TheRPGSite

This is spun off from  Randomized vs. point-buy RPGs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13186&page=12).  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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. :p

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

True, and is one of the reasons I've moved away from systems than use class and levels.

Quote from: jhkim;280022Hold 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.

You seem to be missing the point with a point-build system. If you want a character with max stats and the best social class, you probably should play a random system and roll alot until you get what you want.

QuoteWith 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.

While I am sure some system somewhere might let this happen, most points build systems don't. The private may have some skills better than the general but not "all".

QuoteImagine 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.

Or imagine a system where it costs 10 points for general rank and you still have 30 for everything else. Or imagine it's 5 points... or 2.

Sure, you can imagine dumb point systems, but what's the point in that?  

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

Only in the sense that you seem to think absurb scenerios are the norm.

Quote from: CavScout;280031True, and is one of the reasons I've moved away from systems than use class and levels.

Just note I said "most" and we'll leave it like that. :D

-clash

Quote from: CavScout;280033Or imagine a system where it costs 10 points for general rank and you still have 30 for everything else. Or imagine it's 5 points... or 2.

Sure, you can imagine dumb point systems, but what's the point in that?

In terms of game utility, I don't think it's at all dumb.  Being a general can be enormously powerful.  You have vast resources that you can command.  After all, what is worth more: being a skilled private yourself, or being able to command hundreds of privates?  Yes, as a general you're still subject to orders from your superiors, but the same is true of the private.

Quote from: The Shaman;280026Which is why I wrote, "Skills may atrophy . . . ."

Except most system don't include this and more importantly, it is unlikely the general was ever the best shooter.

QuoteBut 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.

So? If building your self as a character don't take combat rifle as a skill. Don't take ranks in a skill that is unexplainable by you character's background. This is a character concept issue not necessarily a game design issue.

QuoteTo 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.

Different systems handle them differently. You could have a "veteran" character that gets more skill points to which to build his starting character than the "novice" does, but then who earns xp and/or skill-ups less often.

SilCore's Jovian Chronicles comes to mind with a system like that.

Although, I am not sure why you would be worried about "balance" in a system like point-buy when with random systems you'll almost never have it.

Quote from: flyingmice;280034Just note I said "most" and we'll leave it like that. :D

I'll admit I am not getting the joke. :confused:

Quote from: CavScout;280033Or imagine a system where it costs 10 points for general rank and you still have 30 for everything else. Or imagine it's 5 points... or 2.

Sure, you can imagine dumb point systems, but what's the point in that?

A system that would confer the considerable advantages of a general's rank for a mere 10 or 5 or 2 points strikes me as far more absurd than the one jhkim described.

Quote from: jhkim;280035In terms of game utility, I don't think it's at all dumb.  Being a general can be enormously powerful.  You have vast resources that you can command.  After all, what is worth more: being a skilled private yourself, or being able to command hundreds of privates?  Yes, as a general you're still subject to orders from your superiors, but the same is true of the private.

Yet, the point was your out-of-proportion scenario was likely dumb. Sure, purchasing rank could be completely out-of-whack with the point costs but it certainly is not a requirement. You're taking a ridiculous example and make it seem to be the norm.

One could counter with some made-up scenario of a random system where a character randomly rolls some absurd level of rank, say general, but has no attributes, or skills, to support such a meteoric rise.

But what would the point be?

A better question is, unless you're playing T2000, why would your group have a general and a private grouping around together in the first place?

Quote from: CavScout;280038I'll admit I am not getting the joke. :confused:

Just that you now refuse to play random chargen games at least partly for this reason by your own statement, but I know for a fact that there are at least several - and perhaps many - random chargen games that do not have this problem, because the designers understood this and dealt with the situation differently. This was why I emphasized "most".

If this anomalous result were an important criterium to me, I would not necessarily reject games which had random chargen just because they were random. I would only reject games which had this problem, no matter the chargen system. But you are not me, people differ, and thus is the world.

-clash

Quote from: CavScout;280036Except most system don't include [rules for skill atrophy] . . .

Yes - it tends to be something I house-rule.

Quote from: CavScoutDifferent systems handle them differently. You could have a "veteran" character that gets more skill points to which to build his starting character than the "novice" does, but then who earns xp and/or skill-ups less often.

SilCore's Jovian Chronicles comes to mind with a system like that.

Or like d20 games that allow one character to be a halfling rogue and another to be a half-vampire paragon tiefling spellsword.

Quote from: CavScoutAlthough, I am not sure why you would be worried about "balance" in a system like point-buy when with random systems you'll almost never have it.

I disagree - random chargen systems are balanced differently than point-buy systems, but they're still balanced. Frex, an AD&D paladin is balanced by considerable class restrictions; a Traveller character is balanced by survival rolls and age penalties.

Quote from: flyingmice;280044Just that you now refuse to play random chargen games...

I don't think "refuse" is quite right. I certainly prefer systems where you have control over the build of your character, it's not like I "refuse" to play class based systems. Left to my own devices I most likely would pick something else but you have to sometimes play what the group wants.

Quote from: jhkim;280035Being a general can be enormously powerful.  You have vast resources that you can command.  After all, what is worth more: being a skilled private yourself, or being able to command hundreds of privates?

Then the problem is trying to shoehorn two people of enormously differing levels of power into the same number of points. If you want to have a general and a private in the same game, you'll need to adjust the character generation system, since they're typically not meant to span such disparities.

Quote from: The Shaman;280045I disagree - random chargen systems are balanced differently than point-buy systems, but they're still balanced. Frex, an AD&D paladin is balanced by considerable class restrictions; a Traveller character is balanced by survival rolls and age penalties.

But you could have two Paladins - who would thus have the same class restrictions - of differing abilities, because they each rolled differently when generating the character. Thus, not balanced.

Quote from: CavScout;280047I don't think "refuse" is quite right. I certainly prefer systems where you have control over the build of your character, it's not like I "refuse" to play class based systems. Left to my own devices I most likely would pick something else but you have to sometimes play what the group wants.

OK - I apparently mis-interpreted "moved away from." :D

-clash

Quote from: The Shaman;280045Yes - it tends to be something I house-rule.

That's fine, but I am not sure how a house rule should be really important when speaking to general game systems, like we are random vrs. point buy.

QuoteOr like d20 games that allow one character to be a halfling rogue and another to be a half-vampire paragon tiefling spellsword.

If you think those are analogous, sure.

QuoteI disagree - random chargen systems are balanced differently than point-buy systems, but they're still balanced. Frex, an AD&D paladin is balanced by considerable class restrictions; a Traveller character is balanced by survival rolls and age penalties.

You're speaking of class to class balance, which is really not the same as random, is it? Unless you randomly roll for a class, I am not sure it matters.

How would such a system balance two fighters, one who randomly rolled a 9 and 7 for STR and STA and the other who rolled 18 and 17?

Quote from: flyingmice;280051OK - I apparently mis-interpreted "moved away from." :D

It's more like preference I would say. It's not like it's an auto-veto if I play or not though.

Quote from: Engine;280049But you could have two Paladins - who would thus have the same class restrictions - of differing abilities, because they each rolled differently when generating the character. Thus, not balanced.

In the case of 1e AD&D paladins, the class ability requirements reduce the range of disparity, as we discussed earlier, so while they may be different from one another, they won't be dramatically different because they have to meet the same (relatively high) ability scores.

So balanced on a knife edge? No. But balanced enough for fun play? That's been my experience.

Quote from: CavScout;280041Yet, the point was your out-of-proportion scenario was likely dumb. Sure, purchasing rank could be completely out-of-whack with the point costs but it certainly is not a requirement. You're taking a ridiculous example and make it seem to be the norm.

One could counter with some made-up scenario of a random system where a character randomly rolls some absurd level of rank, say general, but has no attributes, or skills, to support such a meteoric rise.

But what would the point be?

Well, but I don't consider it a ridiculous example at all.  Grabbing my copy of GURPS (3rd edition), I see that military rank costs 5 points per step -- and a brigadier-general is listed as being rank 8 (i.e. 40 points).  The example characters all have from 25 to 40 points in skills.  That is very much in line with my example.  

Quote from: CavScout;280041A better question is, unless you're playing T2000, why would your group have a general and a private grouping around together in the first place?

Huh?  Look, you're the one who brought up the example of a general and a grunt.  I was addressing the case that you brought up.  The examples I brought up were quite different.

Quote from: jhkim;279998This is spun off from  Randomized vs. point-buy RPGs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13186&page=12).  
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?  

It over thinking the game system. In the history of GURPS the only point value that age effects is the amount of skill points a character may have. This appears to be done away in 4th edition in favor of an optional rule that you have to spend X hours maintaining a skill or your knowledge grows obsolete or you start forgetting stuff. The rule of them is that 200 hours = 1 point. Some Advantages (like Combat Reflex) are learnable as well.

In reality people are not the same point value at comparable ages or levels of experience. The physical/mental advantages (or disadvantage) of genetics and the social advantages you were born into produce people with wildly different point values.

As far as a RPG goes the basic premise is that at character creation you need to be fair. So hence the trade off of competency vs high social level.

In my experience very high social level characters are as rare as putting all your points into one attribute. The loss of capabilities in other areas doesn't make up for the marginal benefits the extra levels bring in. So somewhat high social level characters are usually have the capabilities (in a broad sense) as other characters.

However there are two points that only convention not hard and fast rules. 1) That all character must start at equal point value, and 2) That all things must be charged for in points.

The granddaddy of point based system, Champions, everything was charged for including mundane stuff like your gun. This fit the convention of the super-hero genre that champion was meant for. As Champion evolved into the HERO system this convention was dropped for equipment in other genres. GURPS didn't have it at the start and it not until the current 4th edition that it was even possible to enforce this type of rule.

Dropping the convention that everything must charged for applies to character as well. In a game that does this  "points" are what the players can spend on improving their characters. Everything else just results from actual play.

This is largely the convention adopted by transhuman space because of the ability to move (or copy) your mind to a wide variety of body forms.

Characters don't have to start with the same point value. I have successfully run theme campaigns where everyone is a member of the city-guard. Some players were the leaders placed in charged. So they got free advantages that other players did not have. The setup of the campaign wasn't arbitrary but done by group consensus.

The question of incompetency for high social level characters isn't much of a question at all once you jettison your conventions.

Quote from: jhkim;280058Well, but I don't consider it a ridiculous example at all.  Grabbing my copy of GURPS (3rd edition), I see that military rank costs 5 points per step -- and a brigadier-general is listed as being rank 8 (i.e. 40 points).  The example characters all have from 25 to 40 points in skills.  That is very much in line with my example.

It is a ridiculous example. If the GM is running a game with 25-40 skill points he is not intending to have generals as PCs. Make that a 100 to 150 kill point game and suddenly it's not so ridiculous.  

QuoteHuh?  Look, you're the one who brought up the example of a general and a grunt.  I was addressing the case that you brought up.  The examples I brought up were quite different.

You certainly seemed willing to run with it, but hey, if you don't want to don't. But don't get butt-hurt if you do and it doesn't pan out the way you want.

I simply put specific ranks to your vague references to higher rank. If you didn't want it to be about a general and a grunt, you probably should have corrected what you meant immediately when it was used.

Quote from: estar;280059Characters don't have to start with the same point value. I have successfully run theme campaigns where everyone is a member of the city-guard. Some players were the leaders placed in charged. So they got free advantages that other players did not have. The setup of the campaign wasn't arbitrary but done by group consensus.

The question of incompetency for high social level characters isn't much of a question at all once you jettison your conventions.

This is a good point and applies to both types of character generation systems. You can always work outside the printed rules to get the characters you want for your campaign, be it point buy where a free rank in social status is given or some random type system where a stat is re-rolled to a more wanted result or a roll on a random table is fudged to get what you want.

Quote from: CavScout;280061You certainly seemed willing to run with it, but hey, if you don't want to don't. But don't get butt-hurt if you do and it doesn't pan out the way you want.

I simply put specific ranks to your vague references to higher rank. If you didn't want it to be about a general and a grunt, you probably should have corrected what you meant immediately when it was used.

:rolleyes:

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

Sorry Clash, but this is one thing (one of the only things) I despised about IHW, that you couldn't really play someone of high social class unless you also wanted him to be an incompetent.

Yes, there are "upper class twits", and yes you should be able to play those. But there are also some of the greatest heroes of military history who came out of a high birth. In other areas like politics you certainly have some "fortunate sons" out there who were utterly unworthy of high office but got it anyways because they came from a family with contacts (*ahem*Dubya*ahem*), but there were also tons of people of relatively high origins who turned out to be great leaders.
And in things like sport, not having to worry about where you make your money has often allowed some people the chance to really hone their skills.

I'm saying you should be able to have either; a system where people from higher birth can only range from "Mediocre" to "incompetent twit" is nothing but annoying to me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: estar;280059The question of incompetency for high social level characters isn't much of a question at all once you jettison your conventions.

Obviously you can house-rule something for just about any system. But if you're following the rules as written, you can end up with some strange situations. I think that's the OP's point.

Quote from: jhkim;280022Hold 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.

This is also a problem that manifests in other ways than wealth/status as well; for example in RPGs where you have two types of people (say, "Humans" and "Time Lords") and the system is designed so that if you want to be the non-human option which gets certain advantages, you have to use up so many character points that by the end of it the Human will be able to run rings around you, and your supposedly advanced race will have far less skill points than a shop clerk from Staines.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;280070Sorry Clash, but this is one thing (one of the only things) I despised about IHW, that you couldn't really play someone of high social class unless you also wanted him to be an incompetent.

Yes, there are "upper class twits", and yes you should be able to play those. But there are also some of the greatest heroes of military history who came out of a high birth. In other areas like politics you certainly have some "fortunate sons" out there who were utterly unworthy of high office but got it anyways because they came from a family with contacts (*ahem*Dubya*ahem*), but there were also tons of people of relatively high origins who turned out to be great leaders.
And in things like sport, not having to worry about where you make your money has often allowed some people the chance to really hone their skills.

I'm saying you should be able to have either; a system where people from higher birth can only range from "Mediocre" to "incompetent twit" is nothing but annoying to me.

RPGPundit

I don't get this at all, Pundit. In the game, social class is derived from a shared pool with IQ and LUCK. If you want a competent fellow of high social standing, you can have a relatively high IQ, high social standing, and no Luck. That person is perfectly competent. In fact, since skills are far more important than stats, an average IQ can yield a perfectly competent character. Average doesn't mean stupid. For Leadership, the key officer skill, having a high Charisma is far more important to success than having a high IQ, and having a high Leadership skill is far more important than having a high Charisma. Stats just aren't that big a deal in the game. They give a bonus if they are high, and give a base for attempting unskilled checks, but don't matter at all otherwise.

-clash

Quote from: jhkim;280022Hold 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.

Indeed, it unsuspends all kinds of disbelief when I see characters of high social status or wealth (which really is just another kind of social status) without any reason for it. Even winning the lottery or being a child of royalty would be enough. On the other hand, I tend to put characters into situations where they have to use their contacts and skills to keep their wealth and status when such resources are acquired in that way.

Quote from: flyingmice;280085I don't get this at all, Pundit. In the game, social class is derived from a shared pool with IQ and LUCK. If you want a competent fellow of high social standing, you can have a relatively high IQ, high social standing, and no Luck. That person is perfectly competent. In fact, since skills are far more important than stats, an average IQ can yield a perfectly competent character. Average doesn't mean stupid. For Leadership, the key officer skill, having a high Charisma is far more important to success than having a high IQ, and having a high Leadership skill is far more important than having a high Charisma. Stats just aren't that big a deal in the game. They give a bonus if they are high, and give a base for attempting unskilled checks, but don't matter at all otherwise.

-clash

I guess its just the principle of the thing that bugs me, that the message being sent is "you can be of high birth and lucky but stupid; or you can be of high birth and smart but terribly unlucky, or you can be lower class and be lucky and smart". The feeling that these three factors that are not in any real way connected in real life are connected for purely system purposes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;280117I guess its just the principle of the thing that bugs me, that the message being sent is "you can be of high birth and lucky but stupid; or you can be of high birth and smart but terribly unlucky, or you can be lower class and be lucky and smart". The feeling that these three factors that are not in any real way connected in real life are connected for purely system purposes.

RPGPundit

That's the nature of any point-allocation system - you can't be really good at everything. If you like, you can roll these three stats on percentiles on the table, and even roll the other stats on 2d6. It's no big deal. If you mixed random roll and point allocated characters together, only a sharp eye would notice, and in play there's be no real difference. The system is designed for it.

-clash

One thing I'd like to mention is, that if a player needs a few extra points to make a cool concept work, I'd rather he or she just ask for it instead of latching onto bullshit flaws, or doing the point shuffle. And in my games this has worked spectacularly well.

Obviously it's not for everyone.

Quote from: CavScout;280064This is a good point and applies to both types of character generation systems. You can always work outside the printed rules to get the characters you want for your campaign, be it point buy where a free rank in social status is given or some random type system where a stat is re-rolled to a more wanted result or a roll on a random table is fudged to get what you want.

I found just about every rule system I know of breaks down at some point if you try to use it as total simulator of reality. In this case you need to use the rules as guidelines and use your own judgment.

Quote from: Serious Paul;280143One thing I'd like to mention is, that if a player needs a few extra points to make a cool concept work, I'd rather he or she just ask for it instead of latching onto bullshit flaws, or doing the point shuffle. And in my games this has worked spectacularly well.

Obviously it's not for everyone.

To be clear, I use the same approach. However, not everyone does. I mostly see this behaviour (going for the "bullshit flaws") in the gamer types and the newer players who it dawns on them that "Hey, I can get a few more points with little to no bother". I do not think that it is only the domain of the "bad gamer". I do think it is a hit that the group has to to take when they choose a flaw/merit system. Sometimes that means dealing with train wreck characters and others it is just a case of a deep meaningful look over the table between a group that has played together for a while. They know what they like and stick to it.

Quote from: Serious Paul;280143One thing I'd like to mention is, that if a player needs a few extra points to make a cool concept work, I'd rather he or she just ask for it instead of latching onto bullshit flaws, or doing the point shuffle. And in my games this has worked spectacularly well.

Obviously it's not for everyone.

I have seen this work.  However, I think it is a fine line between this and "GM gives extra points to his friends when they make PCs he likes." -- which I have also seen.    Or interpreted a little more charitably, I've seen GMs give extra points to people they know well for a concept because they know they can trust them -- but not give extra points to players they don't know well, because they don't know if they'll abuse it.  From the point of view of the new player, these both smack of favoritism.  

Though there have been good uses and bad, my memories of giving extra points to certain GM-selected players are that the problems have on averages outweighed the benefits.  Also, because you as GM are the judge of coolness, it encourages players to tailor their concepts to what you think is cool, rather than what they think is cool.  I've seen conscious choice of "I know from being friends that Joe loves lizards, so I'll make a lizard-man PC".  

From my subjective perception, my two points of advice would be: (1) Announce the extra points as an official house rule, and make as clear as possible your criteria.  If this isn't done, then some players just won't come forward, while the ones who do come forwards will tend to be the ones who are close to the GM and/or who tend to whine.  (2) Consciously avoid giving extra points only to friends, because you know you can trust them.  If you turn down new players but give to your friends, this smacks of favoritism.  The criteria should be what is presented, and you should accept the players' word.

The thing to remember about point systems is that they're intended to balance PCs against PCs, first, and PCs against the overall power-level of the world, second. They're not intended to represent anything like the actual correlation of the various gifts and advantages, physical, mental, and social, that may be distributed in a population.

That said, if the system is doing its job, it ought not cost points for stuff that isn't really a benefit in the game. And of course that all really depends on the scope of action engaged in by the group. In practice very few groups play in a style that genuinely allows characters of high social or political status to get much advantage from that--I mean if your group had a fighter, a wizard, and a high-ranking noble, would you let the noble bring along hundreds of retainers on adventures?

I think this illustrates that point costs only really work for a common expected scope of action. E.g., if everyone in the group is playing a noble, then you can just make that a requirement, give the players extra points equivalent to a "middling" noble, and then let them spend more or less to adjust their rank while making up the difference in other areas. Of course this really means that you're giving up on the idea of completely fungible point values for all aspects of a character--because you've just gone and walled off a separate budget for social status that can't be 100% converted into other characteristics.

Personally I suppose this is pretty much why I never liked the way that GURPS tried to incorporate social factors like wealth and status into the point-buy system--but at the same time it suggests a compromise where you break the point pools down into categories and allow limited trading between them.

Quote from: estar;280153I found just about every rule system I know of breaks down at some point if you try to use it as total simulator of reality. In this case you need to use the rules as guidelines and use your own judgment.

You speak truth. If you don't mind, maybe I'll put this in my signature.

The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

This seems to me to be an immediate break with simulationism, as in reality, life is not fair. Many "peculiar consequences" stem therefrom.

Quote from: jhkim;280186From my subjective perception, my two points of advice would be: (1) Announce the extra points as an official house rule, and make as clear as possible your criteria.  If this isn't done, then some players just won't come forward, while the ones who do come forwards will tend to be the ones who are close to the GM and/or who tend to whine.  (2) Consciously avoid giving extra points only to friends, because you know you can trust them.  If you turn down new players but give to your friends, this smacks of favoritism.  The criteria should be what is presented, and you should accept the players' word.

*Nods* Yeah, I think communication is essential in any group. Luckily I think we do decently enough.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280218The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

This seems to me to be an immediate break with simulationism, as in reality, life is not fair. Many "peculiar consequences" stem therefrom.

I agree.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280218The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

This seems to me to be an immediate break with simulationism, as in reality, life is not fair. Many "peculiar consequences" stem therefrom.

That's a very good point; though I think the word you were looking for was "emulation".

Emulation: trying to be imitative of a particular genre, historical period, or the real world in general.

Simulationism: A made-up word from a theory that has been demonstrably proven to be false and for intentionally deceptive purposes.  Not a legitimate system of classification of regular Roleplaying.

And yes, your point was a good one; I think one of the things in my IHW example was that in period fiction you often get the dashing, noble, intelligent and lucky aristocratic Hero in the Napoleonic wars; whereas what IHW seemed to be saying was "only the proles can be real heroes", which is a bit of marxist claptrap that didn't exist prior to the turn of the 20th century.  In victorian adventure fiction, most of the heros are upper class, and ARE both smart and lucky.

RPGPundit

The 'incompetents in charge' phenomenon you get with 'buying' social rank has always been a pet peeve of mine, too.  

My preferred approach is usually to let the players choose freely the social status of their PC, and make sure it confers no great overall advantage in-game.  The Prince PC is given a +2 sword from the royal armoury, the escaped slave PC has a +2 sword taken from the hands of his owner he killed, etc.  If there are advantages to high status, they can be balanced by disads - but not in such a way as to give extra spotlight time.  Overall, social status should be irrelevant to what's happening (in a D&D dungeon bash) or else determined randomly (eg Traveller).

Quote from: RPGPundit;280227Simulationism: A made-up word from a theory that has been demonstrably proven to be false and for intentionally deceptive purposes.  Not a legitimate system of classification of regular Roleplaying.

I used the word as I understand the definition, which is from the original GDS definition as created on RGFA, and (from what I have seen) they way most non-forgists seem to understand the term.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280329I used the word as I understand the definition, which is from the original GDS definition as created on RGFA, and (from what I have seen) they way most non-forgists seem to understand the term.

Sorry then. But sadly, that word has been misappropriated and destroyed by the Swine, so its easier to just use "Emulation" which is a better choice anyways, since "simulation" implies you're trying to imitate reality, opening to the false notion that "realism" is important and in turn allowing the Swine to make accusations that all we want is to be "realistic" and that we're fooling ourselves.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280218The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

The original point buy system, Champion, was done that way so Player A had equal combat ability as Player B. This seems like  "life is fair" among PCs, but in reality it because of the presence of D&D where everybody is 1st level. Also it reflect the wargame mentality where both sides started balanced.

Later as the HERO system rose out of Champions and GURPS grew out of the Fantasy Trip. The points became a way of exposing the math behind the system. With GURPS being a lot more fuzzier than HERO.

Both, but GURPS especially, stop trying to strive for combat balance.  No longer you could say that one 100 pt character was equally capable as another 100 pt character. For GURPS the points instead became reflective of the difficultly or rarity in relation to real life. For example 200 hours of learning = 1 skill point.

This is from having played these type of rule systems from the early 80s onward.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280218The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

This seems to me to be an immediate break with simulationism, as in reality, life is not fair. Many "peculiar consequences" stem therefrom.

It has little to do with "life" being fair but rather that it is a game and you generally want players thinking their hand is fair compared to the next guy.

You could play Texas Hold 'Em with some players have 2 hole cards, some 3 and maybe others with 4. After awhile, the guy with only 2 hole cards is going to get a little miffed.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280218The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

This seems to me to be an immediate break with simulationism, as in reality, life is not fair. Many "peculiar consequences" stem therefrom.

Well, this depends on your definition of "fair".  To many, the idea that the least competent person is the one paid the best (or highest rank/status/etc.) is considered unfair.

Quote from: RPGPundit;280358Sorry then. But sadly, that word has been misappropriated and destroyed by the Swine,

I used to have a sig that had a disclaimer in there. But found that 90% of readers weren't familiar with (or probably, just couldn't understand all the add-on babble) the forge definition and understood the more intuitive definition, so I stopped using it.

Quote from: CavScout;280380It has little to do with "life" being fair but rather that it is a game and I generally want players thinking their hand is fair compared to the next guy.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: CavScoutYou could play Texas Hold 'Em with some players have 2 hole cards, some 3 and maybe others with 4. After awhile, the guy with only 2 hole cards is going to get a little miffed.

You could also play Texas Hold'em where all the players get to choose their hands rather than having them dealt, but either way, roleplaying games are not the same as card games, so the analogy fails.

Quote from: jhkim;280392Well, this depends on your definition of "fair".  To many, the idea that the least competent person is the one paid the best (or highest rank/status/etc.) is considered unfair.

That may as be, but studies from not too long ago show that the people who get promoted the most often and paid the best are really good at...  getting promoted.  Seriously.  Whether or not that is a skill, or a particular skill set, is still up for debate.  It wasn't because they were particularly good at their job.  Research seemed to show they were pretty much average across the board on a number of factors.

The point being:  they really did put 'skill points' into getting a promotion or more pay instead of a number of technical or other skills.  While it might be unfair, that is more or less exactly how things play out in the real world.

Quote from: CavScout;280380It has little to do with "life" being fair but rather that it is a game and you generally want players thinking their hand is fair compared to the next guy.

You aren't adding any meaning to my initial statement here. But thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: jhkim;280022Hold 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.

But here is the problem, you are asssuming a game where one player play a private and the other play a general, and both are built with the same number of points, this is not impossible, but it is a little weird. It is like playing a super hero game where both Jimmy Olsen and Superman are built on 500 points and complain that Jimmy is as much as powerful as Superman.

And about how to explain it, an easy fix the general have an higher number/more disadvantages (Duty come to mind), and use the extra-points to buy the necessary skills.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280414You aren't adding any meaning to my initial statement here. But thanks for the clarification.

You're missing the point, again, it seems. It isn't about life bing fair, it's about the game.

Quote from: CavScout;280426You're missing the point, again, it seems. It isn't about life bing fair, it's about the game.

I think you're the one who might be missing the point. That the game is an intrinsic element here should be obvious from the fact that we are talking about point buy system for a game. But my original point was that point buy systems exist substantially to equalize the characters within the game. Thus, within the context of the game, the founding philosophy is that life (of the characters) is fair.

So again, you aren't saying anything that I wasn't saying in the first place.

Quote from: Just Another User;280422And about how to explain it, an easy fix the general have an higher number/more disadvantages (Duty come to mind), and use the extra-points to buy the necessary skills.

I think this is a very good idea, if you want to stay within the general paradigm of "infinitely fungible point-buy". Although for many systems (e.g., the standard GURPS rules at least prior to 4e), it would amount to a houserule, and thus doesn't invalidate the criticism of system as written, to allow more than a certain number/value of disads.

Other comments...

Rob (Estar),

QuoteFor GURPS the points instead became reflective of the difficultly or rarity in relation to real life.

Although this was true of earlier versions of GURPS, I think I've been told that GURPS 4e has moved away from this approach. That is, points are supposed to reflect utility in game terms. But because they attempt to be comprehensive, the rules must necessarily be based on certain assumptions about how the game is going to be played. E.g. if 50 points spent on combat-related characteristics, skills, and advantages are supposed to be "balanced" against 50 points spent on social advantages, then those social advantages must have, in some sense, an equivalent impact on play whether it be in terms of overcoming challenges or garnering spotlight time. And this is something that's ultimately going to be in the hands of the GM and players.

To me this suggests that a group ought to think about the type of play that a given point system would really be balanced for, and then make adjustments, such as breaking the points down into categories and requiring a certain range of expenditures in each. I imagine a game could be designed that'd allow the group to specify beforehand how important different areas would be, which would yield multipliers. So that for example if social status or holding an office is mainly incidental to the real action of the game, it won't make much difference in points whether you're a high muckety-muck or the lowest of the low.

Quote from: StormBringer;280402That may as be, but studies from not too long ago show that the people who get promoted the most often and paid the best are really good at...  getting promoted.  Seriously.  Whether or not that is a skill, or a particular skill set, is still up for debate.  It wasn't because they were particularly good at their job.  Research seemed to show they were pretty much average across the board on a number of factors.

The point being:  they really did put 'skill points' into getting a promotion or more pay instead of a number of technical or other skills.  While it might be unfair, that is more or less exactly how things play out in the real world.

This is going to vary a lot depending on what the job is, and what rank you're considering.  For instance, in the US army and others with similar rank system, there's a break-point at the rank of Major.  Speed of getting promoted to Major from Captain may owe a lot to "getting promoted" skill.  But only a few officers are promoted from Major to Lt Colonel, and those are usually men with a demonstrated leadership ability.  After that though, getting promoted from Lt Colonel up into the General ranks again owes a lot to getting-promoted skill and not so much at ability to do the actual job.

So you get a situation where officers with Lt Colonel and Colonel rank are likely to be more talented than those with Major rank, but also more talented than those with General rank.

Quote from: S'mon;280473This is going to vary a lot depending on what the job is, and what rank you're considering.  For instance, in the US army and others with similar rank system, there's a break-point at the rank of Major.  Speed of getting promoted to Major from Captain may owe a lot to "getting promoted" skill.  But only a few officers are promoted from Major to Lt Colonel, and those are usually men with a demonstrated leadership ability.  After that though, getting promoted from Lt Colonel up into the General ranks again owes a lot to getting-promoted skill and not so much at ability to do the actual job.

So you get a situation where officers with Lt Colonel and Colonel rank are likely to be more talented than those with Major rank, but also more talented than those with General rank.

True story.  The studies I recall were focussed on the business world, somewhat in light of recent stories regarding golden parachutes for CEOs and other executives that performed poorly at the helm.

The military, as you note, is quite different.  Promotion among the non-commissioned is based, in large part, on testing scores, but eventually, your time in rank and time in service may come to equal out, so your test scores are not as important.  Which rather makes sense, the more experience you have in your rank and in the service make up for book learning or being good at taking tests.  Whether or not that is entirely accurate is another debate altogether.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280218The fundamental driving force behind most point-buy system is that life is fair (at least among the PCs).

I think I see what you mean: point-buy assumes everyone who is going to get together to do this thing [adventure, job, whatever] has almost exactly the same ability, overall, to effect the world, which is highly unlikely to happen in real life; usually, any given group of people doing a thing together will be on rough parity, but a much rougher parity than you'd get be giving them all the same number of points.

One fix I can think of would be to randomly determine the number of points each player gets. This might seem ridiculous - why not just randomly assign the character's values, then? - but it combines the realism of a rougher parity with the control necessary to develop the character first, and the numbers second. On the other hand, I can certainly see cases in which players would get frustrated at being the lowest-powered guy in the room, or even the highest-powered guy. So it'd be a solution with a narrow scope of applicability.

Even if the leader is the least skilled in the, "group," most point buy systems produce characters so much more powerful than people in the real world that it wouldn't look strange to the people that knew the characters.

If I was written up in a White Wolf style game with skills ranging from 1-5, my sheet would look something like that:

Martial Arts 3
Paramedic 2
Computer 1
Driving 2
Engineering 2
Athletics 2

and that is probably just about it. Here is a sample character: a realistic, real world physician with martial arts for a hobby:

Physician 3
Paramedic 4
Martial Arts 2
Athletics 2
Driving 2
Computer 1
Survival 2
Dancing 2

That's it, and that's a pretty realistic, real world character, and if that guy were running tons of shit, no one would bat an eye at it.

There is, however, no possible fucking way that that character would fly as a player character. Too weak, too boring. The player character version would have twice that much shit. The game master might write him up an an NPC running the ED or something, but not as an adventurer. The fact that this guy is telling a PC what to do is crazy.

Quote from: Cranewings;280499...most point buy systems produce characters so much more powerful than people in the real world...

Is that uniquely inherent to point-buy systems, or a characteristic of roleplaying games in general, do you suppose? I've only played a few games with random generation, but they seem exceptional compared to the average real-life person, too.

Quote from: Cranewings;280499There is, however, no possible fucking way that that character would fly as a player character. Too weak, too boring.

For what it's worth, we've done games with incredibly low point values, and I've found them stimulating and interesting, provided they're given challenges appropriate to their power level.

Quote from: Engine;280501For what it's worth, we've done games with incredibly low point values, and I've found them stimulating and interesting, provided they're given challenges appropriate to their power level.

That's something that can be applied to any level of power the characters may have. I think too many people lose focus of it.

Quote from: CavScout;280504That's something that can be applied to any level of power the characters may have. I think too many people lose focus of it.

Agreed. And while every group has different ideals of the degree of challenge that should be presented - some like a walkover, while others like to always be on the verge of getting curbstomped - the idea of proportionate challenges is a powerful one. One exception to the general rule is the hands-off sandbox game, in which the characters are supposed to determine how great a challenge they're willing to face; my own sympathies lie somewhere in-between, in which the players/characters decide who to face and where and when, while I keep my fingers on the scale to make sure they're always just a hairsbreadth away from victory or defeat, and ideally do so in such a way as to be unnoticed.

I personally love playing very low-power games, in which the characters are just the man-on-the-street, an average person put into an extraordinary situation which stretches their abilities to the maximum, but many people find the lack of options to be suffocating, largely because they're used to having so many more powers and abilities. But once people get used to it, their perspective comes back, and they realize that even just having the ability to shoot a gun reasonably well is a tremendous ability when calibrated against the real world, which my games seek to emulate.

[Edit: And that perspective allows an amazing shift in how players view different challenges; while in real life, a single guy with a gun saying, "Jewelry, keys, wallet," is an intimidating thing, for the average Shadowrun character, that's just Wednesday evening. Shifting the perspective downward allows players to compare the game events to real-life events, and not to fantasy events, and I've found that's a real asset toward immersion.]

Quote from: Engine;280501Is that uniquely inherent to point-buy systems, or a characteristic of roleplaying games in general, do you suppose? I've only played a few games with random generation, but they seem exceptional compared to the average real-life person, too.


For what it's worth, we've done games with incredibly low point values, and I've found them stimulating and interesting, provided they're given challenges appropriate to their power level.

A friend of mine is a cop / power lifter / cage fighting camp. If vampires or something attacked Dayton Ohio, he wouldn't be a bad player character. That said, he gets salty on occasion in an RPG when his character, which is usually a warrior, gets taken down by something that he thinks he could live through (:

The only low powered game that I've ever tried to run was Beyond the Supernatural. It had potential to be good but we didn't get very far with it.

As far as your first point, yeah, almost all rpgs make characters that are more powerful than real life.

Quote from: Cranewings;280499Even if the leader is the least skilled in the, "group," most point buy systems produce characters so much more powerful than people in the real world that it wouldn't look strange to the people that knew the characters.

The problem that I referred to isn't that the point-buy system leads to characters that are unbelievable by themselves.  Rather, within the group of PCs, the ones with more status, wealth, and fame will be the ones with less skill.  

I'll bring up again my initial examples.  Suppose there are professionals in the party -- say two PCs who are both mercenaries.  One of them has spent points on wealth and fame, while the other hasn't.  The mercenary who is rich and famous is less capable than the one who is poor and unknown.  Similarly, if the PCs are a starship crew, the one who has rank Captain and correspondingly greater pay is less skilled than his subordinate officers.  

One can generally find a rationale for this for any given set of characters. However, the trend is notable.  It's not unplayable or anything -- one can still have a perfectly fun game where the famous mercenary is riding on his connections and is actually outclassed by his less-reknown peer.  There are good stories about the crack squad saddled with a green lieutenant.  We can quibble about how common this is in real life, but the main thing is that it isn't always the case in either real life or fiction.  i.e. There might be times when you want a group where the captain isn't less competent than the lower-rank officers, or the famous mercenary isn't outshone by the unknown.  

Thus, I'm interested in talking about ways to not have this feature.  

1) 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.  

2) 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.  

3) 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.  

4) 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.  

5) 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?  

6) Status traits (like wealth, rank, and fame) can be random or otherwise independently assigned, while everything else is point-bought.

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.

Quote from: Engine;280497One fix I can think of would be to randomly determine the number of points each player gets. This might seem ridiculous - why not just randomly assign the character's values, then?

Well, it gives you a measure of choice, the other driving philosophy of point build. We've done it before for DC Heroes. There was a chart that randomized your origin and gave you an attendant number of points.

Still, in many circles, the idea of some form of equalization is such a big driver, that'd be a hard sell. But in the right group, it's an interesting bit of genre emulation.

Quote from: CavScout;280659I 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.

I can turn that around: if you can mint points out of thin air, then does it really matter how much things cost?

That's the crux of the issue with John's idea #5 (which is where Engine branched off), which I'll repeat here:

Quote5) 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?

Where this leads is back to what I said earlier in the thread, which I'll repeat in more forceful terms here: the idea of a set of fixed costs for point-buy, which applies across all campaigns, where all elements of the character have a price--such that they're all interchangeable--is a chimera.

I believe point-buy does work (there are lots of happy GURPS and Hero players after all) but the reason it does is because groups have worked out some sort of framework that keeps characters from diverging too greatly in areas that affect their respective abilities to impact the game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;280679I can turn that around: if you can mint points out of thin air, then does it really matter how much things cost?

Sure, you could "turn it around" if you want to change the direction of the conversation. Again, if the perk bestows no actual perk, then it shouldn't have a cost.

If it does bestow a perk, and hence does cost, then as long as the environment around the players is "balanced" accordingly, it doesn't matter.

If you have 100 point characters, play in a 100 point campaign. If they have 150, play in a 150 point campaign.

If a GM allows players to start at 10th level in D&D but runs them through 1st level modules, it's not an indication that the level system is broken in D&D. Same thing with point buys, keep the environment balanced and it doesn't matter what points they start with.

Quote from: CavScout;280606I'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....

That is an extreme position. That why Bob Bledsaw called his company Judges Guild you are supposed exercise some judgment while running a RPG.

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

Because points can represent things other than "balance".

Quote from: CavScout;280682Sure, you could "turn it around" if you want to change the direction of the conversation. Again, if the perk bestows no actual perk, then it shouldn't have a cost.

We seem to be posting at cross-purposes, and by that I don't mean we're disagreeing. Again, this entire line of argument forked off of a suggestion that a group might give some players "extra points" for character creation in order to overcome the "incompetents in charge" issue, such as it is. My feeling is that once you get to this point, you aren't really making use of the point system, so why bother accounting? But at the same time, in play, you're still presumably "balancing" the game in a way that works for the group, so the question of whether it's an advantage or not is moot.

That said, the problem of point balance can't just be distilled into "play 100 point characters in 100 point campaigns". What would work for a group of combat-optimized 100 point characters won't work for a group of characters whose abilities, skills, and advantages are chosen based on a game that would revolve around intrigue or investigation.

What I really think is that various dimensions of character ability are so incomparable, and so contextual, that they ought to be separated into separate budgets altogether with at most partial convertibility. Going back to what someone said earlier in the thread, the first point-balance games tended only to balance combat and adventuring abilities. In my opinion it was a bit of a mistake to then try to roll other aspects of character into the system, particularly social and economic ads/disads, without taking note of how the style of the campaign affects the "real value" of the stuff you spend your points on.

Why does it seem like we are cycling back to the "random=right way to play" and/or "point buy=wrong way to play"?

I don't know why you're reading that into what I'm writing.

There are other approaches, though, besides just those two. I mean if GURPS and Hero are the epitome of point buy you also have:

Non-random lifepath: Burning Wheel

Random lifepath: Classic Traveller

Segregated point-buy: JAGS (if I remember correctly), Barbarians of Lemuria 1e (effectively)

Multistage point-buy: TFT (first you assign points to characteristics, then your IQ determines how many points you get for skills & spells)

Limited point-buy: TFT, again. The game mechanics only address a very limited portion of character-definition, basically combat ability, magic, and "adventuring" skills. Other stuff is handled however the group wants; being of high social status can have an effect on play, but it isn't factored into point-calculation.

Template with limited nonrandom customization: Talislanta (also, I think, Star Wars d6 and Feng Shui)

Limited random: most versions of D&D, where (again) social status isn't handled by chargen at all.

Come to think of it I have trouble thinking of many games that fully dealt with character creation in a fully random manner. Harnmaster 1 might at least allow you to do everything randomly if you want, from characteristics to social status and profession, to appearance and personality quirks. But up until GURPS and Hero started doing it, almost no games tried to comprehensively point-balance nearly all aspects of characters. Waste World and a number of other games take a fairly GURPS-y approach, in fact it's become pretty standard, but those games usually have a more focused idea of what the game's about and what the characters are going to be doing, so advantages like "General" or "King of the country" don't get included.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;280702the first point-balance games tended only to balance combat and adventuring abilities. In my opinion it was a bit of a mistake to then try to roll other aspects of character into the system, particularly social and economic ads/disads, without taking note of how the style of the campaign affects the "real value" of the stuff you spend your points on.

Agree 100%.

In a purely political game, combat ability should be free.  If you're playing "The West Wing: The RPG" it really doesn't matter if the White House Chief of Staff is a tenth dan former Special Forces colonel.

Likewise, in a swords & sorcery game where the PCs are wanderers, social status should be free.  It really doesn't matter whether you're the Last Emperor of Melnibone or a barbarian from backwoods Cimmeria.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280674Well, it gives you a measure of choice, the other driving philosophy of point build. We've done it before for DC Heroes. There was a chart that randomized your origin and gave you an attendant number of points.

Still, in many circles, the idea of some form of equalization is such a big driver, that'd be a hard sell. But in the right group, it's an interesting bit of genre emulation.

I do find the idea of a random-point point-buy system interesting; you'd have to manage [and playtest the heck out of] the maximum distribution of points, but ultimately, I suspect it would be better to build a [highly condensed] version of this thread into the rules, and provide some basic guidelines for that maximum distribution: if you want all characters who are the same power level, then use non-random points; if you want people to be all just a little different power level, use 100+[2d6] points; if you want kings and peasants in the same group, use 1d100 points. [Numbers for example only!]

Neat idea, anyway.

My game Omnifray - http://www.omnifray.com - avoids the OP's problem despite having a points-buy system which covers hugely variable core stats, traits/skills, special powers ("feats" powered by "energy points"), social status and wealth. It avoids the OP's problem because social status and wealth in effect have their own separate points-buy pool. The lower your social status and starting wealth, the more "temporary fate points" you start with* which the referee can use to your benefit by invoking extraordinary luck ("feats of destiny") on your behalf during the adventure. If you have feats of destiny on your character's list of feats, you can use your temporary fate points for those if you want to.

Temporary fate points don't regenerate - they're a one-off leg-up to help you catch up with your more socio-economically advantaged fellow adventurers. They probably don't let you catch up completely in most cases, but they're a good leg-up, and they could save your life. They're justified in "simulationist" terms by the role of the Fates - if you've been chosen by destiny to adventure alongside much wealthier, snootier adventurers, that's because you have something special to offer - the blessings that Lady Luck has in store for you. And they're perfect for gamists, giving something to compensate for every disadvantage, and narrativist-friendly, potentially helping you to mould the storyline to your tastes.

They're just the all-round perfect solution!

Some people might rather have control of their temporary fate points themselves than let the ref spend them [the players' input is always valued of course], but that's easy - just pick feats of destiny for your character, and you can spend your TFPs yourself and have a modest measure of narrativist input into the plot.

Matt

* rules only in the Expert Manual

My understanding, being a GURPS player mind you... is that Status is only bought if it is relevant. Any player can chose to be a 'former general wandering the woods' to no effect for no points (or a one point quirk, what have you)...

And like anything else in gaming it isn't perfect.  One thing that came up recently was that in GURPS traveller you could get extra pay for certain ship duties (such as... Captain!), but you needed to have the right skills... and for captain Status.

We had a WTF! moment from that.  We, the crew, had picked our captain (the Vargyr), who had all the required skills but wasn't, somehow, qualified to be the captain because he lacked 10 points worth of Status/Rank...

Then again, our ships doctor was trying to cheat the system by convincing the GM that since he could be licensed from another culture, he really didn't need 14's in EVERY skill on the surgeon list...


The idea that a general needs to spend 40 points to be a general isn't broken. It may be a sign that your game concept needs some work (why exactly is the general hob knobbing with the private-slash-ninja again?). Those 40 points represent, among other things, time spent in the administration of a large body of troops, time spent hobknobbing with politicians, sitting in senate sessions explaining this or that. They represent time NOT spent out at the range, or driving a tank or practicing silent takedowns with a knife made from his own femur.

Someone who ISN"T a general has time to learn that shit, and reason to.  Maybe the points are a bit high, maybe they are just right (the problem is more visible at the lower levels, actually... the Sergeant of a squad should be more competent than his men for the MOST part, yet 5-10 points of rank can be brutal in the lower point total games where you are likely to see him... though of course, a good NCO is probably sacrificing social life (not as much time spent at bars or whatever. There went that carousing skill!)...

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280674Well, it gives you a measure of choice, the other driving philosophy of point build. We've done it before for DC Heroes. There was a chart that randomized your origin and gave you an attendant number of points.

Still, in many circles, the idea of some form of equalization is such a big driver, that'd be a hard sell. But in the right group, it's an interesting bit of genre emulation.

My Iridium system is similar to this. Stats are random but then development points are derived from those. Perhaps more like a variation mentioned before but close. Essentially, I wanted to combine random with point buy. This is probably my preferred method...until I think of another. :)

Quote from: CavScout;280707Why does it seem like we are cycling back to the "random=right way to play" and/or "point buy=wrong way to play"?

Because of the toolkit nature of RPGs particularly with the two most popular point buy system (GURPS, HERO) . There is no right answer. Most referees campaigns are a combination of different elements and rule subsystems.

As a generalization you start out by the book and then evolve your style. At best you can give suggestions along the lines of "This is what I did, why, and how it worked out."  Then referees and players can decide whether it is useful for their circumstances.

For example I run GURPS mostly "by the book" when it comes to combat. My reasons is that I want players to be able to figure out what the options are for themselves by looking at the situation. GURPS Advanced Combat is comprehensive enough and grounded in reality enough that there are only a few edge cases that players can't work out for themselves. I create individual cheat sheets listing the maneuvers and modifiers that indivicharacters will typically use. This is primarily for the less experienced GURPS player in my group.

Another example, For GURPS I have a list of allowed advantage and disadvantages for my campaign. I expect the players to talk to me about what they want their character to be like. I will in turn will help them use the system to make what they want, awarding freebies for really good ideas. Sometimes we will think up a theme that we want to try for this particular campaign and come up with restrictions and freebies to reinforce that theme. (Everybody plays a City Guard)

I like to use Point based system like GURPS and HERO in that they allow me to tell players to make what they want within a broad list of possibilities. Players are happy because they have the freedom to mix and match.  This used to be a big deal back in the day but D&D 3.X offers enough flexibility that this is no longer a compelling draw of GURPS and HERO. Although with 4th edition this advantage may return to a lesser degree.

What I don't do is claim these is the "right" way to run GURPS. Or the only way. Just some things I did that you may or may not find useful.

I just wanted to place my real answer to the question.

I don't like player characters being able to purchase rank and wealth with character points at all. I feel that those things should be assigned by the GM at the start of the game.

Character wealth, rank, and fame are all things that will have a dramatic impact on how the story is carried out. For example, if you are a fighter in dnd, the way you handle a group of orcs attacking your town is totally different if you are a prince. The GM should be the one to decide if you are a prince with men at arms. Giving up two of your feats for it is too much player control, and kinda lame.

Quote from: Cranewings;280915I just wanted to place my real answer to the question.

I don't like player characters being able to purchase rank and wealth with character points at all. I feel that those things should be assigned by the GM at the start of the game.

Character wealth, rank, and fame are all things that will have a dramatic impact on how the story is carried out. For example, if you are a fighter in dnd, the way you handle a group of orcs attacking your town is totally different if you are a prince. The GM should be the one to decide if you are a prince with men at arms. Giving up two of your feats for it is too much player control, and kinda lame.

I disagree in the sense that I do not think it is lame to give players as much practical control over their character's design as possible. I'd rather see a GM limit what players can take instead. Don't want princes or generals in your game, limit the ability to purchase said perks.

In the hands of a good GM (rather than a merely competent GM) player creativity and control over character can be a valuable tool to adding much to the game.

The Idea of allowing a player to declare they are a prince could take an ordinary, ho-hum game of D&D monster slaying to another level by adding the element of politics and responsibilities conflicting with proper adventuring...

Of course, I have my own opinon about the feat structure of D&D that goes beyond this from this aside: I've never felt Feats should encompass things that are exterior to the player, elements of birth and etc, given as they apparently represent those training and tricks the hero has mastered that set him appart from ordinary men...