From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au)
Date: Thu 19 Aug 1993 - 11:58:53 EEST
>
>We need better AND faster char gen systems. 2 hours is WAY too high. One hour
> is
> WAY too high. Half an hour is ok. Not all of us gamers enjoy making
> chartacters
> or have the extra time to make the characters, it is a problem for neophytes
> who
> should be gotten into the meat of the game: gaming, fast and also for us who
>have other concerns and can only get one evening a week for gaming if that. Yes
> I love the possibilities inherent in the new char gen system and I also hate
>randomness and ultimate sameness of the characters produced with the old method
> but to be a better game device char generation needs to be faster. -- hannu
>
Well, some might argue that 1 hr is way too long - I find that people don't make
up characters that often, and I like them to give a lot of thought to them.
I find that the reason that the new system takes a while is that it
gives you a lot of choice. If you want to make an uninteresting character, and
you know exactly what you want, it is really quick - a definite boom for GMs,
who are often in exactly that situation. Even moderately interesting characters
can be done quickly - providing you have a good idea what you want to do.
Character creation can only be so quick when you spend time on many decisions.
Personally I find that this is so with just about all games - the
character creation systems that take a long time (like Champions and Space Opera
for example) take a long time because you have flexibilty and have to make a lot
of decisions, the really easy ones (like A D&D) are easy because there are very
few decisions to make. The thing to avoid is excess arithmetic and looking up
things on tables, etc. I find that the templates approach is an excellent
compromise.
I have two suggestions. One - make sure that you learn the system, some
things that appear complex (like lots of sub-templates, and increasing
attributes, and cult skills) are much simpler if you know what you are doing.
I mention this because the difference in time between creating first and second
characters was really substantial for my players.
Two - how much of your time in character creation is spent making decisions, and
how much is spent actually working out skills and abilities? Realise which
decisions make it take longer, and think about it beforehand. Try making a
simple character ie a typical Orlanthi expert warrior, with average experience
as a crafter, for example. If you are clear about what you want, I find it takes
me half to a quater of an hour (providing there are no argements with the GM,
and I don't have to share one set of bound rules between 8 :-)). I find that
even complex characters (7 mothers priest-officials from noble houses, for
example) take me only slightly longer. I add fast:-).
Anyway, enough proselytising. I like the system, and I think that there
should only be minor changes unless someone comes up with a system that has
the same advantages (ie can be easily used for generic or highly individual
characters) and is even easier to use, which doesn't seem to be happening in a
hurry. I would actually like further complexity, to be used for things that I
would only use for ocassional customisation of exceptional characters.
Cheers
Dave Cake
PS Burton, I think your example of the RQ4 system adapted to RQ3 shows that it
works, certainly better than the old system. But I think allowing people to
add weapon skills together is asking for trouble, I would leave them as is for
skills within a template (ie not allow primitive hunter to add missile attack to
hand weapon attack) but maybe allow it between templates (allow sailors sword
skill to add to soldier sword skill), because I fear that most players would
choose to be too good at too few weapons. If I start a campaign at low level,
then weapon skill is the thing that is most important to be low.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:51 EEST