Character Flexibility

[robert_pat]

I just thought I'd get some feedback on some house rules I employ in my own games.

I completely do away with the standard backgrounds for each culture. Not just the stories, but also the arrays of stats and traits. I allow my players to allocate their stats as they see fit, so long as the end result adds up to fourteen, and all stats are between two and seven. Likewise, I just ask my players to make up their own distinctive features. The ones in the books are used often, because the book covers a lot of common features, but to tie them to certain backgrounds seems unnecessarily restrictive.

While I understand that the arrays of stats are used for balance purposes (a dwarf with seven Heart would be hard to fell indeed), it just doesn't make much sense to me from a story perspective. Who's to say we can't have a hearty dwarf, or a woodman with a strong body? Every point in one stat means that character is weaker in some other meaningful way, and if a truly skilled minmaxer makes a game-breaking character, you have the power to correct for that as the LM.

Additionally, I allow my players to take Rewards (and occasionally Virtues) from other cultures. It seems odd to me that a hobbit can leave the comfort of the Shire, go gallivanting about Mirkwood for years on end, and only earn Rewards that can be found back home. I allow players to take Rewards from their own culture, as well as from other cultures if they have done something to directly benefit that other culture's peoples. Why would a Barding get a Tower Shield for saving Woodman-Town from a horde of orcs? Might the woodmen offer that Barding a Bearded Axe? And if a Dwarf ends up spending years of his life in Dale, I might allow that Dwarf to take the Swordmaster trait. I am much more discretionary in the Virtues department, though.

Again, balance could be an issue if you're allowed to take Rewards and Virtues from various cultures, but I'd rather see my players enjoy a more organic and free story, and just correct for balance in my encounters, than to shoehorn them into pre-balanced roles.

Sorry if that got a little ranty. I do really like this game, this particular bit just baffles me a bit. Any feedback or house rules with similar motivation/theme would be appreciated!

[Glorelendil]

This might be verbatim what I said in another thread on another topic, but the joy of playing games (and kind of game) comes from succeeding while operating within a set of artificial constraints. You might say, "I don't understand why the hockey goal is so small...the scores would be a lot higher if it were bigger!" And you'd be right.

In most RPGs you would get a much wider range of choices during character creation. I don't think either way is right or wrong, good or bad. TOR is just different than most RPGs.

I don't think you're breaking anything with your approach. You could also allow any initial weapon selections that fit the pattern, and let players pick all their skills starting from zero as well. The only thing that would really change is some of the feel of the game; the atmosphere. It will start to feel a bit more like those other RPGs.

[robert_pat]

the joy of playing games (and kind of game) comes from succeeding while operating within a set of artificial constraints. You might say, "I don't understand why the hockey goal is so small...the scores would be a lot higher if it were bigger!"

I agree with you there, though I think your example is a bit ludicrous.

The only thing that would really change is some of the feel of the game; the atmosphere. It will start to feel a bit more like those other RPGs.

How much do you think this would change the feel of TOR? Personally, I think that, say, an Elf receiving a Tower Shield from King Bard in recognition of heroism defending Dale is very much in the feel of the game. Unless you were more referring to the feel of the mechanics?

[Deadmanwalking]

I think this is a bad idea for both balance and mechanical reasons.

First, speaking mechanically, doing away with the backgrounds as stories option and allowing a choice of Favored Skill works fine for experience RPG groups as long as you allow the same range of stats, but all of the Cultures are built with base Endurance and Hope as well as Virtues and Rewards predicated on their starting scores, making changing those a profound sea-change in both balance and the basic way the rules function. What you're talking about is the balance equivalent of letting D&D characters cherry-pick Class Features from whatever Class they want. It's a much bigger balance problem than you might realize.

Yes, a good LM can correct any balance problems they notice, but they're probably not going to notice all of them, and in any case, adding more balance problems that an LM needs to address is poor game design. Especially if you're multiplying them almost exponentially like this.

But entirely aside from that, it doesn't fit thematically either. In Tolkien, if you hear someone is an Elf, or a Hobbit, or a Dwarf, or even certain sorts of man, that says certain things about them. Hobbits aren't gonna be doing as much damage in combat as an Elf or Dwarf, while the Elf and Dwarf won't be nearly as full of Hope and such. And so on. Yes, these are stereotypes in many ways, but they're pretty universally true in the source material. Ditto Virtues. Very few are actually learned skills, and even those that are tend to be 'you've been trained in this from childhood' sort of things. Allowing any of that to be diluted really messes with the feel of the game and the degree to which saying "I'm a Dwarf." or "I'm a Hobbit." has any meaning at all in terms of what your character can actually do.

Now, Rewards are a somewhat different matter. Those you can pretty easily justify thematically, and are much less problematic mechanically than Virtues or stat changes as well. Ditto changing starting Weapon Skills in most cases, though changing Common Skills (while viable mechanically) runs back into thematic issues.

[Glorelendil]

Personally, I think that, say, an Elf receiving a Tower Shield from King Bard in recognition of heroism defending Dale is very much in the feel of the game. Unless you were more referring to the feel of the mechanics?

If you make a single exception like that then it doesn't change much, especially if you justify it with the narration you just described. But if you get rid of all cultural parameters/restrictions, then pretty soon you stop trying to come up with the fluff to justify it, then you're left with no cultural flavor at all. It's just a bunch of mechanics and stats to choose from.

And even if you don't actually say all restrictions are gone, if players know that if the LM can be given a good reason they can bend the rules then it becomes a game of "how easily can I convince the LM to let me take that cool Virtue from the other culture" or whatever. It reminds me of how, in some TOR games, I see players not even bothering to narrate their trait invocations. They just say, "Can I invoke Wary on that Travel roll? Yeah? Cool, thanks."

You don't, of course, have to let it get that lazy, but that's the danger of bending the rules. Once you start, where does it end? That's all I'm saying.

[Glorelendil]

P.S. I'll also add that your thread title suggests a basic difference in gaming philosophy. I'm always surprised/amazed when people on the D&D forums argue passionately for some contrived, nichey class when the concept could be built with some multi-classing and a little bit of fluff. Some players just want every option, and they construe the lack of such options as some kind of punitive rigidity on the part of the designers. If not outright constitutional infringement.

But the result of giving all those options leads to a swiss-army knife of a game with no soul. It would be like reading a novel in which the author tried to include every character archetype and plot idea under the sun, rather than including only those elements that move the story forward.

But to each his own.

[robert_pat]

I think I'm beginning to see a basic flaw in my rules. I believe they would work just fine because I'm assuming the best of players. In my mind, these rules simply give players more options in how they develop their characters from a narrative perspective. My intention is not to give players as much freedom as they want from a mechanical
perspective, except in that some narrative choices have mechanical repercussions.

I would like to think that players would deviate from the rules somewhat sparingly, only when it makes sense story-wise. But it's very possible that players would instead bend over backwards to develop their story in such a way that they gain some unconventional mechanical benefit.

[zedturtle]

It's very easy, because the rules don't call attention to the balancing that has been done between cultures, to accident allow something that the rest of the rules don't expect.

In the past, I have reskinned rewards the other way. For example, when one of our hobbits picked King's Blade as her reward, she literally got a sword from King Bard instead of going back to the Shire for an heirloom. That sort of stuff.

[poosticks7]

I would advice leaving the minimums and maximums of the 3 stats tied to the different cultures. A good while ago I add 4 extra backgrounds for each culture (which can be found in Rich H's resources), I found it was best to stick to the cultural parameters.

As for distinctive features - you are not breaking anything by letting them come up with their own, just be wary of their reasons, and watch out for the - God Damn hero trait (it is way too broad)*

Leave virtues alone.

As to cultural rewards - I see your point. Just be careful that the choices serve the story and not some mad combo...like hobbits with elven cloaks... wait on a minute.

* This has not happen in my game, I thought it was funny so I posted it.

[Deadmanwalking]

I think I'm beginning to see a basic flaw in my rules. I believe they would work just fine because I'm assuming the best of players. In my mind, these rules simply give players more options in how they develop their characters from a narrative perspective. My intention is not to give players as much freedom as they want from a mechanical
perspective, except in that some narrative choices have mechanical repercussions.

I would like to think that players would deviate from the rules somewhat sparingly, only when it makes sense story-wise. But it's very possible that players would instead bend over backwards to develop their story in such a way that they gain some unconventional mechanical benefit.

There are two issues with this, even assuming good will on the players part.

Firstly, as zedturtle notes, a lot of the balancing mechanisms in question are exceedingly subtle, and might easily be missed. I could very easily see someone making a variety of characters that are highly unbalancing sorta incidentally.

Secondly, as noted, even if everything winds up relatively even mechanically, it really damages the feel of the game if the Hobbit is doing more damage than the Dwarf, but the Dwarf has more Hope. Or many similar issues. It makes the cultures feel notably less distinct and interesting, and thus damages important thematic elements and immersion in the game.

Note that this is mostly only an argument against changing base stats, Virtues, and Common Skills, and that that's intentional. As stated previously, I actually see no issues with changing cultural Weapon skills a bit (in appropriately thematic ways), or throwing an occasional cultural Reward to a different culture.