|
Post by Gigermann on May 5, 2014 10:36:04 GMT -6
So, at this point, I'm planning to use Dungeon Fantasy as-is for characters and equipment. That said, DF standard characters are 250pts—not where we want to start here, which is as discussed, 75pts. I'd like to press for a bit more than 75, though, and here is my argument: DF15 Henchmen has cheaper versions of the standard DF character templates at half-cost, 125pts—this is the DF standard for "sidekicks." There's also " Dungeon Fantasy on the Cheap" which has help for scaling down the existing DF templates to as low as 100pts (and is billed as "First Level" in the article). The article also happens to have a corresponding GCA datafile to make things extra simple for you. Argument made. Make the call; majority carries. I'll back your play whatever you decide.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 5, 2014 10:40:29 GMT -6
I can go with 125. It's not hard to end up going "ack! Where did my points go?" with that. I've generated 250 pt characters and thought there weren't adequate points.
Are you going to spin up some template characters and let us choose from those like I did? Or are we building them?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 5, 2014 10:48:54 GMT -6
Are you going to spin up some template characters and let us choose from those like I did? Or are we building them? I don't need to—they already exist in DF; just pick a template (scale back as necessary)
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on May 6, 2014 17:22:07 GMT -6
Ok. I think my point was lost a little. Why I pitched what I did was to keep it simple. I just want to see you run something simple. You really start losing me when you start adding more and more supplements and over complicating things. Why can't we just use the core book? Seriously? I don't want to use a template. I don't want uber characters. I just want it simplified.
End rant....
Sent from my VS876 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 6, 2014 17:45:07 GMT -6
For the record, I'm not requiring anything—if you want to use nothing but GURPS Lite, you can do that. I am not restricting anything either (book-wise)—if the players agree to restrict book usage, I'll enforce it.
I agree that we need to keep it simple and non-über.
We will need to make a call about "cinematic" abilities either way, but that's a subsequent (but related) discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Magman on May 6, 2014 18:37:05 GMT -6
What's the tech level?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on May 6, 2014 18:38:42 GMT -6
Probably 3.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 6, 2014 19:28:08 GMT -6
Thinking about TL4 ("Renaissance"), but standard "Medieval" is TL3
|
|
|
Post by Magman on May 7, 2014 20:28:26 GMT -6
TL3 or TL4?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 7, 2014 22:06:48 GMT -6
Reviewed TL3 vs TL4: Apparently TL3 goes a lot longer than I thought, and TL4 is much later—It shall be TL3 (5 is right out)
(Since McN will get it: TL4 is Empire: Total War—actually, that bridges TL4 & 5)
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 12, 2014 10:01:17 GMT -6
A solid majority for 125—we'll call this settled
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on May 12, 2014 10:58:09 GMT -6
I'm still pushing for 75.
Sent from my VS876 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 12, 2014 11:04:00 GMT -6
Won't have much effect on the GM side either way, so feel free to continue to lobby for it; can change it later
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on May 20, 2014 10:07:55 GMT -6
so, after a couple of games in on RS...it brings up a question...would we be able to build a 75-100 pt character and use the others for "oops" skills, like we come across a situation and no one has the skill ...we spend a couple of points and suddenly TA DA...we have it...or will it be more along the lines of "if you don't have it at the start of the game, you don't have it at all"?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 20, 2014 10:17:27 GMT -6
so, after a couple of games in on RS...it brings up a question...would we be able to build a 75-100 pt character and use the others for "oops" skills, like we come across a situation and no one has the skill ...we spend a couple of points and suddenly TA DA...we have it...or will it be more along the lines of "if you don't have it at the start of the game, you don't have it at all"? My SOP is to allow a 1-session "grace period" to make adjustments. I don't necessarily have a problem with reserving unspent points, though, for last-minute oopses(?)
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on May 20, 2014 10:20:37 GMT -6
either works for me, it's a nice idea but at the same time, borders on the feeling of cheating...although with the limitation of only being able to do it the first couple of sessions, might not be a bad idea ( that way we can work out the kinks of the character and fix any holes we left in them )
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on May 20, 2014 11:10:25 GMT -6
Something to consider is that it might add to the hilarity if we aren't allowed to change our character once we designate points. It could be rather interesting if we forget to put points into something important, and see how we blunder along. It would add to the level of incompetence that we are currently going for.
Also, since I doubt we will last very long character wise, are you allowing backup characters like you did with Despensables?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on May 20, 2014 11:18:07 GMT -6
I'll implement the majority's decision on whether or not to allow the usual grace-period/retroactive spending—either way can be interesting.
I would recommend having backup characters in mind, at least. I suppose if you create the backup character(s) beforehand, I can consider them to be "on call" for a swap-out as it makes sense. There is an "HQ" town in this module where they can reside.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on May 20, 2014 12:02:26 GMT -6
I'll vote for a 1 week grace period but no retroactive spending. I'll also plan to have a backup character.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on May 20, 2014 14:18:23 GMT -6
I second the above
|
|
|
Post by Magman on May 21, 2014 18:19:44 GMT -6
I third the above
|
|