Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5889246" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm aware of the existence of points-buy games in which wealth and status is among the things that can be bought.But most of the people complaining in this thread about &quot;arbitrariness&quot; and &quot;PC/NPC equality&quot; are not playing those games.And even within those games, the same issue arises. To give a simple example: in a points buy game, if I want to be a wealthy noble, I have to give up something else (let's say, crossbow training).But there is nothing stopping the GM building an NPC with wealth and crossbow training (ie builidng an NPC to a higher points total). And then declaring that NPC to be younger than any of the PCs, even though those PCs are not built to as many points. (So the NPC's extra points can't be &quot;explained away&quot; as extra &quot;adventuring&quot;/&quot;training time&quot;.)The basic point is that the PC build rules - whether in D&amp;D, or a points-buy game - are balanced around metagame considerations. These can vary from game to game - maybe there is a desire to balance mechanical effectivness, maybe a desire to balance spotlight time, maybe both, maybe some other consideration. (And effectiveness and spotlight time don't coincide - that's partly why in some games taking disadvantages grants points, whereas in Burning Wheel you have to pay points to be blind or lame - because the blind or lame PC is going to be soaking up time and energy at the table, so the player has to pay for that.)Even some of the &quot;purest&quot; PC generation systems, using life paths that are meant to precisely model the social reality of the gameworld - I'm thinking Traveller, Runequest, Burning Wheel, etc - don't treat PCs and NPCs identically. In the Traveller universe, some NPC or other made it to the imperial throne, but no player can roll that up on the tables. In Burning Wheel, there is no lifepath for King, and even Crown Prince requires agreement from all the participants at the table.And it can be brought back to D&amp;D character generation in another way. Some NPCs are physically or mentally handicapped in all sorts of ways. But players get to reroll PCs that don't fit a minimum criterion of &quot;playability&quot;. And there's nothing wrong with this - it's inherent in the conception of what a PC is for. It's for being played in a game. And that brings with it some contraints that just aren't relevant to designing antagonists, or extras, for the same game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5889246, member: 42582"] I'm aware of the existence of points-buy games in which wealth and status is among the things that can be bought. But most of the people complaining in this thread about "arbitrariness" and "PC/NPC equality" are not playing those games. And even within those games, the same issue arises. To give a simple example: in a points buy game, if I want to be a wealthy noble, I have to give up something else (let's say, crossbow training). But there is nothing stopping the GM building an NPC with wealth [I]and[/I] crossbow training (ie builidng an NPC to a higher points total). And then declaring that NPC to be younger than any of the PCs, even though those PCs are not built to as many points. (So the NPC's extra points can't be "explained away" as extra "adventuring"/"training time".) The basic point is that the PC build rules - whether in D&D, or a points-buy game - are balanced around metagame considerations. These can vary from game to game - maybe there is a desire to balance mechanical effectivness, maybe a desire to balance spotlight time, maybe both, maybe some other consideration. (And effectiveness and spotlight time don't coincide - that's partly why in some games taking disadvantages grants points, whereas in Burning Wheel you have to pay points to be blind or lame - because the blind or lame PC is going to be soaking up time and energy at the table, so the player has to pay for that.) Even some of the "purest" PC generation systems, using life paths that are meant to precisely model the social reality of the gameworld - I'm thinking Traveller, Runequest, Burning Wheel, etc - don't treat PCs and NPCs identically. In the Traveller universe, some NPC or other made it to the imperial throne, but no player can roll that up on the tables. In Burning Wheel, there is no lifepath for King, and even Crown Prince requires agreement from all the participants at the table. And it can be brought back to D&D character generation in another way. Some NPCs are physically or mentally handicapped in all sorts of ways. But players get to reroll PCs that don't fit a minimum criterion of "playability". And there's nothing wrong with this - it's inherent in the conception of what a PC is [I]for[/I]. It's for being played in a game. And that brings with it some contraints that just aren't relevant to designing antagonists, or extras, for the same game. [/QUOTE]

Verification