This is spun off from Randomized vs. point-buy RPGs.  It seemed to me that it was a distinct issue that had a number of facets.  

Quote from: jhkimAn important effect that I have seen is the "incompetents in charge" syndrome of point-buy systems. In a point-buy system like Hero or GURPS, it costs extra to have things like high social class, wealth, or other rank/status. The result is that the PCs with the highest rank and wealth are the least competent. That is a peculiar trend to notice.

Apparently this wasn't clear to people in that thread, so let me elaborate.  

Ignore RPGs for a moment.  Suppose you went up to a group of professionals -- like a pro sports team or a group of bounty hunters.  Some of them have been better-paid than others and are living more richly, while others are poor.  You find out that the ones who have made more money are less competent than the others.  Would this strike you as odd?  

Similarly, suppose you were researching an elite military unit.  You find that the people who were promoted to higher rank (and thus a better pay grade) were less competent than those who were at the bottom.  I think that would strike you as odd.  

This is what many equal point systems promote.  It is not really a flaw in the system exactly, since this is what the system was designed to do.  However, it is at least a peculiar consequence.  

Quote from: Engine;279988Well, that's the point buy system doing its job. Certainly, the idea of partity-in-character-generation is a valid dispute with point-buy, but it's not like this particular expenditure of points is illogical by that system. I mean, it's not like being really strong should make you less good with guns, either.

Well, that's not entirely true.  Strength, like many talents, is developed by training and exercise.  So you would expect that a body-builder would have less developed skills in other areas.  

Even for completely inborn advantages and disadvantages, there are often good reasons to presume rough equality.  For example, in a pro sports team, if someone was more highly paid, then you wouldn't expect them to be any less competent in other areas.  However, if someone was not very tall on a basketball team, you might expect that he is more skilled than a really tall player in order to make the team and be paid and ranked equally.  

Now, there are some point systems that allow inequality among PCs.  Two that spring to mind are Ars Magica, and the Buffy/Angel RPGs.  Ars Magica has unequal PCs that it balances out by having the players alternate between different characters from adventure to adventure.  Buffy has unequal PCs by having the players of less competent "White Hats" PCs be given more Drama Points to change rolls or make plot twists.

Quote from: jhkim;279998You find that the people who were promoted to higher rank (and thus a better pay grade) were less competent than those who were at the bottom.  I think that would strike you as odd.

I think it would strike me as shitty, but unsurprising.

Quote from: jhkim;279998So you would expect that a body-builder would have less developed skills in other areas.

And you wouldn't expect a guy who has spent his time cultivating contacts and developing social and leadership skills to have less developed skills in other areas? Now, your argument - hey, aren't leaders supposed to be better at stuff than the other guys? - isn't a bad one, necessarily, although I see it in real life more-or-less every day, but again, as you say, this is just the points system doing its job to level the playing field; in theory, to support the logic of your "leaders are better at stuff," the group leader should just get a whole bunch of extra points so he can have his leadership abilities for free, but that would invalidate the entire point of the exercise.

But all that's game considerations; in real life, I agree that it simply doesn't make sense, but neither does the idea that five guys get together to do a job who are all almost perfectly balanced with each other in terms of various abilities. It's a flaw of...well, roleplaying, since similar illogic happens when you shove 5 random people together to do the same job.

That said, if it's fucking up your game, there are a variety of simple fixes.

Quote from: jhkim;279998Ignore RPGs for a moment.  Suppose you went up to a group of professionals -- like a pro sports team or a group of bounty hunters.  Some of them have been better-paid than others and are living more richly, while others are poor.  You find out that the ones who have made more money are less competent than the others.  Would this strike you as odd?  

This is like my problem with tv series translated to rpgs, it is not uniform. Ever hear of the "fail upwards" phenomenon? It is actually quite common. For instance, the musician who is quite talented but the manager who can't sing a note but knows the right people. Absolutely no talent but he has the right contacts, maybe by accident of birth.

Now, I wont argue, in you sports example, it would be odd to have the high school football team making more money than a professional team. However, talent or ability does not always translate into status. I can site IT as a great example. It is very hard to move up to the real big bucks. Yeah, talent can get you there but if you are too talented, you will stay right were you are, a heads down coder. You will get raises but only within your pay range. Now, fail spectacularly? You get promoted to "project manager". Keep failing and you will move your way through the upper ranks to be a regional manager. So, talent and ability sometimes shackle you to a position. Those who can do, do, those who cannot, manage.

Quote from: jhkim;279998Similarly, suppose you were researching an elite military unit.  You find that the people who were promoted to higher rank (and thus a better pay grade) were less competent than those who were at the bottom.  I think that would strike you as odd.  

This is what many equal point systems promote.  It is not really a flaw in the system exactly, since this is what the system was designed to do.  However, it is at least a peculiar consequence.  

Now, this I agree with. Here is the problem I mentioned earlier. It is not uniform. Sometimes you want the guy who can do on the front lines. Sometimes advancement has nothing to do with skill or talent but more to do with social factors.

Quote from: jhkim;279998Well, that's not entirely true.  Strength, like many talents, is developed by training and exercise.  So you would expect that a body-builder would have less developed skills in other areas.  

Depends on how you view it. A stat could represent you max potential. It is assumed in the system that you are at your natural potential. Now, you could have stats that move around. Say you study at university for a year, you IQ goes up but your STR goes down. You would need a finer time management system than that but you get the idea. I would hate it but you could. Then, you could never exceed your natural max (i.e. the stat you generated) but if you ignore maintenance then stats deteriorate.

Quote from: jhkim;279998Even for completely inborn advantages and disadvantages, there are often good reasons to presume rough equality.  For example, in a pro sports team, if someone was more highly paid, then you wouldn't expect them to be any less competent in other areas.  However, if someone was not very tall on a basketball team, you might expect that he is more skilled than a really tall player in order to make the team and be paid and ranked equally.  

Unless they are married to the owners daughter...or have a winning personality...or have dirt on the owner and a man half his age...

There are many reasons you could make exceptions for this type of thing.

My solution would be a random social table influenced by stats like Charisma and Appearance and Will. Alternatively, a ridiculously detailed life path system separate from the central chargen. A separate subsystem capable of modeling the social advancement. You would have to buy natural birth placement from the general pool but then it would be a series of trade offs and possibly choices that would affect stats both good and bad. So, take that Harvard education gets you Social +5, STR -1, WIS +1 or whatever.

Of course, just my take on it.

The Peter Principle.

QuoteThe Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

Makes perfect sense to me!

I don't know, I wouldn't expect the general in charge of the army to be as good as the SOF grunt when it comes to firearm skills. Is a system that emulates that actually bad?

Quote from: CavScout;280013I don't know, I wouldn't expect the general in charge of the army to be as good as the SOF grunt when it comes to firearm skills. Is a system that emulates that actually bad?

Did the general start out as a general or was he a grunt first?

Skills may atrophy, but that general is likely to always be a better soldier than I am, whether it's firing a rifle or commanding a division.

Quote from: The Shaman;280014Did the general start out as a general or was he a grunt first?

Skills may atrophy, but that general is likely to always be a better soldier than I am, whether it's firing a rifle or commanding a division.

Supposing he did start as a grunt, at some point, rank and responsibilities would start taking time away from time that would be spend running drills, spent on the range or doing field exercises that would maintain or hone your shooting skills.

Being unable to be the best at everything doesn't seem like a failed game design seems like a decent way to emulate reality.

Quote from: The Shaman;280014Did the general start out as a general or was he a grunt first?

Maybe he rose through the ranks, but it's at least as likely that he went to a military academy, and has never been able to shoot as well as the soldiers he's commanding. And that's one of those "easy fixes" I was talking about; if there's some weirdness about one character's level of abilities, it's not as if it's hard to tweak the background to match, just as you would in a random-chargen game, or tweak the points to match the intended background. Both options are probably worth mentioning in the rules if you're writing such a game!

Quote from: The Shaman;280014Skills may atrophy, but that general is likely to always be a better soldier than I am, whether it's firing a rifle or commanding a division.

Yeah, but we're not comparing him to you, we're comparing him to professional soldiers under his command. Unless you're a professional soldier, in which case you probably fire a rifle better than the general who doesn't spend very much time practicing those skills, but whose strategic ability probably dwarfs yours and those of the other soldiers with whom you serve. In theory, anyway; there's no shortage of incompetence even at the highest levels of service.

Quote from: CavScout;280013I don't know, I wouldn't expect the general in charge of the army to be as good as the SOF grunt when it comes to firearm skills. Is a system that emulates that actually bad?

There is the reverse problem, endemic to most class-and-level systems, where the general is the most badass fighter around.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;280018There is the reverse problem, endemic to most class-and-level systems, where the general is the most badass fighter around.

-clash

Ahem...

Quote from: CavScout;280016Supposing he did start as a grunt, at some point, rank and responsibilities would start taking time away from time that would be spend running drills, spent on the range or doing field exercises that would maintain or hone your shooting skills.

Being unable to be the best at everything doesn't seem like a failed game design seems like a decent way to emulate reality.

Hold on, let's be clear.  I'm not talking about point systems overall -- but specifically about costly advantages for things like wealth, status, and rank that in the real world may be correlated with greater training or talent.  

With regards to the general, the point isn't that the private will be better at guns than the general -- but that the private may be better at all skills than the general.  Imagine each character has 40 points left after spending equally on attributes and non-military skills. Now imagine that the rank of general costs 30 points.  So the private has 40 points of military skills, and the general has 10 points of military skills.  Imagine if you don't just go to the private for shooting -- you go to him for tactics as well.  

Now, I realize that there are many ways to explain how less competent person can get ahead, but it still peculiar.

Quote from: jhkim;280022Now, I realize that there are many ways to explain how less competent person can get ahead, but it still peculiar.

My problem is John, and I think others have said likewise, that it does not strike me as peculiar. Reprehensible or sad maybe, but not out of the norm.

Quote from: CavScout;280016Supposing he did start as a grunt, at some point, rank and responsibilities would start taking time away from time that would be spend running drills, spent on the range or doing field exercises that would maintain or hone your shooting skills.

Which is why I wrote, "Skills may atrophy . . . ."

But General Odierno will likely be far better at firing an M-16, right now, than I am, frex, on the basis of his long experience compared to mine.

Quote from: CavScoutBeing unable to be the best at everything doesn't seem like a failed game design seems like a decent way to emulate reality.

To a point I agree with you, but only to a point. One may not necessarily be the "best" at a job s/he doesn't do every day, but s/he may still remain competent. The problem with many rpg systems is that to model this, you need to create something like a disparity in levels - the general needs to be higher level than the grunt to reflect this knowledge of both the grunt's job and his own.

The problem is making both of these "balanced" characters.

Quote from: jhkim;280022Imagine each character has 40 points left after spending equally on attributes and non-military skills. Now imagine that the rank of general costs 30 points.  So the private has 40 points of military skills, and the general has 10 points of military skills.

Agreed. Any system in which the cost of such abilities is either out of proportion with their benefits, or which makes it impossible or unlikely to produce a logical character concept within the framework provided, possesses what I would perceive as a flaw, which I would want to work to correct.

Quote from: jhkim;280022Now, I realize that there are many ways to explain how less competent person can get ahead, but it still peculiar.

This brings up another excellent "easy fix:" handwaving. Just like you'd do for a random character who didn't appear to make sense, you develop a concept which fits this peculiar result: the general wasn't highly trained but got ahead on his connections, or whatever.

Anyway, I definitely agree such a problem certainly could, in theory, crop up in a game. I haven't played such a game, but then, I've played, like, 0.01 percent of the games out there, so that's no surprise; that definitely doesn't mean such couldn't be a problem. The solutions would be things like changing the point values for the relevant abilities [if their cost is not proportionate to their benefit], granting more points to characters who should [for whatever reason] be more "powerful," or by providing an in-game explanation of the disparity ["This general is a fucking moron who fucked his way into being in charge."].

Quote from: HinterWelt;280023My problem is John, and I think others have said likewise, that it does not strike me as peculiar. Reprehensible or sad maybe, but not out of the norm.

Never understimate the important of maxing out ranks in Brown-nosing and Knob-polishing.