Re: [BNW] Character Design observation

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

> > So, does anyone else have a problem with this whole "can only buy 
>positive
> > quirks with negative quirks thing" (and the resulting 10 point cap on
> > Positive Quirks)?
> >
> > Well, okay, maybe not a problem with the unstated rule per se, but the 
>fact
> > it isn't clearly stated in the BNW rulebook.
> >
> > I guess I don't mind the 10-pt. cap on Positive Quirks.  But I sure wish 
>the
> > rules stated it...  :(
>
>Well:
>1. It is the first printing of the rules, so there are bound to be a few
>slip ups. There were some in Deadlands and virtually any other games that
>have ever come out. If that weren't the case we would never need revisions
>(well, except to get the company more money :)
>

Well, maybe.  On the other hand, this is Game Design 101 kinda stuff.  Our 
group has playtested enough stuff to know this is the first kind of thing 
you look for because...well, when you playtest, creating characters is the 
first thing you do.  :)  And you push the system as far as it can go.  It's 
brutal, but it means the game is better in the end.

In this case, it's the difference between building "gritty" low-end 
characters, and having enough points in quirks to build a Bruce Wayne or 
Tony Stark!  Maybe it's just us, but BNW doesn't seem like the setting where 
a character can pretty readily have Rich 5, Contacts 5, and Gear 5, simply 
by having a Strength of 2d6 and foregoing 5 skill points (why is Swimming a 
"highly recommended starting Skill", anyway?  Are folks really seeing a lot 
of aquatic adventures in their campaign?).

Now, on the other hand it may have been an editorial omission.  But if 
that's the case, you think Matt would have noticed it after publication and 
included it in the original errata.  Instead, the errata covers stuff like 
how the year on Patriot's grave is a year off.  Important, but it doesn't 
cut to the heart of character design and what character design tells the 
reader about the types of characters that populate the game world.

>2. If you don't like the rule, don't use it. I've always found that you
>can make any rule change you want as long as it applies to EVERYONE, PC
>and NPC.
>

As I noted, it's not a matter of liking or disliking the rule - it's a 
matter of _finding_ the rule.  The fact that any rule can be changed or 
omitted by the consumer isn't, IMO, an excuse to provide base rule systems 
with omissions.  Too much of that, and you don't get the chance to publish a 
second edition to fix the slip-ups in the first edition. ;)

And I don't mean to say there's a lot...but sometimes a few critical ones 
can sink a game faster than a lot of minor ones.

>3. It seems a little odd to me in that they declared in Deadlands (lets
>face it, there are similarities in the systems) that you can take as many
>edges as you want and use your hinderance and/or skill points for it. The

Why is it odd?  It's different in comparison to BNW, but I don't necessarily 
see anything odd or unusual about it.

I guess I do find it odd, but for an entirely different reason. It basically 
forces the characters in Deadlands or HoE to put points (or card stats/die 
types, or whatever you want to call it) in certain attributes simply to be 
competently skilled.  So that covers Smarts, Knowledge, Cognition.  But at 
least in HoE, you'd better by God put good stats into Vigor (lots 
o'radiation poisoning) and Spirit (Guts checks against post-Apocalyptic 
higher average fear levels).  So basically five of your attributes are 
already "committed" to being relatively high.  The variable nature of 
drawing for attributes just augments that problem - yoiur other five 
attributes can suffer by comparison, or your character can be less 
competent/skilled and/or prone to dying from rad poisoning or failing those 
Gut checks and being useless.

It seems like they should have had a set pool of Skill points available to 
HoE characters, rather than attribute-based.  But I guess I don't find the 
idea of a common pool "odd" per se.

>only reason I see to do this differently in BNW is: A. different company
>now, B: with the points being stat-related (instead of a global pool) the
>cap is to prevent the kind of points manipulation that others have brought
>up.

You mean like us bringing it up?  :)  *shrug* Any point-based system lends 
itself to manipulation.  Do we really want players who toss five of their 
six Strength skill points into, say, Sports/Baseball and drown in the first 
adventure? ;)

Your mileage may vary, but I've never found points manipulation (or 
min/maxing, if you prefer) to be the Mark of the Beast.  Some of the best 
"in character" role-players I know are also what would probably be 
considered min/maxers.

And besides, let's be honest - given that Strength is a fairly critical 
attribute among the four (it determines your "hit points," your ability to 
make stun checks, your hand-to-hand damage, your healing), have a lot of 
folks really found a way to believably spend those starting 9 Strength Skill 
Points, given the relatively small number of Strength-based skills?

Yes, I know, "not everything should be combat" but BNW is a violent enough 
setting that it's going to come up, and non-combat skills won't help you if 
you're dead.  ;) If you've got a Strength of 2 and ain't Brawny, a lucky die 
roll (don't you love open-ended damage systems? :) ), 20 pts. of damage 
above and beyond any Armor you're wearing (and assuming armor helps against 
the kind of attack), and you've got a pulped Chest and on to the next 
character.  If that happens twice, even Delta Points won't help you.

Now, I can appreciate that Matt doesn't want a system that lends itself to 
min/maxing to such a degree that your Ambidexterous Lucky player character 
is saying "I'm Batman" resources-wise or "Let's go shopping!".  I'm just 
confused as to why the published rules don't say that, and why (apparently) 
no one noticed it until now.  Or did someone else notice it, and I missed 
the briefing?  It's not in the accumulated rulings through November...

>It seems like it would have been better to say something like: any points
>for pos. quirks must first be bought with points from neg. quirks, or
>something...
>

Wouldn't help.  The "problem" I'm seeing is that characters are spending all 
of their 10 pts. of negative quirks on positive quirks, and _then_ cutting 
into their attributes' skill points to buy more positive quirks rather than 
skills.  They are buying the PQs with points from NQs first.  Again, not 
unreasonable since the rules don't permit you to buy Positive Quirks after 
the game begins, but do permit you to buy Skill Levels later on.  Do we 
really want players who are too stupid to realize this?  I guess I find 
stupid players to be poorer role-players, not better ones.

Matt's solution is the best solution for what he wants to accomplish.  I'm 
just kinda curious as to why the change, since apparently either he didn't 
want to accomplish this originally, or the playtesters didn't realize they 
could do it, or they limited themselves to NQs-for-PQs-only of their own 
volition, or there was some unpublished rule (along with some of the other 
ones...) floating around that never made it to press.



---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com