So I was reading through HARP's character creation last night before I went to sleep and having did a deep dive on Rolemaster Classic's (RMC) character creation I can see where they made optimizations and can guess at some good reasons why. Let's just focus on skills for a moment.
50 Development Points Per Level
You get 50 DP per level, and 100 to start when you create characters in HARP. RMC relies on a calculated number based off of the values of secondary developmental stats. There is an option in HARP for calculated, but they recommend going with the same amount for everyone.
There is a tendency in RMC for the "rich to get richer" as characters level up. A RMC character with 45 DP per level versus one with 60 may not seem all that huge of a difference at low levels and during each level up, but you factor the power difference between them of the character with 60 having 150 extra DP over ten levels and you start to see the issue, and it only gets worse as time goes on.
Is It a Problem?
That said, is it a problem? In my "be completely fair and optimize my character" mentality, it is. I must have the same options and power level as other characters, and it is easier for the GM to gauge power level if all characters of a given level are roughly equivalent in power every level.
In RMC, it may not be a problem, if I take points away from my character's primary stats to put into developmental stats, I am betting on the future and turning up the difficulty at low levels. RMC already has a very weak low-level game, so you are really hindering yourself by taking points out of your developmental stats and putting them ion your primaries. If I were playing RMC and going for an epic game, most of my points would be in developmental stats and I would choose to be rich later instead of having my character suffer as they leveled up.
So then, is it really a choice or more of a negative game design mechanic? For me, it isn't a choice. Those developmental stats win, since they will act as a multiplier to total character power later. In D&D terms would you take a 10-20% boost in character power at later levels than low? I know I would because later levels is typically where that difference really matters. If I roll bad and don't get a certain amount, my character is hosed though - I might as well re-roll.
GM Reasons
To me though, the benefit of fixed points per level is for the game master's ability to balance challenges at later levels across a party of characters. Tom is a 45/level and Sarah is a 60/level, and they are both level 10 so Tom might have trouble with this encounter but Sarah will blow right through it. That for me feels like the problem here. If I were GM'ing HARP, I would want equal points per level because I don't want players feeling bad they rolled bad during character creation (a negative play experience), and I prefer having a better grasp on character power at later levels.
RMC = Life Sim
I do like the "sim" aspect to this where RMC is more of a "life sim" where your adolescence and first-level training matter and setup the costs of skills that you will be later developing in life. If you were a talented student with high developmental stats, of course later on in life you are going to stand head-and-shoulders above others - even at the same level. RMC simulates potential and greatness, so while I don't prefer how the game handles development points per level, I understand why it does so.
Few games simulate potential, and RMC this is a critical factor in building a character. You also tend to spend a long time "pre-designing" your character and picking skills you know you will need later in life in RMC, sort of the "evil" pre-optimization that they do in software development that wrecks software design. To pre-optimize effectively you have to know the game, be on your third or fourth character and know the system well, and also this is influenced by the gaming group. Are social skills more important than combat? Is there a lot of technical challenges and stealth in this group's game? Is magic important and used often? Are there times when lore is needed?
The skills you need later in life are heavily influenced by your group's play style, and also a good understanding of the rules.
HARP = Buy It Later!
HARP really doesn't care, and it ensures you have protection from mistakes made in character design. Just buy the skills later if you forgot them during character design! Your character's favored categories will be as cheap then as they were at character design, so just suffer a little and buy them later, and you won't really be penalized. Skills are capped as a function of your level anyways, and it isn't too hard to buy to cap. In RMC, if you forget a skill at character design that sticks with you through life.
This gives HARP a "modern game design" style feel to me, along with its higher power level at low levels and more forgiving character builds and level-up options. It is a more new-player friendly game as a result. You get free skill levels when you pick a class! You get more free skills when you pick your background! Only your class affects the cost of skills, so don't really worry too much about optimization! Just design your character and play!
HARP does require close attention when selecting skills, and I will get into this in a later discussion.
RMC = Modeling Greatness and Potential
HARP is fast and loose fun, where character power is similar during leveling up. RMC tries to model in the factors of potential and greatness into its design, so characters will diverge in power as they level up. There is such a thing as a "gifted student" in RMC, and that potential multiplies through the character's life.
The Question
So you now have arrived at a deeply personal question when it comes to game preference. And this also plays into how you see heroism. Do you believe in that statements "anyone can be a hero" and "greatness can be achieved later in life despite their life's circumstances?" HARP shall probably appeal more to you if you feel this way. Heroes are equal in power. There is no factor of potential modeled into the system - it is all the current set of choices you make. You can be effective and make good choices on your first character, and the system protects you from mistakes.
For RMC, you are in an older game design with a strong sense of traditionalism. Potential for greatness matters a lot. The rich do get richer. Early choices in life matter a great deal and choose your path through life. Modeling natural talent and seeing that blossom and flourish is a reward of the system. However, having less potential and still managing to be a hero regardless is a victory for the little guy. RMC rewards playing through the game multiple times very well, since system mastery on your third and fourth characters mitigates less-ideal characters and gives you a sense of what your character will need to succeed. There is no mistake protection.
Those Factors Influence the World
Those character design factors would influence how I design my game worlds for both HARP and RMC. HARP for me would be more of a MMO-style world of adventure with lots of large sweeping plots, stories, and plup-adventure of swinging swords and mysterious magic. Anyone could rise to be a hero, learn on their own, and the skills needed to become great were learned out in the world. All heroes are equal, and it is the risks you take that determine your future - and the world's.
RMC would be more of a dark, gritty world where the rich controlled the fates, talented students were highly prized, schools would guide choices, and there was more of a focus on tradition and the powerful maintaining the status quo. What you learned and how you learned it would matter, and education would be a powerful weapon used in wars between empires. There may be a stalemate in parts of the world due to mediocre thinking and talent, and a legend may need to rise to change history.
The game's choices flavor the world, at least in my view, as the mechanics support the stories, histories, and worlds in a natural and reflective way. This is not saying you can't do either world in either system, you totally could, but I just find in my games if you understand the game's mechanics, and reflect those in the worlds you design, you get a world that feels like it belongs to the game a lot better than just saying "something is" and the rules say something different. It is personal preference ultimately, but this is how I like to run my games.
Mechanics shape the world, and understanding mechanics helps you understand and succeed in the world as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment