Setting Conversions

[frobisher]

If I found myself in a game where I would have to first roll up some stats to make a character, these days, I'd just politely walk away. Stats are what you put down when you already have a clear view of the character.

To my mind the fun in roleplaying is not to play a character you want to play, but to make a character you wouldn't want to play, fun.

One thing about random generation is that "balance" goes out the window.

You rolled crap, you are crap. Simple as that.

On a points system, if you have crap stats, then obviously you've made up for it somewhere else, 'cos you have to be balanced. And life isn't like that.

 

[SteveMND]

Stats are what you put down when you already have a clear view of the character.

See, there's where people like you and I differ. I don't want the players to have clear view of their characters when they start out (and the same holds true when I'm playing as well).

Rather, I prefer that they start with some hope and dreams, some aspirations and goals. But that's it. Otherwise, they start with (for the most part) what the gods gave them, and THEY make the story from there.

Maybe some people like starting off with the stats needed to be a fine gladiator, or all the stats needed to become a powerful wizard, but I prefer the challenge of starting out as a "Joe Everyman" and then seeing what sort of character you end up due to the things you've done and the things you've seen. i think that creates a far more heroic character at the end of it all as opposed to somebody who's stats were defined from the get-go to get them to a certain goal.

In a system like d20 -- where planning your character out for all 20 levels ahead of time is darn near mandatory anymore -- yes, I can see where starting out with a custom set of stats to fit a design would be preferred. But in a skill-based system like RQ, I don't see it necessary in the slightest.

Again tho, YMMV, different preferences and all that, etc.

 

[andakitty]

But if you roll and use a mechanism to modify (as 3d6 per stat in order plus six points, max total 91) you can proceed to have a crap character that is fun to play, and maybe even a high CHA character. Works about four out of five tries. Part of the fun is overcoming a less than stellar beginning. One reason I like random generation is to give people a chance to try something they would not otherwise. I should also note that for the hopeless I always include a point buy method. :roll:

But by all means do whatever is fun. That's the point ultimately, yeeesss? 8)

 

[andakitty]

And I agree with SteveMND 100+%.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Tailoring you character at the begining of it's life does'nt mean that it's whole life will be mapped out for them, especially cause death can happen very soon. Characters change direction/goal just as people do. In my experience you have to beat most players with a large sh*tty stick for them to go beyond "I have blue eyes and a black cloak and want to be a runelord". Anything that helps them give their characters direction is good in my opinion.
I think that there is no problem with allocating point system as long as the stats have equal effect on character development and in RQ they didn't. I think one of the worst things that rolled stats do is create massive inequalities, and to be honest RQ showed that as much as many systems and more than some, (I'm looking espcially at you, INT!). Those bonuses to your improvement rolls sure added up during the life of a long lived character. I was/am modifying my RQ to change this.

I have met quite a few players (I will leave out the 'role'), who, no matter what, play the same character(s) over and over again, I feel it is just a question of leaving them to get on with it, less hassle that way, and it gives you more time to apply damage limitation.

[sigh] One of my oldest and best friends is a Dwarf trader/lever puller by any other name. Bless 'im.

 

[SteveMND]

n my experience you have to beat most players with a large sh*tty stick for them to go beyond "I have blue eyes and a black cloak and want to be a runelord".

Wow, again, I guess different player groups. In my group, it seems like it's the rare cases where the GM/DM doesn't ask us for a half-page summary of our characters before we sit down.

Whenever I ran a RQ campaign, I would schedule an evening with each PC alone first, where he or she could put a couple hours in with them doing some solo RPing before we all sat down as a group. That would typically be some 'early in life' sort of adventures or the like, and would help to define their character and their goals, and allow me as the GM to know a little bit more about what makes them tick. It also allows me to better come up with reasonable plots as to why they are all together at some point and time, and allows the player to get a feel on what he might want to do with the PC.

When we started playing Vampire and such on occasion, I was pleasantly surprised to see that game suggest such a pre-session with each player as well.

We'd also occasionally get an hour or two in on random nights with individual PCs doing some solo stuff as well, as the mood hit (and as the campaign's schedule allowed). These ideas won't always fit everyone's schedule, but the occasional solo play can really help to define a PC outside of the "okay, I fulfil this role in my party" mentality which we occasionally see.

I'm thinking about for the next campaign, actually having two 'groups' running seperatly, each being done on a different night of the week. The two would be operating independantly of each other, but in the same region and potentially influencing what the other group is dealing with, unbeknownst to them. I'm still working on the logistics of such an endeavor, though.

 

[Cobra]

Whenever I ran a RQ campaign, I would schedule an evening with each PC alone first, where he or she could put a couple hours in with them doing some solo RPing before we all sat down as a group.

Holy Time on your Hands, Batman! Forestry can't be that hostile! Wanna trade lives with me? Or are you talking about being stuck in the bush somewhere with a bunch of randy lumberjacks drinking Maudite beer from Quebec and looking for ways to express emotions without being called a sissy? In that case never mind...

Kidding aside, I think character development before playing is great. I've played (and enjoyed, I'm not ashamed to admit) games like Ars Magica which are quite good at character development and enjoyed them so much more. I find that I hate 'character classes' with a passion now, and although I don't mind an archetype or two I prefer freeform character development.

But that doesn't mean I dispense with rolling. I like to have both. I probably am a narrative GM - I develop a story in my scenarios in which I involve the characters directly. They have total free participation in that story, of course. Knowing my players, I try to design scenarios/campaigns that will appeal to them and draw them in so they feel personally involved. I've had nights where players seemed to be panic-stricken thinking what was to come, and those are very rewarding.

But in my opinion that can't be acheived to rolling up characters totally randomly and finding some lame excuse for all of them to be together in the same place at the same time, let alone finding an excuse to continue travelling together. So developing backgrounds, quirks, flaws, virtues, etc. can help with all of that.

On the other hand, there are times when I'm making characters that I can't decide what to be - so I like to have the random rolls to get me started on the path to character development and fill in the blanks afterwards.

Ultimately, the particular method of character creation isn't as important as having a wide range of tools at my disposal for doing so.

Cobra