees action). If you are "pure" in that way you serve the episode's plot. If you are conflicted, questions arise about your purpose, then you get confused, and thereby shot by the enemy.

Characters who are not pure of purpose gain bonuses to their plot-survivability by attaching themselves to someone of pure purpose. Adjutants to the toffs survive by enforcing the ludicrous rule of toffdom. Sharpe's buddies survive by following his hard headed realism. Little Johnny Drummer Boy survives through his unflinching naivity in the face of human attrocity.

The minute little Johnny questions his patrotism he's very likely to leave the plot via a nasty gut wound which proves him right - every chracter's death must be filled with irony and pathos and advance the plot. Argue with Sharpe as one of his buddies and you're next to get shot in the face to prove Sharpe's credentials as a realist, try to do the right thing as some adjutant and you're totally a gonner - you'll redeem your previous brown-nosery, but you're guaranteed a bullet just as you try to become Sharpe's buddy. You are not permitted to leave your social class after all!

Just my anecdotal/opinion, but with the groups I have and still occasionally play with we would have no interest in balanced characters - we want the imbalances to spring board roleplay between characters, rather than balanced defined skill niches, and us all working together to our strengths to "beat the dungeon". Of course that doesn't relate to the wider market. But I don't really care. :)

If we were to play a Sharpe or Nappies game, we would want as top priority the ability to roleplay "grizzled illiterate campaigner vs bright young star from officer college vs keen but ultimate useless drummer boy" conflicts whilst carrying out some senseless orders. The "adventure" would merely be a backdrop to highlight our differences and provoke conflicts for roleplay opportunities, and thereby more readily define and progress our characters.

Oh gosh, I think I'm a story swine!

And I'm off to convert these ramblings into a WW1 game...

Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com

Oh God I still cry at the end of Blackadder Goes Fourth. A rpg set in the trenches of WW1 would just have me blubbing like a bairn all session...

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

And yet none of that requires the mechanics to enforce a serious gap in abilities, wherever each character chooses to place them.

Story is driven by relationships and conflict, not because you have 3 more points in Soldiering than I do.

Aye - we're agreeing here, right?

Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com

Possibly.

Where I think we may disagree is that I dont think your mechanical starting position should necessarily be different. You can have imbalances between the power the characters can exert on the world and each other and they are great for driving story but that doesnt have to result in fewer numbers on the page.

D&H is essentially a fairly indepth point build character system. It has loads of ways in which story, conflict and background are brought into the game but it can do that while still allowing each character to have the same resources to spend at the start.

Fresh faced recruit might spend points on family and sweet heart relationships which bring as much or more to the story than grizzled veteran buying Soldiering and Regimental Contacts.

The ironic thing is that I am not even the person who had the issue with this last night, I just love a good argument.

.. you having three points less?

Having points parity does not make your character have more story potential. And again I say, if everyone has equal screen time and everyone has equal potential to tell their story why should they need to be mechanically equal?

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I guess I'm a bit late coming in on this one. Oh well.

For what it's worth, I don't think you have to have absolute equality amongst players so long as you make certain there is no illusion of equality. If somebody wants to play a rookie amongst veterans, that's fine as long as they realise the restrictions they are placing themselves under. It'd be bad form I think to force players into a position where they necessarily had a group of very mixed abilities, but if it's their own choice then there's no harm in it.

Ash

This is incorrect.

Having more points allows you to have more relationships. Relationships feed into the conflict system, the define the important people within the game. Having fewer points mean I have less opportunity to define important people.

The Questions section allows the group to define important people within the regiment but very little amongst those allows me to introduce my childhood sweetheart who was stolen from me by my scheming cousin who works for my uncles smugglers.

Giving me the points allows me the scope to add these relationships and to the story. If my character concept is raw recruit then its this sort of stuff I will buy with the pionts the veteran is spending on Soldiering and Regimental reputation.

It depends on what you mean by equality. We arent talking here about each character being combat capable or even as good a soldier.

We are talking about each player having roughly the same number of resources in order to bring the character into the game and introduce elements of the game whcih are important to them.

D&H retains an element of randomness in terms of the yearly loot rules with which I have no issue as the effect is relatively minimal.

Just to bring those that haven't been watching the game recently up to speed...

Chargen gives characters points to spend at varying times based on nationality, social class, proffession, rank etc. These are all equal regardless of who or what you are - you get the same number of points.

You, the player, then get to define how many campaigns you have served in. You get points for each campaign. You also get 'rewards' for each campaign which are invariably, points. Therefore a 'veteran' who has been in a number of campaigns has more points than a raw recruit.

These points are used to buy Measures (stats), Skills and Reputations with either Institutions or People.

----

Where I would differ in my interpretation of the game rules from Andrew is the idea that you have more options with more points. There are a number of times during Chargen where you can formally introduce background characters - in the generic character background section and in the regiment creation section especially. What having the points allows you to do is introduce characters and institutions that you can exploit to a mechanical effect. I think there is a difference there that should be recognised. There is nothing in the rules to say that you cannot have a childhood sweetheart and it would be a tad churlish of the GM to deny you this - however to have one which you can get bonus cards from requires points. Longer in the tooth characters have had more time to cement these relationships and build the ties that allow this.

I think there is another flavour I would like to add to this fascinating topic and that is about seperation. One of the facets of the genre is that the characters are far from home and they have to forge a new home in the far off land in which they are fighting. Is it therefore 'realistic' that a new recruit in say, India or Portugal, should have mechanically important relationships with some bar maid in a pit town in Lancashire? He arrives in Lisbon without any of his home comforts and only the men of his regiment for succour. Therein lies the real story.

The other thing that is sticking in my old addled head is the fact that the characters are following a timeline and that means that whatever the younger characters have, so should the older ones. I can see ways around this but they seem a tad contrived (injuries aside)

I am however warming to the less experienced characters having some sort of fast-track experience curve so that they can learn from the cauldron of battle etc.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

What I would point out is the ability of the reputations system to introduce complications rather than just benefits.

It is just a valid to introduce a reputation of, say, Hates Major Hardy for an unjustified flogging. You would get a mechanical advantage when dealing with Major Hardy but you have intentionally gone out to introduce a complication.

I think by definition if you are talking about having 'inexperienced' characters they will be able to do less, that is what being inexperienced means. Because the game is a simulationist one (to an extent) you can't get away from the fact that raw recruits are generally hapless (and helpless) cannon fodder compared to the experienced soldiers.

Giving the less experienced characters extra points in something as a compensation for their lower skills is just a way of trying to mechanically patch the inequality that actually exists between the characters, and since that inequality is totally voluntary it really doesn't need patching.

Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually