The inability of RPGs to allow excellence.

[Neeek]

In procrastinating from studying for my finals, I re-read the Pirate Nations book for 7th Sea. Reading through the character descriptions and remembering how the system works, I noticed that the NPC descriptions often produced traits that the actual rules couldn't support. Things like Berek's incredible luck, and D.D.'s photographic memory.

It just occurred to me that most(all?) RPG systems don't really account for the quantifiable elements of characters that we'd most notice in literature. Physical prowess is all fine and good, but is there a rule set that covers Bullseye's amazing throwing ability? Is there a rule set that covers Vizzini's supposed intellect?

I can't think of one, and that's a problem. The DnD basic idea of everyone fits into a class is fine and dandy for NPCs. The problem is that it guarantees that the PCs are special. PCs are supposed to be special. The history of the game has been exactly backwards as compared to how it should have been: Monsters used to have ability that PCs couldn't have. As time has passed, more and more monster abilities have become available for PCs. That's great, but really, the PCs should have abilities the monsters and NPCs can't get.

The PCs are the focus of any non-idiotic campaigns. And given the expectation that the focus of any story is an extraordinary person and/or group, shouldn't they be given greater powers? Even the stories about "ordinary" people being heroes are written to call attention to the character's "ordinaryness".

I guess all that I am saying is that PCs should have special, even absolute, abilities. They ought to have the possibility of being the best at something, regardless of the system. And when they are the best, there shouldn't be anyone who can challenge them, other than extremely limited other people who are in their class in the thing they are best at.

[PhoneLobster]

In short. Yes.

But I'd like to add my long standing bone about what PCs and "major" NPCs should be NOT able to do.

Which is to say very little, compared to the extras. A heroic PC, or a villainous NPC thinks nothing of doing many of the things that a regular minor character does as THEIR speciality.

Most major named characters can pick up a sword and functionally use it (if not against a named swordsmen then at least against unnamed swordsmen), ride a motorcycle, fly a jet, fire a complex gun, activate the secret magic puzzle box by pressing the 'on/off' button, and do a bunch of things which many RPG systems force you to pay through the teeth for like your character was some kind of untalented mook.

I guess I'm saying that yes, I agree that Hero character resources should be able to buy you things that the nameless masses cannot have, but I'm adding that Hero character resources should not need to be wasted on nameless mass level abilities (mundane weapon proficiencies, I'm calling you guys out on this one...)

[RandomCasualty]

1196674356[/unixtime]]
I guess all that I am saying is that PCs should have special, even absolute, abilities. They ought to have the possibility of being the best at something, regardless of the system. And when they are the best, there shouldn't be anyone who can challenge them, other than extremely limited other people who are in their class in the thing they are best at.

In a level system, this doesn't work out. The thing is that if you're level 5 and the other guy is level 15, he's going to be better than you at basically anything he wants to be, but that's the whole point of a level system.

Also, I disagree that NPCs shouldn't be special too. Villains are often as special as heroes, if not more so.

[Maxus]

I can see the point of this, because I was thinking the same thing myself. Look at fiction. Some of the really memorable good guys/bad guys have abilities that others don't.

More specifically, look at Drizzt.

Yes. I know. Drizzt.

But, really, Drizzt can't be reflected in the DnD rules, although the RoW Two-Weapon-Fighting is a good start. And then he has that whole Hunter thing where everything seems to slow down from his point of view and he's gutting orcs/drow/what-have-you left and right.

It supposed to be a Rage ability that he picked up from being a wild man in the Underdark for ten years, but when Drizzt's going all Hunter, he's pretty much untouchable.

And under Core rules, there's not a set of abilities you can pick out. Like a comprehensive list of abilities where your character can go above and beyond the ones listed in the rules. Heck, you could have that list, and tell the party, "You get one at level 1 and one at level 10."

Or something like that.

There is a solution, though. The list *could* be house-ruled, which will fix the problem on a smaller scale. And might garner some attention, if it's awesome enough.

[Username17]

In a level-based system you're basically just saying that players should mostly face lower level opponents with only a few equal levelled guys.

-Username17

[Catharz]

Drizzt is thinking that a level of "whirling frenzy" barbarian is cooler than it is.

[tzor]

I think there are two things to consider here. The first is that some famous characters get really cool bizzare things because it's fun to give heroes really cool bizzare things. PCs are heroes in the campaign. On the other hand, few novels are all about level 1 characters; the "back history" for most novel characters would be the starting adventures for most role playing characters. Cool bizzare things should be somehow obtainable for the characters.

There is a second thing to consider. In any given rule set we have in effect made limitations as to what can and can't be done. Sometimes given a rule set A you can't make a character concept B because it just doesn't work out that way.

I'm not sure you can easily solve the second thing. For the first thing I would suggest some sort of quest enabling feat option, because it is always better to be able to unlock a special character related feat as a result of the completion of a good story line, and that's what you will find in most back histories of characters in novels of characters with spiff features.

And yes if the heroes have it the villians have it.

[RandomCasualty]

Asking for unique abilities really doesn't work in an RPG. Because unique abilities are made one of two ways:

-An existing ability is restricted to everyone else, except one PC. This generally comes off looking like favoritism when you arbitrarily decide one PC is the only one who can take sudden empower or karmic strike.

-You are asking for an ability that doesn't exist. The rules can't really handle this, because it's by definition beyond the rules.

[angelfromanotherpin]

A novel is generally the product of one creative vision, so if the writer wants there to be only one guy who's ever taken a level of 'Whirling Rage Barbarian,' then there is only one. In an RPG, there are several creative visions at work, and while it's a bad idea to say 'only Jeff can take levels of Whirling Rage Barbarian,' it's fine to say that if only Jeff has taken such a level, that he's the first one ever to do so. It's hardly likely to break the game if, out of the ridiculous number of possible adversaries, you never encounter another WRB. If, later on, another player wants to take a WRB level, then it can have been taught by or inspired by Jeff's character.

One of the advantages of super-long ability lists is Naruto-style signature effects. The problem comes when only a very few of those abilities are worth taking, since that narrows viable character creation.

[tzor]

1196789400[/unixtime]]Asking for unique abilities really doesn't work in an RPG. Because unique abilities are made one of two ways:

I suppose one shold consider "unique" in a loose sense of the word. (Although one could use a "bidding" system if one really wanted to enforce the concept.) Another thing to consider is where the uniqueness comes into play, it might be a matter of unique being in the fluff text.

Assuming that you don't have a party of clones then each character is going to by definition be somewhat different, probably different classes and or races etc. A party of four Drizzt clones might all strive for the 'Whirling Rage Barbarian,' if they want and it would be a boring game but if they are having fun more power to them.

If we go "by the book" as Lt. Savvic would suggest then in theory the idea of a custom written feat with a pre-requisite is no different from a custom written PrC which is encouraged by the rules. It needs to be balanced (but hey not even the official writers for WotC has time to do that anymore) but that's about it. There are already enough Feats on the web as it is.

[Voss]

Personally, I find a disconnect between special powers and excellence. Excellence is a factor of competence, not Mystical Monkey Powers. Maybe its a carry-over from computer games, but I despise the Speshul Powahz model. I don't need a fighter to be a chid of Bhaal, I just want the character to be good in a fight.

[Bigode]

As usual, I agree with Voss; but, moreover, on the question of abilities restricted to monsters (who can pick PC abilities just fine), think about it like this: when you gave something the fine level of balance a PC-available ability's supposed to have (PC abilities need to be better balanced because PCs are the focus and appear all the time), why should one make a pact of never giving an NPC one? OTOH, as Frank & K say, "DMs control the monsters, and DMs control the treasure", so by defining something as monster-only, you automatically lower the caution level needed, and that has a measurable utility.

Ah, that's not to say your desire isn't valid on stylistic grounds; just to explain why one's common and the other isn't. Also, I do find somewhat weird the idea of "PCs are special and antagonists aren't".

[Maxus]

Also, I do find somewhat weird the idea of "PCs are special and antagonists aren't".

I really think the idea is: "PCs are special, mid-to-high ranked bad guys are, too."

You could make an argument for there being three levels of Speshulness for people in DnD realms.

-Mook
-Adventurer (may or may not include government officials)
-Hero

The idea is that even though you have adventurers, a lot of them are just mercenaries or really skilled guardsmen or wizards who learn their stuff well but aren't even called on to bring out the heavy magic, or clerics who spend most of their spells-per-day healing the sick.

Sounds like being low-level, right?

Well, they could *potentially* be just as good as you do, if they went out and killed four level-appropriate monsters a day. Even feats aren't unique.

So what separates PCs from NPCS? Besides not having an N...

Nothing.

Mechanically, I wouldn't object if a DM told me "You can be gauranteed good at these skills, these weapons, or you can have this inherent ability. The thing is, the BBEG and his lieutenants will have this sort of thing, too."

If you wanted to be lazy, you could just slap on monster abilities or give someone skills bonuses, so they can expect to perform certain tasks reliably. And, on the flip side, important antagonists will have similar abilities.

[tzor]

I think the important thing to remember is that a PC is 24/7 while a monster is a few rounds in an encounter at most. Balance in that sense has to be seen in that context because for monsters what goes on outside that encounter doesn't really matter.

Feats of Excellence, to one sense and example of the extreeme can be found in the adventuring party in the The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (well sort of the movie has the party as being past their prime).

Here is a good example of a Feat of Excellence, whipped up in two seconds so it's as unballanced as all hell.

Eyes of Adolphus: Your eyesight is extrordinary - no really - you have double the range to use a sneak attack (60') and you can use a projectile weapon up to maximum range without any range increment penalties.

[angelfromanotherpin]

So what separates PCs from NPCS? Besides not having an N...

How about the real-life flesh-and-blood person sitting at the table who is chiefly invested in a single PC?

[Maj]

And given the expectation that the focus of any story is an extraordinary person and/or group, shouldn't they be given greater powers?

[jaded]

They are! PCs in D&D get twice as much wealth per level as NPCs.

[/jaded]

While it's too rules light and DM trusting for most D&D people to be interested in, Everway offers a system that allows players to make up crazy, unique abilities for their characters and "stat" them.

[Yahzi]

I don't want "special" PCs. It just ruins my suspension of disbelief.

And annoys my moral code.

PC: "Hi! I'm a PC! I'm special!"
Me: "Die, aristocratic scum!"

[RandomCasualty]

The main thing about being special that kind of annoys me is that most people equate shit that happens in novels to always being special. Like the shit Drizz't does. Seriously, most of that is just flavor text for being a high level warrior. That's it. Yeah, shit seems to slow down for him and all that bullshit. He's 15th level and that's what happens when you're that good. Not every little flavor ability needs a mechanical representation.

[Username17]

Here's something to consider:

In 4e Shadowrun you actually can begin play as a character with the highest possible augmented lockpicking skill and the highest possible augmented attribute. You can be an Elf and you can even have the best lockpicks in the game as a starting character. You can play a starting character with 28 dice on lockpicking tests. Throw Edge and you can reliably get a triple-extraordinary success. I don't even know what that means or does.

And that actually pisses people off. There are long threads about how terrible it is that sch a character has "no room for growth". And that's something you have to accept when you make someone "the best". Once you're the best, you can't really become any bester. Even if your numbers are allowed to increase, it doesn't really matter once you already always win.

In a level-based game, people are definitionally going to be gaining levels later on. And that makes things difficult. It means that players must have room for real improvment, and that means that people are supposed to be at a point where they aren't the best.

Having a character be the best essentially requires caps. You can make games which don't have advancement in any meaningful sense. You can even make a skill base where characters can start the game at the caps of one category or another. People have done it. But it really genuinely pisses people off because people don't play role playing games for the same reasons that they read Salvatore novels.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Just because one might desire that a character have available to them options not available to every common mook under the sun doesn't mean those "exclusive" options need to be the best from the get go with no room for advancement in a level based system.

For the desired effect the options just need to be special and interesting, at least as far as I see it.

I mean screw it, as far as I'm concerned if it was just funny mustachios that were exclusive to PCs and named villains I'd be pretty damn pleased.

But also. I think I'm learning to really dislike this whole "level" thing. I think I now want levels to go away.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I think of it as a DM problem. The DM can have the identical level-based representation of the PC as a town guard and the PC won't even care most of the time. Hell, they can even have a duel that goes something like:
"I'm just as good as you are, but I stayed here and protected the from The Bewitched Wyvren Death Squard"
"Well, I hunted them down and killed them one by one *fight*"
*same move, same move, same move*
*PC does more damage due to better equipment*
*PC wins*