Quote from: jhkim;280584Thus, I'm interested in talking about ways to not have this feature.

Now we're talkin'!

Quote from: jhkim;2805841) High-status PCs are given more points.  This is balanced by rotating who gets to play a high-status PC.  This is like the approach of Ars Magica, where the magi are flat-out more powerful, and companions are more powerful than grogs.

For regular groups, this should work reasonably well, but it makes a campaign or one-shot a little more challenging: if you're all playing the same characters for three years, not much rotation is going to happen; similarly, if you're just playing a pickup in the quad, there's no rotation because the groups aren't going to be the same. If people have concerns about power level, someone's going to feel screwed. Which isn't, you know, a dealbreaker; it worked for Ars Magica, after all.

Quote from: jhkim;2805842) High-status PCs are given more points, and this is balanced by giving out-of-character perks.  This is like the approach of the Buffy RPG, where the Slayer or other Heroes get more power but fewer Drama Points than the White Hats.

My only problem with this is that it just shifts the balancer somewhere else, and not somewhere that it makes more sense: after all, are high-status people somehow luckier than low-status ones? And within, for instance, the metaphysical structure of Buffy/Angel, does anyone seriously think the Powers are helping out Cordy more than Angel?

Quote from: jhkim;2805843) Players can get a random number of points, like 50 + (2d10 x 5).  This in theory allows for a high-status PC who is just as competent as a low-status PC.  However, unless those who roll high regularly spend the extra points on status, this doesn't inherently change the trend.

No, but it does make distribution more random; specifically, it addresses the Rotwang Objection, that the odds of meeting five people who are exactly the same power level are not good. But you're right, it won't fix the status/power issue without players actually caring about fixing that issue.

Quote from: jhkim;2805844) As GM, I can occasionally giving extra points to certain PCs for cool concepts.  However, unless the cool PC ideas tend to be the high-status ones, this doesn't change the dynamic.

And it falls prey to that old trap, where you're rewarding cleverness with power, which can lead to the problem where every min-maxer on the team will just think extra-hard of a clever concept. Perhaps more importantly, it leads to the question of why "cool" and "high status" should be treated in some other way than "strong" and "good with computers;" if the system is about balance, it doesn't make sense to throw balance out for only a few things.

Quote from: jhkim;2805845) As GM, I can give extra points to the high-status PCs, without requiring anything in balance.  This may cause issues with consideration of fairness.  i.e. How does the group determine whose PC gets to be high status?

For that matter, I suppose you could just make "status" completely free, but then everyone would take it.

Quote from: jhkim;2805846) Status traits (like wealth, rank, and fame) can be random or otherwise independently assigned, while everything else is point-bought.

That's an interesting idea, although you'd have to do it before character generation, or else you couldn't plan a background around it, and your character wouldn't be likely to make much sense. But as a house option, I don't see why it couldn't work, if you didn't want balanced characters, and if you don't mind giving status special treatment.

Frankly I think the idea of "incompetents" is a bit overstated. In some sort of ensemble fiction (to coin an ugly term) everyone will have something to make them "special", but almost no one will be "incompetent". So the Lt. may not be as good with a rifle scope as the sniper, or as physically tough as the Sgt., but he'll still be a reasonably effective fighter--better than a random civilian, for sure.

I'm not saying the problem can't appear if the group takes a "wide open" approach to character creation but operates with so few points that (given the point values in the RAW), a high-status PC is necessarily below-average in areas that ought to be related to his job. I do realize that this is basically what you're talking about, John, but it's not a universal issue--it requires a certain mix of factors.

So with that in mind I'll reiterate some approaches that to my mind are more in line with the philosophy of a point-balanced system.

1) Points for status are re-evaluated purely in terms of the game-impact of the status alone, without any hidden assumptions about the capabailities that ought to go with the status. AND/OR (1a) Points for status provide bonus points to spend on related areas--so the officer can get Command cheaply and still have enough points for basic fighting skills.

2) Chargen budgets are made sufficient for high-status PCs to also get decent competence in other areas, and "distribution requirements" are set. E.g., the group can agree that all characters will have a minimum of 14 in firearms and no characteristic below 11. That way the high-status PCs won't need to be incompetent but their players also won't be able to "choose" incompetence in core areas in order to bump up other areas outside their niche.

3) Create packages for high-status characters that include disadvantages (duties and responsibilities, or some relevant personality characteristics like honor) which counterbalance the extra points spent on status, while relaxing restrictions on number/value of disads.

It’s still a little odd that those who generally dislike point-buy are suddenly concerned about the “unfairness” of a high social status character might have, vis-à-vis skills, when one considers that random systems all but guarantee some type of “unfairness”, be it the poor sap with high social status and abhorrent attribute rolls, or the lucky SOB who has high social status and 18s in dam near all his stats or the guy who will be quiting before the next sessions because his attributes suck and he rolled slave as his social status.

Quote from: Engine;280589Now we're talkin'!
For that matter, I suppose you could just make "status" completely free, but then everyone would take it.

And the problem with that is?

Quote from: estar;280602And the problem with that is?

I'd guess along the same line as making all perks free would be. I suppose you could have a super ninja squad made up of all gernerals if you wanted....

And from a game perspective, what effect would it really have?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;280613And from a game perspective, what effect would it really have?

If there is no game effect, why is there a cost in the first place?

Quote from: jhkim;2805846) Status traits (like wealth, rank, and fame) can be random or otherwise independently assigned, while everything else is point-bought.

That would be my approach.  Either that, or make rank be determined by relevant skills - so the starship captain PC is the PC with the best array of relevant skills.

Quote from: estar;280602And the problem with that is?

I don't actually have a problem with it; it's actually how we play. Status is never something with a point cost for us, nor is anything else that's part of your background. Now, if someone were to start abusing it - "My family is, like, super-rich, and they give me new cars and cyberware every Wednesday!" - we'd probably have to do something, but social standing and leadership roles aren't something we deal with mechanically.

Quote from: Engine;280589For that matter, I suppose you could just make "status" completely free, but then everyone would take it.

That's not my experience.  I ran a swords & sorcery campaign where players were free to determine their PC's background; I had princes, nobles, penniless young vagabonds, escaped slaves, wandering barbarians et al.

My experience mirrors your own, but I'm told min-maxing is a real problem for some groups. As I say, we don't charge points for status in my group, and it's never been a problem [that I can recall]. I'm just trying to anticipate the opposition I usually face when putting forth anything that works for my group.

Quote from: CavScout;280618If there is no game effect, why is there a cost in the first place?

I was talking about the idea of making it free, ergo no cost.

The current subthread is suggesting that instead of going through gyrations to point-balance something that the group just wants to have happen, just let it happen. I think what you'll find is that if the group wants to play a group of ninjas who are all generals, then it'll only have an effect if they want it to. Probably, it won't have an effect unless they want to play something more like a wargame, with each player controlling dozens of subordinates, or some kind of high-level game of political intrigue. Either way, it balances out without needing to resort to points.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;280635I was talking about the idea of making it free, ergo no cost.

The current subthread is suggesting that instead of going through gyrations to point-balance something that the group just wants to have happen, just let it happen. I think what you'll find is that if the group wants to play a group of ninjas who are all generals, then it'll only have an effect if they want it to. Probably, it won't have an effect unless they want to play something more like a wargame, with each player controlling dozens of subordinates, or some kind of high-level game of political intrigue. Either way, it balances out without needing to resort to points.

Again, in a point-buy system, if it has no effect why would it have a cost? If there is no effect then it shouldn't have a cost.

Engine: I suppose you could just make "status" completely free, but then everyone would take it.

estar: And the problem with that is? [Turns out Engine has no problem with it, but you stepped in.]

CavScout: I'd guess along the same line as making all perks free would be. I suppose you could have a super ninja squad made up of all gernerals if you wanted....

Me: And from a game perspective, what effect would it really have?

And now we're going round in circles. If the group is really cool with having everybody be generals, then regardless of the game effect, they can all take extra points in their budget, pay the extra points and be back to parity, or they can just do it and not worry about points. And as far as game effect, they can each command a unit and play that kind of game, or they just address each other as "General" while still working as a squad of stealthy assassins. It doesn't really matter at either end of the equation because it really depends on how you settle a potentially wide divergence in what the focus of the game will be.

I would suggest you don't understand point-buy systems then. If there is no benefit to the "perk" then there really should be no cost. If something is nothing more than background fluff, it should not have had points in the first place.