Respecs.
-
Sure I'm a Stage Manager on Broadway now, and all my xp is into this but i have high survival because at one point in my life i used to be a park ranger' That shit should be kept, not washed away to minmax better.
This. Skill atrophy is totally a thing, but it mostly strikes really low skills (yeah technically I took a sign language class ages ago, but I'd be hard-pressed to remember much now) or really high ones (it's easy to slip down from Olympic levels if you slack off). In the middle, humans are actually pretty amazing at retaining old skills and knowledge. Not always, mind you, but in general. I don't really see that as a compelling reason for allowing respecs.
But at the same time... if somebody came in as an elite sniper but wanted to do a story where over the next few months they stopped their hard-core marksmanship training and instead focused on working out, I'd have no problem letting them shift a point from firearms to athletics. Those sorts of minor, story-driven changes aren't jarring and I definitely think they should be considered on a case-by-case basis. They're just not "respecs" in my mind.
-
@faraday Most games I've been on consider any change like that a respec -- so that may be where we're running into the difference.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality said in Respecs.:
@faraday Most games I've been on consider any change like that a respec -- so that may be where we're running into the difference.
Yeah maybe. I've only seen "respec" used in the context of a significant do-over of stats.
-
Let me preface this with a few caveats:
- I dislike XP Caps, but, some people like them.
- Systems should not be obfuscated imho. Players should know how to build the character they want to play.
That said, if a game is making major changes to system, then I don't mind a respec. That's literally the only time... Except for maybe in the case of an XP cap situation in which case any sort of character growth/change would /require/ respecs of some sort.
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
Consider superhero games where you can buy pretty much anything.
So that magical ability could become super skills could become super strength.
Your soul will be crushed when you find out that someone doens't have a little more skill than you, but their total is twice yours.
And to top it off, those systems are usually designed with the idea that point totals ARE supposed to measure overall power to affect the game, and you shouldn't ever lose the points.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@misadventure said in Respecs.:
Consider superhero games where you can buy pretty much anything.
^^^^^
This right here is the problem.Any game, of any Genre, needs to have limits otherwise there is no point in even trying to have anything remotely resembling game balance.
The rest of the statement doesn't even matter really, how does it hurt or hinder your character if someone else is stronger?
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
Any game, of any Genre, needs to have limits otherwise there is no point in even trying to have anything remotely resembling game balance.
Why do all games need to have limits? Why must they all be balanced?
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel Different thread.
-
Any respec, or indeed any dramatic change for a character, should have a basis in the game world's internal logic.
Your character started out as a writer and through the game has focused more and more on shooting a crossbow? Sure, respec to downgrade the writing and add more to the crossbow firing skill. But adding points to basketweaving probably doesn't make sense.
-
-
There's a lot to say about this, really. Personally I'm in favor of respecs, but with a few caveats
Core stats (Splat, Subsplat, subsubsplat) should not be allowed to be changed unless there's a way to change them in-game without penalty normally (and if there is a penalty, that should be charged post-respec). Like, Mages can concievably change Orders, but not Paths.Stats are more fluid, and depend on the rules of the game. If the game requires justification, then no -they should not be allowed to respec. If the game blanket does not require justification, then all stats should be allowed to be respecced save for cgen only ones. If the game requires partial justification <For, example, supernatural powers> then only non-supernatural stuff should be allowed. As a personal tilt, I hate this last idea - not only because of it being too fiddly, but because it's too sphere-specific and you won't find any degree of balance across something that should be balanced.
As far as what stats should be allowed if a respec is permitted? I'm in general favor of not limiting them - especially if a game offers 'catchup' xp, or has changed the amount of starting xp over the course of its lifetime. In such a case, newer characters would have more to spend, and could allocate things in a more efficient way (especially if we're talking 1e) than someone who started with less.
But really, the answer to most Respec problems is to just go 2e. Flat costs for everything removes much of the urge to min-max stats at chargen, and makes respecs a legitimate use for changing the direction of the character proper rather than trying to maximise spends.
-
That said, if a game is making major changes to system, then I don't mind a respec. That's literally the only time... Except for maybe in the case of an XP cap situation in which case any sort of character growth/change would /require/ respecs of some sort.
With an XP cap, I like the idea of timed buy-downs to reflect minor shifts, but I also like the idea learning times with the same. Putting it all together, that's what I'd look forward to.
-
@killer-klown said in Respecs.:
Flat costs for everything removes much of the urge to min-max stats at chargen, and makes respecs a legitimate use for changing the direction of the character proper rather than trying to maximise spends.
Is this actually true? To me if you wanted a maxed out stat, getting it through at cgen seems easiest. You may not be saving xp, but you have your focal ability, you are good with it, and you can still pick up little 1s and 2s along the way to fill in empty spots.
I think just saying there is a limited number of skills and stats etc above some rating X is more focused approach. You can build in leeway as desired, but if you start with a limited number of very high ratings, it is specific, easily adjusted if you figure you want to change it, and independent of things that may have different costs per level. And you can do cool things like have a higher limit, or no limit, on things that really aren't important, like a trivia skill, or an advantage you want people to ave lots of (like Contacts, or Lore Each Splatbooks subtopic, cuz yay 65+ lore skills is always fun).
I definitely always support not having things cost differently after character generation. Cgen only things I can see protecting, but even then there may be reasons in a given game that they can be lost or gained, so you have to keep your mind open on that.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@misadventure It's the tiered costs. I haven't done it all in a while, but the math works out such that you could have two characters with identical stats, but depending on how you build them in CG and with CG or later XP, they will cost the same in starting points, but one will cost much more in (combined) XP than the other. The way it works is that you do exactly that -- front load the 'expensive' stat while having almost nothing else at all, resulting in what is more or less a one-trick pony that's anything but well-rounded.
The flat costs eliminate this, and since it's not going to cost more later, people are more inclined toward a more reasonable and rounded spread of attributes and skills.
Basically, if you ever want that 5 in tiered, it's considerably cheaper to buy it in CG than buy it up over time. You ultimately end up with people who have the same stats, but those stats don't have the same cost to get there, which is pretty meh.
I can't say I would ever support 'I want a respec now that I have enough points to min-max better in a tiered system without crippling myself somewhere', that's for sure.
-
@misadventure said in Respecs.:
@killer-klown said in Respecs.:
Flat costs for everything removes much of the urge to min-max stats at chargen, and makes respecs a legitimate use for changing the direction of the character proper rather than trying to maximise spends.
Is this actually true? To me if you wanted a maxed out stat, getting it through at cgen seems easiest. You may not be saving xp, but you have your focal ability, you are good with it, and you can still pick up little 1s and 2s along the way to fill in empty spots.
Yeah, that hasn't been my experience. No matter what your XP costs are, it still takes time to save them up. Maxing out the stats at chargen will always be the most efficient.
It's true, though, that tiered costs (either in chargen or after chargen) encourage people to min-max more, because it becomes more of a numbers game. But flat XP costs have pros and cons; it's not a cure-all.
-
Although a lot of arguments here are subjective there is one I will never accept - and that's plausible realism for spends against time.
One of the arguments I have read about respecs is that it 'doesn't make sense' that a character (for example) learns Medicine 4 or Life 3 overnight. Such things take months or years to develop, so you can't just redo your spends and learn whatever so fast.
It holds zero water. If that was the case no character in nearly any game should pick up new skills at a high level after CGen; it takes going to medical school for years to become a surgeon after all, so if you started with Medicine 1 you should never raise it past, say, 2 - if even that. The same thing applies to melee; you don't become a kung fu master or gain a BJJ elite belt quickly 'realistically'.
But, y'know, this is a game and all.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
It holds zero water. If that was the case no character in nearly any game should pick up new skills at a high level after CGen; it takes going to medical school for years to become a surgeon after all, so if you started with Medicine 1 you should never raise it past, say, 2 - if even that. The same thing applies to melee; you don't become a kung fu master or gain a BJJ elite belt quickly 'realistically'.
But... that's exactly the path that some systems take. I wouldn't allow somebody to go from First Aid 1 to "expert surgeon" in the game for precisely the reasons you describe. You may not like it, and that's fine, but to claim the argument holds no water seems uncharitable. Managing IC plausibility is a thing for some people.
-
It holds zero water. If that was the case no character in nearly any game should pick up new skills at a high level after CGen; it takes going to medical school for years to become a surgeon after all, so if you started with Medicine 1 you should never raise it past, say, 2 - if even that. The same thing applies to melee; you don't become a kung fu master or gain a BJJ elite belt quickly 'realistically'.
But... that's exactly the path that some systems take. I wouldn't allow somebody to go from First Aid 1 to "expert surgeon" in the game for precisely the reasons you describe. You may not like it, and that's fine, but to claim the argument holds no water seems uncharitable. Managing IC plausibility is a thing for some people.
Fair enough, I'll ammend my statement: I personally consider skills (or powers, where applicable) to be organic parts of a character's growth and arc, so I don't like systems which place artificial limits on that growth by essentially capping it universally to a snapshot taken after CGen. While some characters can grow without that reflecting on their skillsets I don't support enforcing it across the board.
However it's unreasonable to assume everyone shares that view, so I withdraw the argument.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
It holds zero water. If that was the case no character in nearly any game should pick up new skills at a high level after CGen; it takes going to medical school for years to become a surgeon after all, so if you started with Medicine 1 you should never raise it past, say, 2 - if even that. The same thing applies to melee; you don't become a kung fu master or gain a BJJ elite belt quickly 'realistically'.
But... that's exactly the path that some systems take. I wouldn't allow somebody to go from First Aid 1 to "expert surgeon" in the game for precisely the reasons you describe. You may not like it, and that's fine, but to claim the argument holds no water seems uncharitable. Managing IC plausibility is a thing for some people.
Fair enough, I'll ammend my statement: I personally consider skills (or powers, where applicable) to be organic parts of a character's growth and arc, so I don't like systems which place artificial limits on that growth by essentially capping it universally to a snapshot taken after CGen. While some characters can grow without that reflecting on their skillsets I don't support enforcing it across the board.
However it's unreasonable to assume everyone shares that view, so I withdraw the argument.
The argument is still functional within context, though.
If the game allows people to buy traits from a minimal to a maximum within a short span of time, then respeccing and buying traits at high level that you didn't have before is less of an issue.
-
I personally consider skills (or powers, where applicable) to be organic parts of a character's growth and arc, so I don't like systems which place artificial limits on that growth by essentially capping it universally to a snapshot taken after CGen.
I don't even disagree with that basic premise. Where I think the philosophical difference comes in is about how much and how fast they can grow after chargen. But that's really a topic for a different thread. I agree with @Coin that if you can go from 0-to-surgeon quickly with XP, then it's less of a huge deal if somebody goes from 0-to-surgeon with a respec. But personally I find both equally jarring for my suspension of disbelief.
