Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

 
Characters - classes, stats, experience?

#21
IMHO, I personally don't see the use for a type-specialty trainer class. It's like a one-trick pony class that would do better if it was a form of a game mechanic for the Trainer class. Like say, if a Trainer brings only one type of Pokemon to a dungeon, the effects for the type-specialty trainer would be set in place. :>
Reply

#22
I think getting a point for whichever stat people want is the way to go. Unless trainers can obtain unlimited stats, in which case the whole "gain stats for the thing you did the most" would work. Otherwise, people are going to want to build their characters in specific ways. If a dungeon doesn't provide ample opportunity to exercise their preferred skills, they shouldn't be forced to raise a different stat.
Δ
Reply

#23
Not in favor of anything in particular yet but you shouldn't consider it "forced" if the stats/skill challenges are well-balanced enough; adding points into a particular stat when you use it just means you're putting points in something that you find more useful, anyway, and generally speaking the stats you put more points into at the start, assuming a "specialist" build, will be the ones you'll invariably use more often anyway, just because you're not really good at the others. DMs should never create a situation where a challenge has only one solution: trainers should be free to find other ways to overcome the problem in ways that play to their strengths, or, that failing, their allies'.

Indeed, I'm more worried about the idea of 'builds', because that really makes things predictable and tends to tunnel people into trying to find only solutions that exploit their one or two strong statistics. It should never be about trying to game the system, and I personally feel that if we can get to a stage where people can accept and embrace their stats as part of how their characters naturally grow (and how their players decide to tackle situations), as opposed to trying to mold their characters to fit their ideal, it would make for a better game. For that, though, you definitely need a good stat system which doesn't favor any stat over the other significantly.
Reply

#24
I think it makes more sense for stat gains to be for a stat a character has 'worked on' in an adventure.
[Image: suisdbsf.png]
By TwilightBlade of PC. =D
Reply

#25
I feel like this chosen stat growth / stat growth based on things you've done thing is one of those that needs an actual vote to see what we should do with it. I honestly can't decide which I think would be better, because it depends not only on what we have the stats do, but also the players and DM's. So, basically, I'd almost like to try out both when we launch the game, and see what happens... But of course we probably can't do that, so we're going to have to decide either way.

Also, why I introduced the Type Specialty Trainer is because it would be an interesting class to play in my opinion. Since you can't play as an actual Pokémon, it would kind of be the next best thing; you pick a type, and you gain some properties based on that type. It would allow for more specialized skillsets that might be kind of cool in dungeons, and you have to strategy the frak out of your team if you're going to go running about an RP as a single-type challenge. Also, one idea behind it was the possibility to introduce gyms as a kind of dungeon run by player themselves.

I think changing classes should be somewhat fluid, at least. Maybe you can purchase a token, or just ask a permission (so we don't have people jumping from class to class ALL the time), or maybe have a posting limit (at least 10 posts or your current dungeons finished until you can switch classes or something). Otherwise it would be pretty simple, but there's the problem of Rangers not really being able to own caught Pokémon. Canonically, they pretty much never do so, and I feel like it would be almost cheating to let everyone keep the contents of their boxes if they switch to Ranger... Obviously they could choose their companion, though. What do you think, though?
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#26
Quote:I feel like this chosen stat growth / stat growth based on things you've done thing is one of those that needs an actual vote to see what we should do with it. I honestly can't decide which I think would be better, because it depends not only on what we have the stats do, but also the players and DM's. So, basically, I'd almost like to try out both when we launch the game, and see what happens... But of course we probably can't do that, so we're going to have to decide either way.
Might start a thread for that vote sometime today then (unless someone else wants to do that).
Quote:Also, one idea behind it was the possibility to introduce gyms as a kind of dungeon run by player themselves.
'Gym challenge' dungeons sounds like that could be fun, certainly.
[Image: suisdbsf.png]
By TwilightBlade of PC. =D
Reply

#27
I have several ideas which are completely out-there but might be interesting to consider. Most are inspired by other systems in some way or another. They also depend on how you want your game system to work: with dice or diceless? Given that the accuracy and status effects in the ASB already used the RNG, I don't think anyone will be incredibly opposed to a dice system, no?

1) There are four actual stats, Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence and Charisma. Players start out with one in each stat, but a Will pool of perhaps 5 dice. When a player is faced with a challenge... say, a boulder blocking a path, they can choose a statistic to use and roll a number of dice corresponding to that statistic. They can also add dice from the Will pool to the number of dice they can roll, but any die so used is locked into that particular statistic. For example, Timmy really wants to remove the boulder from the path, so he chooses to use two Will dice in addition to his one normal die he gets to roll to push the boulder out of the way. He rolls perhaps 3d6 and (here I'll arbitrarily say that 5 or 6 = success) rolls two successes, which is enough to roll it down the slope. Afterwards, he encounters a pit trap with a moving wall behind him, and he chooses to make an Intelligence roll with 1 die from his Will pool to try to disable the trap. He fails, and is left with the unenviable task of trying to jump the pit. In desperation, he uses the remainder of his 2 dice to make the Dexterity check, and succeeds on a single die. The DM determines that this means he just manages to hang on to the edge of the pit, and makes him make a Strength check to pull himself up. Rolling the three Strength dice, he gets a single success again, and just manages to get out of the pit before the wall slams shut over it. At the end of the adventure, he gains a point in the statistic in which the most number of dice had been rolled. Initiative or Speed is rolled for by using Dexterity + Intelligence dice and adding the total, and other such attribute combinations can be considered for contested fights (Intimidation = Strength + Charisma vs Intelligence/Strength + Charisma).

2) Players start with 9 skill slots, 6 General and 3 Specialty. General skills can be anything from Brawling, Capturing, Fire-type Pokemon, Trapsmithing, Swimming and other stuff. I honestly don't think a full list needs to be compiled beforehand; players can come up with general skills if they haven't been created by others before, and add those to a growing list from which others can search from before adding to. Specialty skills are much more specific, and revolve around a particular action, object or situation. This can range from treating your injured starter Torchic to lying to the Officer Jenny in your home town. The skills are not transferable or applicable to other skills - if you don't have the General Cycling skill but have a Specialty in riding your personal BMX, you're so used to that bike's particular defects (like wobbling every third revolution) that riding a normal bicycle is just plain unnatural to you. Specialty skills can be chosen at character selection just as General skills, and confer a larger bonus on any roll (the bonuses don't stack), but can also be left empty. A Specialty skill that is left open can be filled in at any time out of a dungeon, or can also be used as an Emergency skill: a player can declare an Emergency skill at any time in a dungeon before making a roll, declaring a specific specialty (such as lying to the aforementioned Jenny) and then making the roll with the new bonus. Note that the bonus for Emergency skills are the same as those for General skills, but as they are Specialties, are limited to far more restrictive definitions. The benefit, of course, is that keeping one or two of these in reserve can possibly save your trainer for serious trouble. Note that an in-character reason for having said Specialty is still necessary, and allowing the Specialty is reliant on the DM. Additional Specialty skill slots could be gained with experience. In the case that a player is unskilled in whatever activity he means to accomplish, stats can be used, but this allows for a bit more of an interesting means of character growth.

Note that I haven't calculated the exact probabilities so it's entirely possible that using a d6 makes tasks too easy to accomplish: these are just concepts for possible systems of levelling and stuff.
Reply

#28
Side note on the whole rolling die thing, but I can always code a separate flash program to allow DMs to do that too if they want, I suppose (but not rn, more like after my uni would I be willing to do such a thing).

I am not opposed to such an idea fwiw. Making sure it's simple to follow is my main worry with it, as one doesn't want to intimidate people from trying it out.
[Image: suisdbsf.png]
By TwilightBlade of PC. =D
Reply

#29
I have to admit I don't really like the die-rolling thing. It's just a little too random for my taste, honestly. I mean, obviously there needs to be at least some element of randomness, but that sounds much too complicated, and also it sounds like it would slow problem-solving down considerably as the player actually needs to make decisions concerning the amoung of dice on each stat and whatnot. Sorry, just not a fan of the idea.

I'm more or less of the opinion that stat development should be the player's choice. Maybe we could come up with a system where the DM gives the player two or three choices for stats that can grow as a kind of compromise... I just don't like the idea of forcing people to grow stats they may not want to grow. If they have some kind of vision for their character, they should be allowed to work towards that. I think that sort of thing will minimize people wanting to switch characters or drop old character. Plus, it should make the load on a DM easier, because they don't have to put so much attention to the challenges introduced in their dungeon. Sometimes, a kind of adventure is simply going to be more intellect-oriented, and sometimes it's going to require mostly brawn. But since we want all sorts of character to take part in all sorts of adventures, I feel like this would be the best choice...

Does anyone else have input on the classes I suggested? Any additions? Do you share Temporal Diamond's opinion on the specialty trainer class? I want to hammer this thing out to at least some sort of solid shape...
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#30
In the interests of not making that last post too long, I added my second idea and that's it. I do need to do a bit of reading right now so I'll see what I can come up with next time maybe. Hopefully this helps others come up with their own ideas as well :)

(19th Oct 2012, 01:45 PM)An-chan Wrote: It sounds like it would slow problem-solving down considerably as the player actually needs to make decisions concerning the amount of dice on each stat and whatnot.

What that idea was going for was actually speeding up decision-making as the pool of dice refresh upon the completion of a dungeon, and it is a bit more forgiving on players than placing a permanent point in a stat while still allowing for specialization in that direction. I like the idea of synergy between different players in a dungeon where they each choose between playing to their own strengths, or devoting some of their dice pool to bolstering the weak points of the rest of the team. Note that it won't really slow down decision-making very much considering it is a forum game and that you only need to make decisions up until the point you've set up where your dice will go anyway. I was actually considering making the dice pool one-use only, but was afraid that would lead to the "slow problem-solving" situation you're thinking of.
Reply

#31
(22nd Oct 2012, 09:51 AM)Temporal Diamond Wrote: I voted #2, because I find #1 too risky. If players have the freedom to up any stat they'd like, it would create a high risk of certain players overpowering their Strength or Dexterity for example, making it unfair once they've a higher stat than others.

While I support automatic stat allocation, if this happens to be the case, I find it a failing of the statistic system rather than one of its players. In any game where having a particular "build" is an advantage, the game is not strictly unfair, because every player can overpower one or two stats. That is not to say that it is not bad; it is. The problem, to me, is not of individual stat allocation, but a system where investing all your points into a single skill is more advantageous than building the character that you, from a personal role-playing perspective, want. It is why none of the suggestions I've made earlier really place a strong emphasis on them. The second option is skill-based, with stats as basically the fallback if you lack a particular skill. I personally like the idea of nWOD's (and several others like Eclipse Phase and stuff, I just played WOD first) levelling system, where a DM awards you experience at the end of an adventure, and you spend the experience on individual stats. It allows the designers to put assign costs between everything, rather than just a like parameter. For example, in DnD, when you reach level 12 you can gain a Feat and a point in an Ability Score. The cost of choosing a feat is all the feats you didn't pick. The cost of choosing an Ability Score is the other scores you didn't raise.

In this alternative levelling system, though, you don't actually gain levels, just experience. With, say, 8 experience, you could possibly buy level 2 in DEX, or INT, or whatever. It would cost you 12 experience, however, to buy level 3 in any of those attributes. For just 3 experience, on the other hand, you could buy proficiency in a Skill. For 6 experience you could buy adeptness in a Skill you're already proficient in... the list goes on. In this case, choosing any one thing means shutting out the others, which makes players actually consider whether they want the all-around utility of attributes or the specialities that skills offer. In addition, by making each successive rank cost more in terms of experience, people are less likely to try to max a single statistic, and instead consider what's best for their character with their limited points.
Reply

#32
(16th Oct 2012, 05:40 PM)An-chan Wrote: Also, why I introduced the Type Specialty Trainer is because it would be an interesting class to play in my opinion. Since you can't play as an actual Pokémon, it would kind of be the next best thing; you pick a type, and you gain some properties based on that type. It would allow for more specialized skillsets that might be kind of cool in dungeons, and you have to strategy the frak out of your team if you're going to go running about an RP as a single-type challenge. Also, one idea behind it was the possibility to introduce gyms as a kind of dungeon run by player themselves.

I think changing classes should be somewhat fluid, at least. Maybe you can purchase a token, or just ask a permission (so we don't have people jumping from class to class ALL the time), or maybe have a posting limit (at least 10 posts or your current dungeons finished until you can switch classes or something). Otherwise it would be pretty simple, but there's the problem of Rangers not really being able to own caught Pokémon. Canonically, they pretty much never do so, and I feel like it would be almost cheating to let everyone keep the contents of their boxes if they switch to Ranger... Obviously they could choose their companion, though. What do you think, though?

I agree to both points. I think type specialties can be perhaps a sub-group of trainer which can be applied to Trainer, Ranger, etc. in the same way as Team Evil will work. Either way it sounds like a really fun class as long as it's not too drastic a change.

As for changing class, I think what it should involve is changing your trainer license - canonically this would be like your pokemon cartridge. In pokemon yellow there are restrictions on what pokemon can be caught that don't exist in red, so you'd exchange pokemon or licenses (games) to make up for that. This could be done by buying a new license or trading yours in?

(17th Oct 2012, 02:00 AM)bobandbill Wrote:
Quote:I feel like this chosen stat growth / stat growth based on things you've done thing is one of those that needs an actual vote to see what we should do with it. I honestly can't decide which I think would be better, because it depends not only on what we have the stats do, but also the players and DM's. So, basically, I'd almost like to try out both when we launch the game, and see what happens... But of course we probably can't do that, so we're going to have to decide either way.
Might start a thread for that vote sometime today then (unless someone else wants to do that).

I think it should be possible to merge the two. The DM can assign you points in stats you clearly worked on/used, and if you did something particularly well, you can get a free point (or two) to allocate as you wish. Hell, maybe a free stat point can be bought with enough money and put to whatever use you want.

I agree with what was pointed out later, that choosing all your own stat growth could be problematic; whereas having no say in it can get a bit frustrating.

(19th Oct 2012, 12:01 PM)Sentrovasi Wrote: 1) There are four actual stats, Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence and Charisma. Players start out with one in each stat, but a Will pool of perhaps 5 dice. When a player is faced with a challenge... say, a boulder blocking a path, they can choose a statistic to use and roll a number of dice corresponding to that statistic. They can also add dice from the Will pool to the number of dice they can roll, but any die so used is locked into that particular statistic. For example, Timmy really wants to remove the boulder from the path, so he chooses to use two Will dice in addition to his one normal die he gets to roll to push the boulder out of the way. He rolls perhaps 3d6 and (here I'll arbitrarily say that 5 or 6 = success) rolls two successes, which is enough to roll it down the slope. Afterwards, he encounters a pit trap with a moving wall behind him, and he chooses to make an Intelligence roll with 1 die from his Will pool to try to disable the trap. He fails, and is left with the unenviable task of trying to jump the pit. In desperation, he uses the remainder of his 2 dice to make the Dexterity check, and succeeds on a single die. The DM determines that this means he just manages to hang on to the edge of the pit, and makes him make a Strength check to pull himself up. Rolling the three Strength dice, he gets a single success again, and just manages to get out of the pit before the wall slams shut over it. At the end of the adventure, he gains a point in the statistic in which the most number of dice had been rolled. Initiative or Speed is rolled for by using Dexterity + Intelligence dice and adding the total, and other such attribute combinations can be considered for contested fights (Intimidation = Strength + Charisma vs Intelligence/Strength + Charisma).

I really don't like the idea of things being purely controlled by dice. Maybe it's just because I haven't played something where it worked that way, but it seems too unrealistic and pretty much taking the control out of ... everyone's hands, really. Shouldn't there be more logical reasoning to why you get the boulder moving? Like, you get your machoke to push it out of the way, or something, instead of random luck?
Reply

#33
Note: I mean this post for dice systems in general, not specifically defending my suggestion. I understand most people think dice rolls are random. It appears that unless the dichotomy of success rates means either a ridiculously high number (95%) or low number (~30%), most people think that it means a system where players have no control.

Except that dice rolls are hardly random luck. Well, individually if you just apply the roll arbitrarily to it, then it is random. As far as luck goes, well, it's a factor in everything. Note that rolling 3 d6s and getting a success on a 5 or 6 is equivalent to a 72% success rate. And this is a character with just 1 in the base stat to begin with. Using your machoke with a higher base STR stat equivalent might add 3 dice to the roll (91.7%), or even not require a roll at all, since Machoke are known for being incredibly strong. But luck is always a factor, even in those 95 accuracy moves in Pokemon; that 5% gets you every time. And obviously there's a logical reasoning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason why you keep coming up against any sort of randomness at all is because you can't really differentiate between game mechanics and in-game realities. Physicists would have you believe that numbers can explain the world (here I liberally put words in their mouths), but to the common layman, that percentage chance of failure just means that the Machoke may have moved the rock too roughly and displaced the soil above it, causing it to come down and bury the rock in place; it might mean that its grip slipped and the rock fell back in place again, or any number of other things that can generally go wrong. When you succeed on a highly unlikely roll, perhaps you pushed the boulder in the one place where it was unstable. And of course you have a choice. You don't have to use any particular roll if you don't want to, and you can find ways to add bonuses to your roll. In addition, DMs never make you roll for things like lifting a chair or hammering a nail into a plaster wall; things that are obviously within your capacity aren't going to be subject to the whims of the Evil Dice Gods, but challenging tasks with a lot of variable factors, like swordfighting in the middle of a battleground, can be. In-universe, of course, the reasons are slightly different, but it makes it a fair system without having the DMs and players argue over how having 10 points in STR means they automatically punch out anyone sent at him. Think about that 10-pointer as a player, then think about it as an NPC.

Of course, I understand the merits of a flat stat-based system (I considered several ideas using a flat system, but eventually discarded them), but the leeway for DMs to guesstimate power levels there is a lot slimmer. In addition, outcomes of fights become plain maths (even with positioning taken into account) and a lot of the suspense with bluffs and disguises is lost as well (you realize that either the DM wants you to get through sneakily or wants you to get found out, there's not a lot you can do about it).

I think where our opinions differ here is that I want to give more power to the DM and less to the player; as a player, you seem to be wanting more autonomy. You could, of course, be speaking on behalf of the DMs... but as I've said, that either makes things harder for them, or you've basically just completely removed any kind of power the players have (since all actions now are technically arbitrarily decided by the DM). Yes, DMs can do that in a dice-based system as well, but, well, it's a little like the argument against determinism.
Reply

#34
(23rd Oct 2012, 01:29 AM)Sentrovasi Wrote: Note: I mean this post for dice systems in general, not specifically defending my suggestion. I understand most people think dice rolls are random. It appears that unless the dichotomy of success rates means either a ridiculously high number (95%) or low number (~30%), most people think that it means a system where players have no control.

Except that dice rolls are hardly random luck. Well, individually if you just apply the roll arbitrarily to it, then it is random. As far as luck goes, well, it's a factor in everything. Note that rolling 3 d6s and getting a success on a 5 or 6 is equivalent to a 72% success rate. And this is a character with just 1 in the base stat to begin with. Using your machoke with a higher base STR stat equivalent might add 3 dice to the roll (91.7%), or even not require a roll at all, since Machoke are known for being incredibly strong. But luck is always a factor, even in those 95 accuracy moves in Pokemon; that 5% gets you every time. And obviously there's a logical reasoning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason why you keep coming up against any sort of randomness at all is because you can't really differentiate between game mechanics and in-game realities. Physicists would have you believe that numbers can explain the world (here I liberally put words in their mouths), but to the common layman, that percentage chance of failure just means that the Machoke may have moved the rock too roughly and displaced the soil above it, causing it to come down and bury the rock in place; it might mean that its grip slipped and the rock fell back in place again, or any number of other things that can generally go wrong. When you succeed on a highly unlikely roll, perhaps you pushed the boulder in the one place where it was unstable. And of course you have a choice. You don't have to use any particular roll if you don't want to, and you can find ways to add bonuses to your roll. In addition, DMs never make you roll for things like lifting a chair or hammering a nail into a plaster wall; things that are obviously within your capacity aren't going to be subject to the whims of the Evil Dice Gods, but challenging tasks with a lot of variable factors, like swordfighting in the middle of a battleground, can be. In-universe, of course, the reasons are slightly different, but it makes it a fair system without having the DMs and players argue over how having 10 points in STR means they automatically punch out anyone sent at him. Think about that 10-pointer as a player, then think about it as an NPC.

Of course, I understand the merits of a flat stat-based system (I considered several ideas using a flat system, but eventually discarded them), but the leeway for DMs to guesstimate power levels there is a lot slimmer. In addition, outcomes of fights become plain maths (even with positioning taken into account) and a lot of the suspense with bluffs and disguises is lost as well (you realize that either the DM wants you to get through sneakily or wants you to get found out, there's not a lot you can do about it).

I think where our opinions differ here is that I want to give more power to the DM and less to the player; as a player, you seem to be wanting more autonomy. You could, of course, be speaking on behalf of the DMs... but as I've said, that either makes things harder for them, or you've basically just completely removed any kind of power the players have (since all actions now are technically arbitrarily decided by the DM). Yes, DMs can do that in a dice-based system as well, but, well, it's a little like the argument against determinism.

But the thing is... that doesn't give power to the DM. That gives power to randomness. What I want is for the DM to literally decide whether the machoke can move the boulder, no dice.

It's not necessarily autonomy I'm striving for (although I do very much want that), it's more control. Dice removes control from things that can be controlled, not necessarily by me but by the DM, and I prefer knowing someone chose to move that boulder for a reason rather than that it was moved by sheer luck.
Reply

#35
You keep running up against this "sheer luck" thing, which was the majority of what I was talking about before. It's not sheer luck. The player, through allocation of his statistics, improves his chances of rolling a success. Statistically, adding more points in any statistic has diminishing marginal returns, which helps balance the idea of people pumping all their points into a single statistic. In the proposed system, the DM has the power to add dice or take them away depending on the circumstance. Each die that is removed has similarly increasing penalties, which makes the DMs' actions not in any way pointless. Which is the argument for dice not removing control.

And on the other end, I think you and I also share differing views on the powers of a DM/way an adventure should be played. I personally dislike it if everything that happens is based on the whim of a single person; if a 4 STR isn't enough to move a boulder because now it needs a 5 STR instead; these arbitrary standards, of course, apply to dice as well because the DM can just remove all your dice, or in a d20 or 100 system, just make the target number something above the maximum you would ever roll. But here the DM has the flexibility to say you could do it, but it depends on so many variables that... roll for it. There is just no drama or suspense in a system where you know the conclusion to your master plan lies in DM fiat. There is no David vs Goliath moment when you roll a critical and you manage to hit the Tyranitar with a stone in the eye, blinding it when you would otherwise have done nothing. Sure, you had a 100% chance of hitting it, but that desperate move would have been pointless otherwise. Sometimes there's just no substitute for sheer luck when you're up against a wall, and I'd like to know I have that rather than a DM who just takes pity on their player, or who mercilessly pushes them towards the inexorable and deadly conclusion. That's how I feel about it, anyway.
Reply

#36
Hmm, I'm beginning to realize that a lot of people are assuming things that are entirely different from what many others are assuming. For example, Sentrovasi, you didn't really entirely properly explain the dice pool suggestion in the post where you actually suggested it, but now that you elaborated on dice-based things overall, I finally understand what you meant in the first place. So I feel like I should also clarify the potentially strange assumptions I've been under...

First of all, the only RP's I've really played have been D&D campaigns, so I have a hard time excluding at least some level of random from the gameplay. I think not using dice/RNG's at all would be an awful idea, but to some degree that already comes in with the ASB damage calculator that we're using for the basis of battles. Still, I've been sort of almost assuming that of course DM's have the possibility to roll dice to see if the player succeeds at something or doesn't, using the appropriate stat or whatever with that. That way, it's simply more fair than it would be otherwise.

And no, this doesn't mean the results are entirely random. For instance, if the DM decides that the required strength for moving the boulder is 10, and a character has a Str of 12, they're automatically going to succeed. However, for a character with a Str of 8 or 6, the DM would roll something like a 10-sided die, or the six-sided die Sentro's been mentioning, to see if they can get the circumstances on their side. So, effectively, you won't need ten billion in every stat because there's always luck and various situations granting bonuses and so on and so forth.

RNG's/dice are also quite necessary to tell who hits and who doesn't in a battle, because people are generally way too biased to make fair decisions about that on their own.

I feel like it would be an extremely bad idea to simply have the DM decide all of this, especially so if we have no proper stats or skills at all. If the character's description simply states they're "pretty strong" or "run quite fast", how is anybody supposed to know what that actually means? Is "pretty strong" stronger than just "strong"? What if somebody states the character has been lifting weights for all his life and is therefore "pretty strong"? Words just have a way of being way too ambiguous, and I infinitely prefer having some sort of scale for the simple task of comparing the skills of various characters. I just feel like it's way easier that way for everyone.

Sentrovasi Wrote:While I support automatic stat allocation, if this happens to be the case, I find it a failing of the statistic system rather than one of its players. In any game where having a particular "build" is an advantage, the game is not strictly unfair, because every player can overpower one or two stats. That is not to say that it is not bad; it is. The problem, to me, is not of individual stat allocation, but a system where investing all your points into a single skill is more advantageous than building the character that you, from a personal role-playing perspective, want.

I find this to be an issue we need to definitely pay a lot of attention to. I agree with you, and it would definitely be a failing on the part of the system. Of course people are allowed (to some degree) to put all their points in one or two stats, but that should make them extremely limited, because then they are only successful in very specific kinds of encounters. I mean, obviously they would completely pwn any more balanced character in whatever stat they have this high score in, but overall they would fail a lot more because that's only one of the five different types of challenges you can encounter. If that makes any sense.

pathos Wrote:I agree to both points. I think type specialties can be perhaps a sub-group of trainer which can be applied to Trainer, Ranger, etc. in the same way as Team Evil will work. Either way it sounds like a really fun class as long as it's not too drastic a change.

As for changing class, I think what it should involve is changing your trainer license - canonically this would be like your pokemon cartridge. In pokemon yellow there are restrictions on what pokemon can be caught that don't exist in red, so you'd exchange pokemon or licenses (games) to make up for that. This could be done by buying a new license or trading yours in?

I'm not really sure what you mean, seeing as how only two of the classes are actually trainers at all. Rangers and scientists wouldn't have a trainer's license to begin with. Also, would this mean they lose all their Pokémon, or what do you mean?

I don't know if Evil Teams should be character templates or if they just sort of relate to your motivations and/or alignment or something like that. We can have user-organized ranks of Evil Teams (or maybe we should just create our own, if it's going to be a new region?) and like a HQ thread for them, but I'm not sure it should affect how their class works... What do y'all think about that? Should it affect gameplay? Add/take away skills from your class? Something like that?
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#37
Quote:I'm not really sure what you mean, seeing as how only two of the classes are actually trainers at all. Rangers and scientists wouldn't have a trainer's license to begin with. Also, would this mean they lose all their Pokémon, or what do you mean?

No... You'd have a license to be a Ranger or a Scientist. And of course you wouldn't lose your pokemon. o_O That would ruin the whole point. (Though as a Ranger, you wouldn't be licensed to catch pokemon in the first place.)

I think Team Evil should be a sub-class of sorts with minor affects to your stats/things, which would grow in influence possibly as you move up the ranks. For example as a Grunt, you'd have maybe a +1 to Strength or something (just an example), but as an Admin you'd have like, +2 to all stats. Well, some should probably be lowered as well to make things balanced, haha.

Also an affinity for certain types could be added (poison, dark, ghost) to Team Evil, and the inherent boost of getting things off the black market. :p
Reply

#38
I think Evil Teams should be a class on its own. Similar to the Trainer class, the main objective is to level up through ranks/positions in the organization. IMO, I think we'd be limiting the field for playing if we let it be a sub-class. We could've mini-classes or jobs w/e you wanna call it. (mini, because there are really just minor effects/differences between each job). Like Grunt could be the average Trainer-ish bad guy who takes orders from anyone above him and has relatively average Pokemon due to not being rich enough or whatever to own PokeBalls. Then we can have Evil Scientists (cue Charon and Colress), Spies/Field Agents, then Admins. We could explore so much as a class alone and players need not feel confined into just being the "average dumb bad guy in shady attire". E.g. being a Scientist would allow them to have good Intelligence (or the appropriate stat, as we've yet to be clear on this). And realistically speaking, I don't think anyone has the time to create chaos and fight for gym badges at the same time. And why bother being Champion when you can overthrow the League? XD;
Reply

#39
Okay, based on all this discussion, I'd suggest the following...

The three classes suggested (excluding the type specialty trainer because we don't really have a consensus about including that or not) are like character templates, signifying their skillsets and play styles. Trainers catch tons of Pokémon and use several of those, participate in battles, and all that. Rangers have a companion Pokémon and lots of temporary assistant Pokémon that are never caught. Scientists catch many Pokémon, but use only one, and have better use of items/gadgets/something like that.

Alignment is a separate issue from the class. In this case, though, it's not about "lawful neutral" or "chaotic evil" or something, but more about the organization with which you are affiliated. There's the Evil Team that will have a better name, the Pokémon League, and probably unaligned to choose from. Your alignment will give you some buffs.

League trainers can challenge Gyms and the E4, use all Pokémon Centers, and generally receive a more favorable response from people. League rangers can also use all Pokémon Centers, get assistance from other official rangers, and so on. League scientists have access to the computer system and the Professors and such. The downside of being affiliated with the Pokémon League is that you have to abide by its laws: you can't kill or enslave Pokémon (or people), you can't use unethical means, and effectively your hands are more tied in situations that might require retaliation or drastic means.

Evil Team trainers, meanwhile, can steal items and possibly Pokémon (from other trainers? we'll have to figure out our stance on that), and use more ruthless methods in play overall. Evil Team scientists don't have to care about whether they're hurting Pokémon/nature/people when they do science, and they can exploit a different variety of inventions and enslave Pokémon. Evil Team rangers would function like spies, having the ability to force wild Pokémon to do things they may not want to do (which League rangers can't do) and utilizing their skills with both Pokémon and various environments to get information. The inherent downside of being affiliated with Evil Team is that, since what you're doing is criminal, regular NPC's will be more negative towards you, and if you're caught in action, law enforcement will probably step in. Also, you have to do as your superiors tell you, because Evil Teams generally have a rigid hierarchy.

Unaffiliated people would have neither the buffs nor the downsides of either of these alignments, and they have a much freer reign over their own actions.

Anyone can join or quit their faction at any point as they please, but they have to make it make sense in-game (the character repents their past actions and wishes to quit the Evil Team, or the character is fed up with the ineffectiveness of the law and wants to start driving their own regime of vigilante justice, or what have you).

How about that?

Also, do you think we need more than three classes? Or should we add subclasses, like the type specialty thing (or should we scrap that) and maybe Gym leader, that allow you to get more specific bonuses?

Any suggestions to improve the five stats as they were proposed earlier? (Strength, Endurance, Charisma, Perception, Speed/Agility)

We need to hammer all this out, I'd like to launch a little beta test of character actions in an actual dungeon situation by December at the latest, just to see if what we have will work at all or if we should rethink some stuff. But there's no point really in starting a beta test thread before we have some actual system going, so...
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#40
*Raises hand* I think having Evil Team vs. League Team as some kind of faction thing could be really cool. Instead of allowing Evil Team trainers to steal pokémon from other players, however, we should probably restrict that to NPC's pokémon. Then Leage Team members could do crackdowns on underground pokémon kidnapping rings to take them back! Or something like that. It could add a sense of continuity to the whole thing and perhaps a layer of pvp as well? I dunno, just brainstorming.

Also, I'm gonna be blunt and say that random stat rolls are pretty much necessary. Otherwise the DM would just look at the character, decide what they can and cannot do, and then railroad them through the dungeon with situations they either can or can't accomplish. It would sort of be like a bug bouncing against a window until it finds the little gap it can get through. That's boring, and somewhat painful.
Δ
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)