On Wednesday, September 7, 2011, Joey wrote:
Personally I've never agreed with that sorta evaluation of
points... to me
it always seemed inherent in the rules that 30 was pretty much the
theoretical limit of any human and most people never got even close,
while
20's were 'heroic' levels, in the sense that if you had an ST of 25
or so,
you could be seen as a 'strength hero' not unlike a Hercules character
(though obviously more 'realistic' in that you're not THAT much
greater than
everyone else). Most people who are actually heroes (that is, good
fighters,
stealthy thieves, intelligent traveling wizards, and so on, but not
really
legends in and of themselves- any legends would have more to do with
actions
than abilities) have stats in the high teens, in my view.
The main reason I play it that way is thats just how most campaigns
i've
been in framed it, and given that for a lot of stats you start getting
special abilities instead of regular bonuses starting in the high
teens,
that seems like a good cut off point for being 'expert' but not
'best' at
said ability.... however, games that work your way also make sense
for me, i
just think its harder to justify within TFT rules....
Okkkkay...
Not sure we're disagreeing here...
Uhhh, what's the difference between "professional modern athlete" and
"hero"?
I think that's where any difference between out opinions lie,
besides an
overall preference for the "power level" on the game.
If I tell a player that they get to run Andre Peterson in a football
sim
they expect big stats.
I'd reckon the same if I promised Conan.
The best of the best probably do top out in the 30's for a stat...
at the
peak of their game.
The way I've set it up, it takes a crazy lot of downtime "practice and
training" to keep up a stat in the 20ish level.
Figures trying to maintain 60ish points really don't have time for
random
adventuring as their schedule is too full.
Ergo, I don't worry too much about mega-stat player Figures because
I've got
them locked down enough on their maintinance to keep them from
getting too
froggy.
The "Darklord" always comes at the players weaknesses... slay one
version
and there's always another out there in the shadows of players
thinking...
<strokes beard in an evil manner>
NPC control is much too much already for GM's... no reason to make
it up as
you go as well...
Just tell me your story and let me use my wrist for more important
(too me)
matters than throwing dice your gonna read as you want anyway pretty
much
reguardless of what I throw.
If a player can't "beat" the GM on occasion then why play with dice
and
player choice?
Even in TFT once the "Lab" was set up then the albeit loose rules
went into
effect and the GM works with the resources given him.
Can the dungeon muster as a Unit like a Vet's Hold or similar military
structure?
Why is the Dungeon there at all?
Ack!
I've drifted a bit in my thought.
Back to the main point.
In an openly "framed" world I don't see how you limit players stats
to the
"teens" over time.
Even in Melee eventually SOMEBODY'S gonna get lucky and have an
outstanding
run that's gonna equate to quite a few character points.
The first couple of Ultimas were a bit like that too.
Once you made a few levels it became hard to die if one were
prudent, but
those first few levels were something of a crap-shoot.
Yes, you can make it a tough environment but sometimes players will
survive
if handled with the tools given in design.
Deny the gladiator any attempt to escape, no matter how small the
chance,
and it becomes less an RPG and more a board-type game.
I'm not yelling about that, just saying that a full-blown RPG
doesn't have
"map-edges".
Or Stat limits so to speak.