Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5289061" data-attributes="member: 21169">It's a very interesting question, to what extent do the game mechanics map to features of the game world (and vice versa), here with regards to character. A massive question, really. I think some mechanics don't mean very much, they're abstract, like some interpretations of hit points, action points, hero points in M&M, and so forth, whereas some mechanics do tell you something real about a character - the six stats, for example.I like the idea that we can use the mechanics to distinguish between characters, especially PCs. I want them to be mechanically individualised. I mean all these numbers are floating around in rpgs, it would be nice if they were actually good for something. The turnip farmer, in 3e, I think should be a 1st level commoner. To make him competitive with the other PCs he could have higher stats, assuming that's the character concept. 18 str and con seem appropriate, a real giant of a man. That's system doing its job imo, it's distinguished between good natural abilities but no training or real fighting experience, and the better trained but lower statted 1st level fighter. Not strongly distinguished, mind you, but it's something.I remember having difficulty with a pirate PC in 1e Warhammer who I envisaged as an old man. To represent that I felt he should only have one attack - slowing down in old age, but higher skills. Unfortunately the system doesn't really let you do that, starting PCs are all much of a muchness, they are all assumed to be youths. Also +1 attack is amazingly amazing in Warhammer, much better than any other increase, so I ended up gimping myself.I had a similar problem with a super-sniper superhero, using the d20 version of Silver Age Sentinels. Sniper, to me, suggested a slow, but very accurate and deadly, style of attack. However, again taking extra attacks makes your char much better for a very low cost. I compromised and took one extra attack. But I felt dirty.With more freeform systems, such as HERO and many other superhero systems, GURPS and the like, one feels more pressure to make the numbers fit the character. In class-based systems such as D&D it's perhaps more acceptable for mechanically identical 1st level fighters to be very different things.However my approach to D&D has been to assume that characters are quite limited things. A 1st level fighter, to me, does indicate a guy with some training and/or fighting experience. After all there are 0th level humans or commoners to represent turnip farmers. 4e is actually trickier because it takes care to say nothing about the wider world. However again my interpretation, and this is a personal one not required by the rules, is that most people are 1st level minions, which makes all 1st level PCs extremely capable. Otoh there is more of an abstract feel to 4e. Perhaps that capability is inherent awesome rather than learned. And one could say the same in 1e or 3e, that the 1st level fighter's awesome is natural talent.</blockquote>

Verification