Are there any female RPG'ers on this forum?

Any female gamers reading this forum?

  • Nope, male

    Votes: 15 100.0%
  • Hey, I'm female

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
Hmmm, about defining Character with characteristics (I'm not talking about basic stas). I used to think that this was a good thing but now I'm not so sure. One way of creating a character that I find very useful is the Book of 20 Questions from L5r get a copy just for that (and a great setting) This can work for amy world, any culture (with a bit of tweeking) and if done before any dice are rolled sets the Campaign up for some great times, the players can practically hand you adventures on a plate. One of the problems with many campaigns is that the reff tries to shoehorn the players in instead of building the campaign around them. The problem with 'tricks' tied to character traits is that players can and frequently do choose the trick for its trick, rather than something that fits their characters personality.
 
homerjsinnott said:
The problem with 'tricks' tied to character traits is that players can and frequently do choose the trick for its trick, rather than something that fits their characters personality.

I might be wrong, but when you say 'tricks', I think you're talking about slightly different things there, where you're referring to Flaws and suchlike seen in WoD games (which give you bonuses or hindrances to your character in actual game terms), whereas I think Adept is talking more about the behavioural tendencies seen in games like Pendragon i.e. Civilised/Uncouth, Brave/Cowardly, etc. which are more descriptive.

Like I say though, I could well be wrong :D

Haven't seen the book of 20 questions, will have to take a look.
 
Heck, it's putting me off. The game goes right back to pre-pendragon days when a character is solely defined by stats and skills. Nothing in the game system helps define personality, quirks, drives, fears and the like.

The problem is that if we introduced a bunch of alternate quirks and fears and the such, thereby taking it out of the RP of the players and games masters themselves, we would get labelled as adding limitations that people didn't want, or trying to re-invent the wheel. Its a catch-22, and it is better to err on the side of discretion.

In my history in this profession, if you leave the door open for your readers to make the quirks, fears, drives and what not - they will. All we end up doing by adding a printed system for it is give fuel to power gamers and min-maxxers out there looking to find the next best way to add empty points to their character. I'm not saying that everybody would use them in such a manner, but more than a few would.

I personally feel that roleplaying advantages and the like have no place in the points system of a character. It is better to have a games master reward their players for good RP on their own free will than have to obey some rule or table somewhere.

On the related topic of this thread - My RQ:G group is actually dominated by females...none of which come to the forums. I also know that the local group of RQers is almosty SOLELY women. I wonder if it is just that we males feel it more necessary to come to the forums and comment/complain/praise far more than the ladies - who might really enjoy the game, they just don't care if anyone else knows about it.

Enough debate for me for one day...back to work. This stuff doesn't write itself y'know?

Cheers all,
Bry
 
The problem with 'tricks' tied to character traits is that players can and frequently do choose the trick for its trick, rather than something that fits their characters personality.

Here, here. You understand my position on why not to make personality adjusters and the like in printed format.

I tip my hat to you...if I were wearing one.

:)

Bry
 
Is more focus needed on character rather than combat, then?

In the old, old days (RQ2) character-building (as in personality) was easy: you had a cult, nation, social status and perhaps profession (i.e. previous experience as mercenary/thief/alchemist/etc). Cult perhaps was primary, but all aspects had to be blended together, and the fun came reconciling them. RQ3, sadly, watered-down the cultures and previous experience, and had "What the Priest/whatever Says" essays, which perhaps standardized characters too much. Other games have tables to generate family relations, inborn special abilities/disabilities, hair/eye/skin colour, star-signs, and even out-and-out personality traits, that can be lifted easily. All of which can help inspire adventures and role-playing (as opposed to "roll-playing").

MRQ has made the great innovation of improvement/hero points which, hopefully, will be used to reward good role-play (not just victory in combat, which brings its own rewards - e.g. survival!). But is that good enough?

It would be nice to hear a few examples from this "Book of 20 Questions".
 
gamesmeister said:
I might be wrong, but when you say 'tricks', I think you're talking about slightly different things there, where you're referring to Flaws and suchlike seen in WoD games (which give you bonuses or hindrances to your character in actual game terms), whereas I think Adept is talking more about the behavioural tendencies seen in games like Pendragon i.e. Civilised/Uncouth, Brave/Cowardly, etc. which are more descriptive.

Like I say though, I could well be wrong :D

Haven't seen the book of 20 questions, will have to take a look.

I understand what you mean and as an avid Pendragon fan I quite like the Courageous/cowardly thing, but it can get in the way if over used and can become a min/max thing (when I and my players were younger there were many many Brave20 Knights!), but this is easily handled.


I feel that the WoD Flaws/advantages do have their place, but they must be handled with care and must finish the character rather than define it.
 
frogspawner said:
Other games have tables to generate family relations, inborn special abilities/disabilities, hair/eye/skin colour, star-signs, and even out-and-out personality traits, that can be lifted easily. All of which can help inspire adventures and role-playing (as opposed to "roll-playing").

WHY, do we need tables for that? Can't people flesh out their characters themselves? Rolled starsigns & personality traits??? "No, You can't do that, it doesn't fit with your personality trait!" That's so AD&D... All characters played for more than a few sessions usually gets a pretty marked personality, without need for tables.

MRQ has made the great innovation of improvement/hero points which, hopefully, will be used to reward good role-play (not just victory in combat, which brings its own rewards - e.g. survival!). But is that good enough?

Hero Points a great innovation? AD&D also have something similar, called XP, which you also can buy great feats for... :?

SGL.
 
frogspawner said:
Stag variety, or Ladybirds?

I personally recommend the Stag, which actually is the most expensive variant bred in my beetle pens beside Alastor's Skull, but Ladibirds are probably okay to. The Stag beetle is more aggressive and usually do pretty well in combat if attacked. I'll get you a good price!

SGL.
 
WHY, do we need tables for that? Can't people flesh out their characters themselves? Rolled starsigns & personality traits??? "No, You can't do that, it doesn't fit with your personality trait!" That's so AD&D... All characters played for more than a few sessions usually gets a pretty marked personality, without need for tables.

Kind of agree, but it would be nice to have some sort of mechanic to help reward players for creating cool back stories.
(Other than just awarding a one dose of HP)
It would have been cool to have provided a list of personality traits, each trait given a method of both gaining and lossing HP through play... but you have to be careful not to straight jacket players.

I would have like to see a way of mapping/keeping track of relationships:
to clan, to family, parents, pet ferret.

Not sure if its a problem, but RQ has always been Physical orientated, most the stats are physical, most of the skills are physical (thankfully there are social and intellect based skills)... just a thought.
 
Exubae said:
Kind of agree, but it would be nice to have some sort of mechanic to help reward players for creating cool back stories.
I agree, maybe you could give them some extra skill point to spend if their background indicated it, or give them a handfull of usefull contacts and friends from old.

It would have been cool to have provided a list of personality traits, each trait given a method of both gaining and lossing HP through play... but you have to be careful not to straight jacket players.
That reeks of AD&D alignements, which I can't see how can be done without taking away a lot of freedom from the players. I strongly prefer to let the players develope their character the way they see fit.

I would have like to see a way of mapping/keeping track of relationships:
to clan, to family, parents, pet ferret.
That would need a wellmade background story, which is good, but would take quite some extra time. Which is why some reward, like skill points or contacts would be in order.

Not sure if its a problem, but RQ has always been Physical orientated, most the stats are physical, most of the skills are physical (thankfully there are social and intellect based skills)... just a thought.
The physical is simpler to stat and vital for play. Giving emotions and personality own stats or percentages would just be limiting. That's my thoughts at least. The few times I've played AD&D, I've always played Chaotic neutral, so I could ignore their stupid alignement system and play like I wanted.

SGL.
 
I dont mind giving stats for personality traits if its a corner mechanic, and used for the players benefit ala Heroquest.

BUt usually it ends up as a straight jacket to beat you over the face with.
 
Trifletraxor said:
frogspawner said:
Other games have tables to generate family relations, inborn special abilities/disabilities, hair/eye/skin colour, star-signs, and even out-and-out personality traits...

WHY, do we need tables for that? Can't people flesh out their characters themselves? Rolled starsigns & personality traits??? "No, You can't do that, it doesn't fit with your personality trait!" That's so AD&D... All characters played for more than a few sessions usually gets a pretty marked personality, without need for tables.

MRQ has made the great innovation of improvement/hero points which, hopefully, will be used to reward good role-play (not just victory in combat, which brings its own rewards - e.g. survival!). But is that good enough?

Hero Points a great innovation? AD&D also have something similar, called XP...

Yep, HPs are a great idea - the point is they are (or should be) gained for good roleplaying. For me, D&D's XP still carry the sick "reward for killing" taint, and I don't think they've got away from that in 3.5 either.

Every character will have (or should have, to be fully detailed) a family, a date of birth (hence starsign, or equivalent), hair colour etc [I was thinking of C&S actually]. Tables are a quick and easy way to give some character. Yes, personality traits should be in the control of the player, but they could roll for an idea (or choose) - and get bonus HP for roleplaying it well, if taken. Special ability/disability (for volunteers only!) can be fun too.

Yeah, D&D alignments are rubbish by comparison to RQ cult/nation/etc. But better than nothing. (I believe the original intention was that characters would be judged and tracked on an alignment graph, rather than strait-jacketed). And traits-as-stats systems could easily be even worse.

Anyway, I was only asking if this sort of thing might be helpful, making for characterful roleplaying. But maybe the girls do it for the hack-and-slay - who knows? (My daughters certainly don't show any aversion to killing things in World of Warcraft...) And maybe it's all irrelevant - maybe there are tons of female RPG-ers out there and it's just the internet forum thing that's the geeky male preserve...
 
I am a little bemused at all this discussion on how to lure female rpgers in. I don't need special help to plan a character, I can do it all by myself. What I look for in a good game is more related to a good GM who will appreciate those who put the effort in to roleplaying a believable character with depth and personality. A good gm, with players who want to cooperate and develop an enjoyable game together is surely more important than any number of tables and rules.

:D
 
gamesmeister said:
I might be wrong, but when you say 'tricks', I think you're talking about slightly different things there, where you're referring to Flaws and suchlike seen in WoD games (which give you bonuses or hindrances to your character in actual game terms), whereas I think Adept is talking more about the behavioural tendencies seen in games like Pendragon i.e. Civilised/Uncouth, Brave/Cowardly, etc. which are more descriptive.

Like I say though, I could well be wrong :D

Haven't seen the book of 20 questions, will have to take a look.

Pretty close. I think Prendragon is a bit mechanistic with it's approach. I don't need to define a dozen sliders to define my character. Even worse, it's always the same dozen traits. It's fine for Pendragon, but not as a general system.

Let me think of an example of a superhero character I've been creating for an upcoming game (I've had a few chats with the GM, and things are shaping up).

Martin "Dark Light" Young
(The system is modified Unisystem)

The character is supposed to be a fairly normal 20 year old college kid in texas. He's a bit of a jock, but he's also very much a "goodie".

His mental "drawbacks" that help me define him are:

"Honourable" lvl 1

Martin holds himself to fairly high standards. He doesn't like to lie or cheat, attack people from behind, etc... a well brought up american boy.

"Loyal" lvl 2

This is a big part of Martin's personality. Martin get's really attached to people. He has a girlfriend at the college, and his natural instinct is that he will marry her, and they will spend the rest of their lives together. He dislikes violence, but he will risk his own hide for a friend, even in a cituation that looks really bad.

"Confident" lvl 1

Not really full blown overconfidence. Martin is young, smart and athletic. Nothing really bad has ever happened to him, and he trusts in his ability to cope with whatever life throws at him.

On a more "quirk" level Martin is the sort of person who tries to reason and mediate in a conflict. He tries to get quarreling people to compromise. He's also an optimist, and usually hopes for the best instead of expecting the worst.

The above drawbacks (Unisystem term) are on a scale of 1 to 3. A level three honourable, for instance, would mean an iron hard, unbending code of behaviour and honour.
 
Personally I encountered the logic of Advantages / Disadvantages & Quirks with GURPS 12+ years ago, and have never looked back.

They are not a tool for powergaming. Even when they are, it makes people actually try to play their characters. The most important stuff is on the "negative" side of the character sheet.

Stuff like pacifism, bloodlust or fear-of-the-dark. Having that written up on your char. sheet really helps, especially when starting up a new character. Weaknesses and flaws are what make us human.

One doesn't have to count points, but a well balanced point system can encourage people to take part, and actually develop some real character to their characters (hmm... unintentional but passable pun).

I've had nothing but good experiences with such traits, and I've seen them encourage a much higher standard of roleplaying on people coming from RQ-3 & Call of Cthulhu background.
 
Good roleplaying is its own reward. Why do we want or need to give XP/HP for it as well?

Likewise I am not keen on the idea of "Advantages" and "Flaws" as seen in GURPS and other systems. It might be possible to use these to create wonderfully in depth characters, but you can do this without mechanically rewarding characters, which distorts the process
(IE if you want to play a pacifistic character then there is nothing to stop you doing so in MRQ or D&D. Why should a character get extra skill points just because they are a paciifst?)

Tables for family, hair colour etc can be a nice optional extra, again, though I'd avoid giving them mechanical bonuses , or you'll suddenly find half your players are the eldest son of a noble, born under the most advantageous star sign etc etc... They should also definitely be optional (I prefer random character generation, but there is enough whinging from people about having to roll their stats to start with to want to listen to them complain that the tables won't let them play their concept....)
 
Good roleplaying is its own reward. Why do we want or need to give XP/HP for it as well?
Still, I like the idea of a character back story... and XP/HP as a carrot to get my players to put together some interesting history is way to encourage them.
But saying that using a couple of key words to sketch out personality and relationships are always useful.
But then you start moving towards a HQ style game model.

Not struck on Flaws and Merits as it ends up as excuse for max-min-ing and stomps on creativity.
 
duncan_disorderly said:
(IE if you want to play a pacifistic character then there is nothing to stop you doing so in MRQ or D&D. Why should a character get extra skill points just because they are a paciifst?)

Again, one doesn't have to use the points. One can just use the adv. / disadv. / quirk thing as a handy shorthand for describing a character. It's very useful and clears one's thinking a lot.

As for the point value, the logic is clear. Things like "code of honour" or "pacifism" limit the choises available for the character. A character with no defined personality can be a minimax survivor, being utterly ruthless when the situation so warrants, and gentle and compassionate when diplomacy or romance is in the cards. Real people have personalities and morals that "limit their choises". Again, I've seen this elevate "kill the trolls and take the loot" roleplayers into the realm of actual character roleplaying. This is a good thing.

The point value will encourage players into actually developing some personality for their characters.

[In my game the point values of the disadvantages are the same as the points with which we track skills. When creating characters (or when time passes between games) a character can learn up to a certain point value in skills. If he/she pushes beyond this limit (derived from willpower and intelligence) the player then chooses mental disadvantages equal to the value... from stress.

Let's say a character would normally learn 2 skill points worth of things in a year, but he's been busy and has gotten three skill points. The stress could result in him haven taken up smoking for a -1 point disadvantage.]


As for random tables for character traits and attributes... urrgh and double urrgh! What a horrible idea.

Oh, and one more thing. The nature of advantages / disadvantages is of course such, that players who don't like them don't have to use them. You are free to play Joe Everyman, the hero with no drawbacks or distinctive hangups.
 
Back
Top