Using maths to create characters, whilst refuting statistics-based roleplay. - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


Using maths to create characters, whilst refuting statistics-based roleplay.

   
Using maths to create characters, whilst refuting statistics-based roleplay.

So please do forgive the potentially self-negating title, but whilst perusing the reddit rpg forum I found a thread entitled "Has anyone tried a game where the players don't know their stats and/or hit points?"

TLDR: GM doesn't let players know their own stats/ hp and relies purely on description to convey their abilities, how they feel in terms of health or their confidence in performing "skill checks", thus avoiding "probability-based roleplaying". (I tried to upload the link as well but as this is only my second post I can't include external links.)

Now PERSONALLY I would frankly love to take part in a game like that or, more particularly, try my hand at running such a game. My question is how would you go about character creation? Would you create a predefined series of characters for the pc's to play as or would you sit down and have a very thorough, involved discussion about what the player's character is like? Is there another option I might have missed?

I'd be very happy to hear any input about how you could implement such a system and any perceived downfalls/ boons,
Thank you!

I think that in a situation like this I would prefer to have pre-defined character sheets provided by the GM. It doesn't have to be very long, even; just something like "This person is really good at sneaking through shadows and getting where he probably shouldn't be. He's not so good with people, though, and usually suspects everyone around him of having an ulterior motive."

Years ago I worked on a statless system of RPG. I felt like I was onto some good ideas. Characters took advantages like "strong" or "athletic" and disadvantages like "socially awkward" or "frail."

The game didn't use dice either. All actions automatically succeeded in the case of character vs character actions, unless the other character could do something about it. Environmental challenges had a difficulty rating, and the character had to have a higher level of skill than the difficulty rating, or had to use actions to overcome it.

The game had a series of action points that characters could use to change the outcomes of actions.

I never really got the whole thing working to my satisfaction, but the goal was to make a diceless system that was still tactical.

Anyway, more helpfully, I think a system you might be interested in taking a look at is Numenera: http://www.numenera.com/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalt220 View Post
So please do forgive the potentially self-negating title, but whilst perusing the reddit rpg forum I found a thread entitled "Has anyone tried a game where the players don't know their stats and/or hit points?"

TLDR: GM doesn't let players know their own stats/ hp and relies purely on description to convey their abilities, how they feel in terms of health or their confidence in performing "skill checks", thus avoiding "probability-based roleplaying". (I tried to upload the link as well but as this is only my second post I can't include external links.)

Now PERSONALLY I would frankly love to take part in a game like that or, more particularly, try my hand at running such a game. My question is how would you go about character creation? Would you create a predefined series of characters for the pc's to play as or would you sit down and have a very thorough, involved discussion about what the player's character is like? Is there another option I might have missed?

I'd be very happy to hear any input about how you could implement such a system and any perceived downfalls/ boons,
Thank you!
I've done it, and both approaches to chargen work.
Your biggest downfall would be trying to use an underlying system that doesn't provide logical outcomes, or at least what the players would consider logical. Almost as bad would be a system that ignores some factors that would logically matter.
When all people can interact with are the IC actions, the OOC explanation "the system doesn't account for that" doesn't cut it. Neither does "it's an oddity in the system".

I have played in/run games where the players did not have any numerical information about their characters.

The first time was as a player, using the B/X D&D rules. Player made up their characters as normal, rolling for ability scores and hit points, choosing race/class, and so on. Once we were done, we handed those character sheets over to the DM, keeping only information about the inventory of items that we carried. The DM kept track of all of the numbers, and rolled all of the dice. Players interacted with the world purely through the lens of the DM.

Most recently, I ran a solo game for an innumerate friend of mine using a modified version of the Star Wars Saga RPG. Character creation was accomplished via a series of conversations during which I asked the player what sorts of things he wanted his character to be good at / what sorts of flaws the character possessed. I kept the player's character sheet and tracked hit points, conditions, and so on, describing the effects of such on his character as best I could, while the player rolled dice for checks and dealing damage.

I have been a player in games where I have been handed a sheet with minimal information(race/class/a few personality traits). After the novelty and challenge wear off it's not fun. It's just a GM exerting MOAR control over players. It's good for a general Roleplay/Improv exercise, do a one shot AP or side story. It's not a campaign.

Of course, this all means a lot more work for the GM, too. You aren't just keeping track of monster HP/ability damage/spells per day, you're also doing it for four-to-six PCs -- PCs that are going to be a lot more full of abilities and a lot more dynamic than the PCs, in most systems. GMs already do enough work, I wouldn't want to pile more on.

I have participated in such game and it was the best game I ever played in. The setting was high school teenagers gaining supernatural powers and we the players discovered what powers at the same time as our characters. It was truly a unique experience and a far better role-playing game than anything I hope experience here on Myth.

Hrmm okay, a lot of interesting views on the issue, thank you all! I could see for very combat intensive settings like D&D and suchlike that a completely GM-run experience could be quite dissatisfying, especially as games of that vein are very tactical in nature and also rely heavily on the pseudo-gambling/ luck experience. For something like Shadowrun or Legend of the Five Rings I couldn't help but wonder if the lack of probabilities might actually help in some ways? Can I ask if the games that players participated in were of a more roleplay or combat-bent? I'd be interested to see if there was some general trend to the style of game being run and the level of satisfaction.

For my account it was a MnM3 game but even though there were a lot of drama and roleplaying it wasn't bereft of combat. In those instances we simply explained for the GM what we were trying to do and then he made the appropriate rolls with the stats of our characters, I would also think that he many times altered or made up roles because we tended to use the environment and combine our powers in ways that there weren't really any rules for.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 01:36:38pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status