Status and PCs

[Angelalex242]

Well, it's never in the LM's benefit to have the king say no anyway.

"Hey, I got this new adventure module. Sadly, the king doesn't want you to do it."

"Oh, well then, screw your module."

"Well gee, now what do I run?"

[Glorelendil]

D&D 4e.

[Majestic]

Well, it's never in the LM's benefit to have the king say no anyway.

"Hey, I got this new adventure module. Sadly, the king doesn't want you to do it."

"Oh, well then, screw your module."

"Well gee, now what do I run?"

Every once in a while in some of our other games (other genres, not TOR), the PCs will make choices that end up basically not choosing to take the plot hooks thrown out by the GM. We've come up with the term "Dodge Module". So our running joke is now (as if asking for a saving throw):

"Okay, go ahead and roll to see if you Dodge Module!"

[doctheweasel]

Yeah, I agree. I like the way Rich handled it: the backstory determines Standing.

But I'd like to see some kind of trade-off for starting with higher standing. Sure, it's expensive to keep up, but it has perks.

Not sure what the trade-off would be, but something that works inversely to Standing. So that players who choose backstories with 0 rating would get something good, and players who choose a backstory with higher standing get less of it.

Any ideas?

Here's a few:

• Those starting with a lower Standing could begin with some Treasure – the fruits of their existing murder-hobo lifestyle. (I wouldn't do this, though, since a lot of Treasure goes right back into Standing).

• They could begin with another Trait. Maybe one not normally possessed by their culture. This works more thematically ("that one there was always a little 'queer' if you ask me").

• Standing 0 characters gain 1 free XP that can only be used on Magical Treasure rolls.

• Standing 0 characters begin play with 6 Advancement Points (Since XP is usually the same between party members while AP varies).


It's tough, since there aren't many mechanisms in play to fiddle with for only some characters while still keeping it all somewhat balanced/fair – which is the goal, since otherwise you would just start characters with different Standings and be done.

[doctheweasel]

Maybe have initial Standing based on Valour (as almost all starting heroes seem to favour Wisdom) and have a bonus to starting Hope equal to Wisdom? (Ie a reward to each for an opposite choice, if that makes sense)?

Or let players simply trade as much Hope for Standing as they wish upon creation.

Oh, oh yes.

[Angelalex242]

Well...let's think about the Fellowship for a moment...

The Hobbits...

Frodo was a respectable Status 3 Hobbit.
Sam, as a servant, was probably Status 1.
Merry was probably Status 2.
I'm not sure of Pippin.

The rest...
Gandalf is Status Wizard, which means different things to different people.
Aragorn starts status 5, and jumps to status 7 (High King of Everybody). Can't buy status 7 with treasure, nope. Gotta bump off the Dark Lord for that one. Also come with other perks, like marrying a hot elf girl.
Legolas is status 5, cause he's a prince.
Gimli is status 4, cause his dad is a companion of Thorin, and he's respectable in his own right.
Boromir was status 4, because he was Denethor's favored son.

[Glorelendil]

Subtract at least one from every number but Boromir's.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I was going on the idea that status 6, king, is for guys like Thranduil, Elrond, Galadriel, Bard, Dain, and so on.

Denethor is 5, because he's only a Steward.

[Robin Smallburrow]

An obvious trade-off for higher initial Standing:

Since Standing gives bonus to Tolerance for home culture, have it provide a penalty to Tolerance for at least one other cultures. An obvious example - Legolas was a prince of his own culture sure, but that actually impacted negatively with the Dwarves encountered a Rivendell.

Robin S.

[Angelalex242]

That's actually already included in the books. There's a 'racism' penalty between elves and dwarves, for example.