Attributes beyond 12?

[Tobian]

I tend to allow my players a try's at rolling, and if they are horrendous they can pick using the assignation method.

One of the problems generally with the Startrek system is that the species aren't ballanced against one another.. they are built using a variable number of points (for their base template).. So you can't really have completelly fair and ballanced characters. Only a couple of my players have tried to munchkinise their characters, most opt for just playing.. what they want too, and let the skills lie where they are suited too .. and they tended to do much better because they had a much broader base of skills to draw from and not just uber one trick pony

[C5]

Wait... I seem to recall a discussion where it was said that attributes of species with a negative modifier (for instance Vulcans and Presence) could eventually be raised up to 12 (because it reflected Trek's message about overcoming one's limitations, for one thing). Did I dream (I'll try to find it in the archives...) ??

[Uruz]

If you can overcome your limitations, then there certainly should be a mechanic for becoming a legend.

I'm using a form of the Legendary Attribute rules from LoTR. It'll involve an edge, Legendary Attribute, to be purchased. After all, legendary traits should cost more. Plus, it'll require some large plot element.

The character in question is a Vulcan/Romulan Science Officer in Starfleet, who tries to incorporate both Surak's teachings as well as the Way of D'era into her daily life. I think she has Knowledge: Religion (Kohlinar, Way of D'era) at like +9 or +10 after bonuses.

[tonyg]

Originally posted by Doug Burke

Another thing to consider is that the LOTR game introduce the idea of surpassing the normal attribute maximum for Favored Attributes, and that could quite easily be incorporated in Trek.

Hey Doug,
I missed that option. Is that in the LOTR core rules? ow does tat work? No limit or up the limit ?

I was considering creating an Edge that would allow a character to be able to raise the species limit by 2 points for an attribute. The attibute would still need to be raise with picks.

[Doug Burke]

It's in the Two Towers Sourcebook. It's a sidebar. Unfortunately, I don't have my books with me to give you the exact location...

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Doug Burke
It's in the Two Towers Sourcebook. It's a sidebar. Unfortunately, I don't have my books with me to give you the exact location...

I think it's somewhere around Aragorn's stats and description.

[Balok]

Originally posted by Uruz
We didn't roll dice for attributes. That's a really archaic way to make a character, and you shouldn't be rewarded just because you happened to be lucky. Points assignment is the way to go.

Why not? That's how life works. Do you really think strong people are always stupid or maladroit? There exist paragons and there exist total losers and there exist many shades between.

Randomness is a way to reflect this.

Players don't like it when they come off second best to their buddies at the table, but generally speaking they're just fine with it when they're the lucky one.

If you don't like randomness, by all means don't use it -- but your statement that it is archaic, with its implication that it is inferior, remains your opinion, and one that is not shared by all GMs.

[Balok]

Be careful letting players increase their stats beyond 12 + their racial modifier.

The caps exist because without them, players would tend to focus on one aspect of their character exclusively. Such characters are impossible to confound within their area of expertise, and completely useless outside it. Worse, they resent having problems outside their expertise thrown at them, because they're so bad at it (they rarely see this as what it is: the flip side of being really good at something else, in a points based system).

So you make a problem that's actually a challenge for that genius -- and no one except him can solve it -- and then he gets knocked out or killed. Now what? Or he goes off the beam and faces a situation you didn't anticipate, that calls for skills he hasn't got. Now what?

I usually explain the limits as what they are: an attempt to keep the game system manageable. And as what they might be within the context of Starfleet: the fleet's interest in sending to space men and women who possess a variety of useful skills. Considering the cost (resources and time, if not money) of sending people to space, it makes more sense to send generalists on general exploration missions.

[tonyg]

Originally posted by Fesarius
Be careful letting players increase their stats beyond 12 + their racial modifier.

The caps exist because without them, players would tend to focus on one aspect of their character exclusively. Such characters are impossible to confound within their area of expertise, and completely useless outside it. Worse, they resent having problems outside their expertise thrown at them, because they're so bad at it (they rarely see this as what it is: the flip side of being really good at something else, in a points based system).

I disagree. Unless the players are really green, they should know better than to put all the eggs into one basket. It's their resposibility to give the characters some diversity, [not] the GM's.

I onbce ran a fantasy campaign where one guy actually put all his skill points into sword, despite warnings from EVERYBODY at the table not to do so. THe character bleed to death for lack of any first aid skill. Served him right.