|
Post by soban on Feb 14, 2009 13:59:28 GMT -5
Ok, This is from the Costs Thread. As far as I understand the cost chart is being kept. The main question is using red equivalent stones or not.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 14, 2009 14:05:54 GMT -5
Well, using less stones seems simpler and I havent had problems with the White/Red system so far
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 14:07:48 GMT -5
There's a bit of a typo in the poll (it says 30+10 at one point) but yeah. I voted for using whites and reds. If people want to multiply their stone counts by 3 to make the math easier for them, that's fine - but it shouldn't be a rule. Add your CAD up however you like, but lets keep it simple and not fix something that was never broken.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by prodigy on Feb 14, 2009 14:09:20 GMT -5
Yea, I'm all for the original version.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 14:42:51 GMT -5
Muahahahahaaaa! I voted 4th option! Because I love my points system!
|
|
|
Post by Jet on Feb 14, 2009 14:44:29 GMT -5
Im still waiting for more convincing arguments for either side.
Dionon- you're the only one, stop dreaming.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 14:45:45 GMT -5
*sniffles* I can dream....
|
|
|
Post by de5pa1r on Feb 16, 2009 14:01:46 GMT -5
I'm under the impression that we're fixing things. In order to fix something, it must first be broken. The character creation system itself is not broken. So white/red stones are fine.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 17, 2009 19:10:16 GMT -5
I chose the fourth option, here's why:
I don't see the point of having more colors of stones. That's unnecessary complication in a system that wasn't that hard to grasp anyway (The people in my group who NEVER learn the systems learned this one in minutes).
I don't know why numerical values were assigned, so I didn't choose the second option. I would have if it didn't mention any numbers at all (Numbers = limits imo. 30+10 sucks)
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 19:18:15 GMT -5
So you would rather have no stone counts, and have characters built as envisioned?
You know? I'm 100% behind that...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 19:25:30 GMT -5
What do you guys mean.. basically you just pick whatever CAD you want, and everything is free?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 19:40:02 GMT -5
*shrugs* Iono...That seems to be malice's point... I'm up to trying it lol.. I've been involved in no stone count games before, and have adhered to a set power level (There is one example, but that was GM interference... I had my character all made nice... then he turns around and makes me like 10x more powerful..... )
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 19:59:03 GMT -5
Oh, heh. I think the question is sort of "assuming there's a stone count". Otherwise the question is moot. (I don't remember "anarchy, please" being on my last election ballot.)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 17, 2009 19:59:20 GMT -5
That is both not what I meant and what I meant.
You're talking about the character creation system, which isn't about how many stones people get it's about how they use them.
The power level of the game determines the stone count, not the character creation system.
Numbers shouldn't be assigned until we decide what each number does, and when they ARE assigned they should be like they were in MURPG 1 where 40+unlimited challenges was a recommended default rather than a strict limitation.
You should also focus on balancing all the MURPG 2.0 actions, modifiers, and abilities against each other before you establish a "recommended amount of starting stones and challenges". If you find characters are more expensive in MURPG 2.0, then they need more than 30+10, 40+10, or 40+unlimited. If enjoyably-powerful characters can be made for cheap in MURPG 2.0 then you should decrease the suggested starting amount.
Most importantly, numbers just shouldn't be discussed at this point.
As for my thoughts on "playing the character you want", it's my preferred way to run a game and I have yet to encounter serious problems with the original 40+unlimited. I had one player get up to 120 stones, but he was balanced by his challenges (Which soon made him give up on that character).
However, "playing the character you want" isn't for every GM or every game. It takes a lot of GM involvement to keep players' challenges alive and sometimes that kind of involvement isn't fun. Sometimes you just want to pick it up and play it, at which time you'll want some controls in place.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 20:03:09 GMT -5
Oh, I think you're missing the point of the question, Malice.
It's not about how many stones we should give out, it's what unit those stones should represent.
People advocating "blue" stones are really just saying that they find 1 white = 3 red confusing and/or distracting and/or unnecessary. They're just multiplying everything by 3 so that there are no red stones.
In other words, 3 blue = 1 white.
So, if you were to run a 40 + 10 white stone game, but you wanted to use Blue stones instead, you'd call it a 120 + 30 stone game. Same power level, just different colours and units.
~TWF
|
|