Legolas write-up to match FOTR SB

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Jason Durall
I would have to agree with Ineti on this one.

The fact that the character creation system allows for random rolling of characteristics, and that the GM can award points of Renown (and is even able to award edges and flaws as appropriate, based on commentary from Doug on the main boards), indicates to me that NPCs simply cannot be adequately audited.

Since the CODA system is not like GURPS or HERO or other rigid point-based systems, it doesn't really lend itself to such scrupulous accounting.

I do think that NPCs should follow the same rules as players do, as in qualifying for edges, order abilities, etc., and that their numbers should add up the same way players' do, but I have no problem with assuming that Mr. Tolkien's players were lucky with their attribute dice rolls, and that he was a more generous Narrator when it came to awarding Renown, edges, or assigning flaws.

Those are all sound arguments and your points are well taken. In fact, I agree that unless all characters are created equally (pick method) the Advancements become meaningless (or as you say, "simply cannot be adequately audited"). In fact, that's my whole thesis. If that's true, we should just ignore the Advancements, or Decipher should do away with them altogether, since they don't provide a useful benchmark. I mean, why even track or report them? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just posing a valid question: Why Advancements? I guess the only useful purpose they serve is you need six in class before you can qualify for an for elite order? Is that it? That's kinda lame...

I certainly don't disagree with you, and I'm not even sure Ineti and I have a disagreement; I'm just trying to discover how my own convictions might be flawed.

T.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by Taliesin
If that's true, we should just ignore the Advancements, or Decipher should do away with them altogether, since they don't provide a useful benchmark. I mean, why even track or report them? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just posing a valid question: Why Advancements? I guess the only useful purpose they serve is you need six in class before you can qualify for an for elite order? Is that it? That's kinda lame...

I certainly don't disagree with you, and I'm not even sure Ineti and I have a disagreement; I'm just trying to discover how my own convictions might be flawed.

T.

In my mind, the advancements for NPCs are useful, mostly because they give a ballpark figure of how much 'experience' the character might have had - rather than needing to know exactly how he spent his points and when (for multi-class characters, the possibilities become endless).

For characters, I like the incremental advancement, rather than level-based progression. It gives a bit of a "step" and lets you control how your character develops, and isn't as rapid as straight-out levels. Other people like levels. Some people like skill-based systems. There are strengths and weaknesses to each.

I wouldn't say your convictions were flawed, either, but I think you're asking Decipher to have done something one way, when it's pretty clear they did it another.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Ineti
Where is it printed in the FOTR book that the characters contained therein should be considered benchmarks?

What other purpose could the Advancements number possibly serve, other than to allow a character to qualify for an elite order? Why should we care that Saruman has 65 Advancements? What bearing does it have on anything?

Decipher may have the license to the game, but that doesn't mean their write-ups are the final word. Far from it. There have been enough people online who have complained, in some cases bitterly, over what Decipher got "wrong."

Ultimately it's all a matter of interpretation. If you feel their write-ups are flawed, do a better one and post it for people to consider. I can guarantee you that you will get a range of responses from "You got it right on" to "What have you been smoking?"

Clearly the material Decipher publishes can be used or discarded at the whim of the Narrator. But they also represent the official version, the "reference" version if you will. People can disagree with their interpretations (my Legolas has everything theirs has plus a little Noble and a smidgeon of Ranger to boot!). But shouldn't the Advancements be a good rule of thumb of relative power of characters, regardless of the specific interpretation?

Sounds like we need to agree to disagree on this issue. I don't know that I have anything more to add to the discussion beyond what I've already said.

Well, I'm starting to repeat myself too, but I feel like my basic question remains unanswered--and it doesn't have anything to do with the interpretations of various characters. It has everything to do with whether or not the concept of Advancements serve a useful purpose in the game system.

A couple examples:

I'm not doing an adequate job of posing my questions, I fear. I meant: What other method do you suggest for comparing the relative "power" of characters. That's at the crux of this discussion. If you're saying relative "strength" doesn't matter to you, that's fine. But it does matter to me and lots of other folks. If it shouldn't matter, why does Decipher list Advancements at all, but if it does matter, why do they use such a flawed method for calculating them?

For my part, I'm not arguing; I'm asking legitimate questions that I'd love to hear answers to. But I'm running out of steam as well!

Best,

T.

[Liquidator Queeg]

Originally posted by Taliesin

Well, I'm starting to repeat myself too, but I feel like my basic question remains unanswered--and it doesn't have anything to do with the interpretations of various characters. It has everything to do with whether or not the concept of Advancements serve a useful purpose in the game system.

Advancements are the entire wheel upon which character development (outside roleplaying) spins. As a means of determining when a character "improves" and what happens when he does, they work just fine. As a relative "power" level indicator, it's pretty obvious you're only going to get ballpark guestimates based on the sheer variety of what you can do with advancements. It seems that you're looking for specific challenge ratings or levels in the D&D sense (not that that's a bad thing), which advancements in Decipher's game are not, and never were intended to be.

What other method do you suggest for comparing the relative "power" of characters. That's at the crux of this discussion. If you're saying relative "strength" doesn't matter to you, that's fine. But it does matter to me and lots of other folks. If it shouldn't matter, why does Decipher list Advancements at all, but if it does matter, why do they use such a flawed method for calculating them?

I'd suggest "GM trust" is the best measuring stick to determine power levels. Even rules heavy games like D&D don't get it right (ie CRs and ELs -- look at 3.5 coming out, what's one of the big changes for monsters?), and in games like Decipher's LotR or White Wolf's Vampire or LUG's line of Trek games (or almost all games I can think of as a matter of course), guaging "power levels" is never an exact science. It's one part game system, three parts GM experience and know-how.

For my part, I'm not arguing; I'm asking legitimate questions that I'd love to hear answers to. But I'm running out of steam as well!

Best,

T.

Hope I've added some steam! In a good way, though!

Cheers,

Steve

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Steven A Cook
Advancements are the entire wheel upon which character development (outside roleplaying) spins. As a means of determining when a character "improves" and what happens when he does, they work just fine. As a relative "power" level indicator, it's pretty obvious you're only going to get ballpark guestimates based on the sheer variety of what you can do with advancements. It seems that you're looking for specific challenge ratings or levels in the D&D sense (not that that's a bad thing), which advancements in Decipher's game are not, and never were intended to be.

Yeah, I understand the purpose of Advancements (which Jason also reminded me of above) as a system of character development. But my question is perhaps better stated "What is the purpose of tracking a total number of Advancements, if its not a ballpark indicator of relative strength?". Why is it helpful to know that Legolas is 23 Advancements, when he can just as legitimately be shown to actually have 47 Advancements? Why even publish the number?

I'd suggest "GM trust" is the best measuring stick to determine power levels. Even rules heavy games like D&D don't get it right (ie CRs and ELs -- look at 3.5 coming out, what's one of the big changes for monsters?), and in games like Decipher's LotR or White Wolf's Vampire or LUG's line of Trek games (or almost all games I can think of as a matter of course), guaging "power levels" is never an exact science. It's one part game system, three parts GM experience and know-how.

That's a reasonable explanation, but it would be nice to have a guidelines. I guess I come from 2o+ years of D&D and GURPS where there are levels and character points which one can use to eyeball it and make a quick judgement. And I still think its possible in this system if you force all characters to use the pick system and make them pay for each and every pick per the Advanacements table.

Otherwise, just do away with tracking Advancements althogether. "How many Advancements does Saruman have again?"

The GM smiles a wicked smile, "More than five."

Best,

T.