robiswrong
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- May 1, 2017
- Messages
- 646
- Reaction score
- 1,303
Has there been any such system?
Nope, which is why I said that I couldn't imagine how bad one would be.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Has there been any such system?
Agreed, it would be prety funny...for the first session.Yeah, 100% on all of this. Absolutely.
And I can't imagine the nightmare of a system which tried to do this in a prescriptive way. "You must use the skill at least x times per session or you lose points...." Bleccch. No.
Somewhere, someone has probably written one.Has there been any such system?
You'd have to be very careful with a system that went this deep, because there are definitely skills that come up more often in games than others due to their sheer nature, and you'd need to account for this in the design of your atrophy rules; if you need to use your Ride : Bike and Maths : Calculus skills just as often to retain them, I think you'd end up with some very odd-looking sessions.Regarding skill atrophy, there are differences between physical based skills and knowledge based skills. Physical ones stay with you more, e.g. riding a bike, whereas knowledge ones get lost, e.g. calculus when not used. There are specific terms for this, but I don't recall them atm.
Yeah, skill atrophy is just not something that I think adds enough fun to the play to be worth adding it to a game.You'd have to be very careful with a system that went this deep, because there are definitely skills that come up more often in games than others due to their sheer nature, and you'd need to account for this in the design of your atrophy rules; if you need to use your Ride : Bike and Maths : Calculus skills just as often to retain them, I think you'd end up with some very odd-looking sessions.
People used to tolerate level drain without revolting in D&D...I know of no RPG that players would tolerate losing things they paid hard-earned XP for without justifiably revolting.
Super, with the caveat that if you do it too much, I will lose my patience.
But generally, we are here to have fun. If your character isn't working for you, change your character to one you want to play.
So I hear this, but why not just introduce a new character? How major a rewrite was it?This is where I'm at. I've allowed it after several sessions where the player realized that his character just wasn't playing the way he thought it was or ended up not being as useful as he hoped. I tend to tailor the games I run to give each person their time in the spotlight but he never felt like he was doing enough for the team even when I tried to focus the challenges around his skills/abilities. Once he remade the character he was much happier.
People used to tolerate level drain without revolting in D&D...
So I hear this, but why not just introduce a new character? How major a rewrite was it?
I happen to know a few. In fact your whole character can die, and you usually get nothing for it...I know of no RPG that players would tolerate losing things they paid hard-earned XP for without justifiably revolting.
I know, and there was a time when I used to use said rule. But while it's not a bad rule, it's not adding much to the game anyway, mostly because it seldom came up.Just popping in to mention, GURPS does happen to have an optional rule for "skill maintenance" to prevent the atrophy of high-level skills. The higher the skill level, the more time you need to dedicate over increasingly shorter periods of time to maintain it; though, they don't atrophy below a certain point.
Not that I've ever felt the need to use it, and it primarily just exists as a time element to track for downtime purposes, but hey... it does technically exist!
Agreed! I can't think of many genres or campaign styles where such a rule would be either relevant or beneficial...I know, and there was a time when I used to use said rule. But while it's not a bad rule, it's not adding much to the game anyway, mostly because it seldom came up.
... but a wuxia campaign could definitely qualify, to your point. Particularly if, as you mentioned, there's an emphasis on training in general, learning new techniques and finding new masters, perhaps even training your own students or other player characters. Those things combined would certainly add up if sweeping downtime is an integral part of your campaign, which I could see happening in the course of an epic martial arts game spanning potentially decades of intermittent conflict.It might be useful given a game focused on acquiring and developing skills s high as possible, like a wuxia campaign. If preserving your skills while chasing an enemy or hiding undercover might become part of the game, especially if you need a training facility and/or equipment, I can see it being useful. But outside of such corner cases, I doubt it would be of much use, and at the same time it adds a non-insignificant complication in tracking the uses and maintenance training of all your high skills.
If it's seen as a penalty, perhaps not, but it can also be used to a character's advantage.Yeah, skill atrophy is just not something that I think adds enough fun to the play to be worth adding it to a game.
What I permit players to do is allow unused skills to atrophy, in effect allowing a character to trade a skill level in, say, Forward Observer, for a skill that is more relevant and useful to the character, like Tactics. Like a sportsball player deferring money due from her contract, it creates space 'under the cap' to continue improving a skill once Int = Edu is reached. As per the Experience rules, the character must still make a successful roll to improve two skills, then must designate the skill to atrophy and cannot use it for the remainder of the time spent increasing a skill level in another skill.
It happens all the time: the player starts the campaign with a character concept, plays a few sessions, realizes the character isn't what they really wanted and pleads for the right to re-build their character instead of starting a new one from scratch and losing their character's place in the story.
How liberal are you in allowing this?
Plus, under RQ you can just train up to about 30, and getting to 50 or 60 in a skill is pretty quick.I normally play RuneQuest or HeroQuest/QuestWorlds, which don't really have a problem with this. It is fairly easy in those systems to change cults, or to move one skill into another. You effectively park what went before and continue with gaining experience in other skills.
Why introduce a new character when the player has already established a character in the setting?So I hear this, but why not just introduce a new character? How major a rewrite was it?
"C'mon Gramps we need you to bind and banish the demon razing the capitol!"
"Hm? Sorry, I gave up staying current on those incantations years ago so I could practice my black-sea-to-black-tea transmutation rituals."
Having cast that raise spell somewhere around ten thousand times -- that's a conservative estimate -- I can still rattle off that chant in four seconds flat.
But the established character is a particular class or profession or has a particular set of skills or powers. What does it mean to the setting that someone can totally change what they are?Why introduce a new character when the player has already established a character in the setting?
I kinda think that the setting should take a back seat to the players, because it's the players who turn up every week; if a player likes the RP aspects of their character but has had serious enough issues with the mechanical side that they want to change it, I feel they've already suffered enough that asking the DM to work out the details and do them a favour isn't a big deal. But as stated, I have a fairly flexible attitude towards respeccing anyway.But the established character is a particular class or profession or has a particular set of skills or powers. What does it mean to the setting that someone can totally change what they are?
I'm struggling to understand why a player can't just create a new character if the one they have is no longer interesting to them if the setting doesn't matter.I kinda think that the setting should take a back seat to the players, because it's the players who turn up every week; if a player likes the RP aspects of their character but has had serious enough issues with the mechanical side that they want to change it, I feel they've already suffered enough that asking the DM to work out the details and do them a favour isn't a big deal. But as stated, I have a fairly flexible attitude towards respeccing anyway.
What is "established" that the player doesn't want to lose? Understanding that is critical to understanding the resistance to bringing in a new character.Why introduce a new character when the player has already established a character in the setting?
I think you're right, we are probably somewhat talking at cross purposes. That said, and while I'd probably veto any major changes I couldn't easily retcon as a GM, personally I don't consider changes to a character to be saying that the setting doesn't matter; by asking for a character edit (And admittedly, potentially a retcon of some parts of their personal history) the player is clearly trying to retain as much of the PC's established place in it as possible, whereas bringing in an entirely new character effectively removes the old one from the game.But maybe you're talking about something different than Sommerjon. If there is a problem because the mechanics of the PC don't work for the concept, many of us have suggested they would fix that within the first few sessions. If the issue is a mechanical problem that showed up later, that's something I'm open to also (and some of us have pointed out that, for example, a problem with D&D 3.x feat chains might not be apparent until later). But some, like Sommerjon, below seem to be advocating a complete character replacement.
This statement is what I'm wondering about:
What is "established" that the player doesn't want to lose? Understanding that is critical to understanding the resistance to bringing in a new character.
That certainly puts things in a different light. Minor changes that can be made without having to rip apart the campaign history with a major retcon are way more understandable, especially if one was looking at a real situation rather than talking hypothetical situations.I think you're right, we are probably somewhat talking at cross purposes. That said, and while I'd probably veto any major changes I couldn't easily retcon as a GM, personally I don't consider changes to a character to be saying that the setting doesn't matter; by asking for a character edit (And admittedly, potentially a retcon of some parts of their personal history) the player is clearly trying to retain as much of the PC's established place in it as possible, whereas bringing in an entirely new character effectively removes the old one from the game.
That's a serious problem of a communication breakdown at the start of the campaign, unless it was a shift in focus after play started. It also sounds like you managed the change by changing focus as you went forward rather than re-write of the character.I don't think I've ever had to deal with this as a DM, but not so long ago, I had this problem as a player. The character had originally been conceived as a sort of gentleman-thief, but the campaign turned out to be mainly dungeon crawls, so I ended up having to pivot the character into a fighting scout by multi-classing enough ranger levels to get two attacks.
I did, but it was a pretty heavyweight process - taking 5 levels of Ranger over the course of several months. That's my only experience of this type of situation. It might have been better to start another character or swizzle it about mid-game, had that option been available.That's a serious problem of a communication breakdown at the start of the campaign, unless it was a shift in focus after play started. It also sounds like you managed the change by changing focus as you went forward rather than re-write of the character.
Yea, you might have been better off with a new character, even if it started a level lower than the other PCs or something. You could have had a more finely tuned build that might have offset the lower level rather than having some now not so relevant class levels, feats, and skills. This continued character build IS one of the reasons I left D&D 3.x behind, though my reaction was to go 1970s and early 1980s games...I did, but it was a pretty heavyweight process - taking 5 levels of Ranger over the course of several months. That's my only experience of this type of situation. It might have been better to start another character or swizzle it about mid-game, had that option been available.
The character in the setting.What is "established" that the player doesn't want to lose? Understanding that is critical to understanding the resistance to bringing in a new character.
So one question I would have is if the mods on the sheet aren't an important part of the "impact" on the setting, why does it matter what they are, and why need to change them?The character in the setting.
Wyther Alden is already alive in the setting. He's made contacts, made enemies, has friends, has rivals, has commitments, etc. Why give up all of that impact on the setting over some skills or class levels?
Is Bob the Baker so different from Bob the Mechanic? Larry has been playing Bob the Baker, but found it hasn't itched his scratch so wants to be Bob the Mechanic. Bob is still the easy going, hands talking dude who loves his italian food.
It's still Bob right?
Or is Bob only the mods on the sheet?
Most players can't get past the mods on the character sheet?So one question I would have is if the mods on the sheet aren't an important part of the "impact" on the setting, why does it matter what they are, and why need to change them?
Um.. Having a hard time trying to explain this without sounding like a dick.I guess I just don't understand the investment in this "impact" (I would also call it "fiction") that seems to be able to be divorced from the mechanics of the game.
In the games I run, a lot of the "impact" a character has on the setting derives from the numbers on the character sheet.
Okay. Sounds to me you put the emphasis on what the character does. It's Bob the Fighter.I honestly haven't played or ran any campaign where it would make any sense to me to make a radical change in a character while assigning the "impact" of the previous incarnation of the character to the new incarnation of the character.
Last year a friend wanted me to join in his already running SR5e game. I said sure, what do you need? I have some ideas. We settle on one. I start playing. My character does not fit. I try to make it work, but I am definitely the odd man out. I am paying a second story man in a group of kick in the door a'shootin types. 10 sessions in I'm like Dude this isn't working, what's your thoughts on me reworking the character to fit the rest of the group? I'm thinking keeping the character concept, contacts and the like, changing from PhysAd to StreetSam going from Second Story to Brawler. That doable? It was. Then the game stops 2 sessions later....But I think we're also suffering from a lack of a real example of why someone wants to make a radical change to their character and still retain the "impact". As long as we talk theoreticals, it's impossible for any of us to judge whether the requested change is reasonable or not.
Why wouldn't the death of a character not have an impact on the setting?I have another question, if the mechanics result in the death of the character (in such a way that any mechanic or procedure within the game system and setting for restoring the life of the character is not possible), thus ending the character's "impact" on the setting, does this desire to allow radical changes extend to restoring the life of the character (after all, all we're doing is changing some numbers on the sheet). If not, why not? Do you draw a line here? If so, how? Why? Perhaps answering the extreme and understanding if there is a line draw, and what it looks like, will help understand why other radical changes are allowed or not allowed.
It may be more than the player is bored with the game mechanics covering bakers?I'm genuinely trying to understand the motivation and desire to be able to rewrite Bob the Baker into Bob the Mechanic because the player is bored with the game mechanics covering bakers.
Yeah, whining crybabies who want their Perfectly Curated Encounter, to give them a false sense of accomplishment while not really risking anything. (You started it.)Yah, but in fairness it wasn't exactly loved either, except by OSR tryhards (and even then I've seen some OSR types admit they don't like it or use it in their games). There's a reason why level drain is no longer a thing, as of 3e.
And I like a Living World too... And a though, some games actually put all that stuff on the character sheet with mechanical weight... Often you can even start with some of that stuff. Serious question, if you can put some of that stuff on the character sheet, and in the campaign, Bob utilizes his contact with Jane that he put on his character sheet at the start to help him get on a baking competition TV show, should he later be able to change that contact? Does that contact and his presence and performance on the baking show even make sense when we change the mechanics on the character sheet from baker to car mechanic? I mean a car mechanic getting on a baking show and performing well is a cool story, but it's a different story from someone who always wanted to be a baker and found ways to learn baking despite their family not being able to afford to send him to baking school, who now gets on the baking show.Most players can't get past the mods on the character sheet?
Um.. Having a hard time trying to explain this without sounding like a dick.
Ever see those players when asked "what is Gimli Stonearm doing?" immediately look down at the character sheet? That somehow the +mods on the sheet will tell them where to go next.
He's made contacts, made enemies, has friends, has rivals, has commitments, etc. imo has nothing to do with the character sheet or game mechanics. That is a player playing his character in a Living World.
Yea, maybe I do. To be honest, I've played campaigns where the mechanics on the character sheet were either pretty wishy washy or the way the GM ran the ga,e was pretty wishy washy. And I've found I didn't like those campaigns. I'm playing a Role Playing Game I expect it to be a game.Okay. Sounds to me you put the emphasis on what the character does. It's Bob the Fighter.
I don't. It's just Bob to me.
I've always supported redoing a character after say 1-3 sessions. Ten sessions is a bit much, but if it REALLY took that long to see that your character didn't fit well, then let's talk. If you've been playing the character for 20 or 100 sessions and you don't like it any more, time for a new character. Depending on the game, I may allow you to create your new character with more points/experience/levels etc. that starting characters. And a new player would have the same opportunity. But the "impact" on the setting your old character accrued stays with that character.Last year a friend wanted me to join in his already running SR5e game. I said sure, what do you need? I have some ideas. We settle on one. I start playing. My character does not fit. I try to make it work, but I am definitely the odd man out. I am paying a second story man in a group of kick in the door a'shootin types. 10 sessions in I'm like Dude this isn't working, what's your thoughts on me reworking the character to fit the rest of the group? I'm thinking keeping the character concept, contacts and the like, changing from PhysAd to StreetSam going from Second Story to Brawler. That doable? It was. Then the game stops 2 sessions later....
I'm stretching the line of what character changes are acceptable or not to see if we can determine anything about why some folks want to be able to chage their characters despite what has happened in the campaign that might depend on the numbers on the character sheet.Why wouldn't the death of a character not have an impact on the setting?
I'm struggling to understand why the mechanics of Bob matter if you see Bob as Bob, not Bob the Baker.It may be more than the player is bored with the game mechanics covering bakers?
Yeah, whining crybabies who want their Perfectly Curated Encounter, to give them a false sense of accomplishment while not really risking anything. (You started it.)
Level Drain and Save or Die abilities were a pain in the ass in older D&D, but they sure made encounters scary as fuck. Fighting a vampire was a goddamn nightmare and took teamwork, tactics and everything you had to get out without serious level drain. The “tryhards” got to feel real accomplishment in vanquishing a much tougher foe.
People used to tolerate level drain without revolting in D&D...
Care to transcribe it? That's not a world I've ever delved into and I'm curious.
I would assume if Jane is that specific of a contact for such a precise purpose that Bob instead of being in a baking show was in a car build-off show?And I like a Living World too... And a though, some games actually put all that stuff on the character sheet with mechanical weight... Often you can even start with some of that stuff. Serious question, if you can put some of that stuff on the character sheet, and in the campaign, Bob utilizes his contact with Jane that he put on his character sheet at the start to help him get on a baking competition TV show, should he later be able to change that contact? Does that contact and his presence and performance on the baking show even make sense when we change the mechanics on the character sheet from baker to car mechanic? I mean a car mechanic getting on a baking show and performing well is a cool story, but it's a different story from someone who always wanted to be a baker and found ways to learn baking despite their family not being able to afford to send him to baking school, who now gets on the baking show.
See that's why I don't like changing the character. Because changing the character mechanics DOES change that "impact" on the setting for me.
That italic is the part that lead me down this path of not minding players changing parts of their characters.I've always supported redoing a character after say 1-3 sessions. Ten sessions is a bit much, but if it REALLY took that long to see that your character didn't fit well, then let's talk. If you've been playing the character for 20 or 100 sessions and you don't like it any more, time for a new character. Depending on the game, I may allow you to create your new character with more points/experience/levels etc. that starting characters. And a new player would have the same opportunity. But the "impact" on the setting your old character accrued stays with that character.
I look at the GUI not at the code?I'm struggling to understand why the mechanics of Bob matter if you see Bob as Bob, not Bob the Baker.
I already gave you a real at the table situation.But again, I fear part of the problem is that we're not examining a real at the table situation, we're just theorizing.
He's made contacts, made enemies, has friends, has rivals, has commitments, etc. imo has nothing to do with the character sheet or game mechanics. That is a player playing his character in a Living World.