Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Here is my take on the whole thing:

 

1. We do have a basic template - I won't call it 'human' but it does assume a character that has to breathe, eat and sleep and can move about, manipulate objects etc.

 

2. We do not need a different template for any build that does MORE than the basic template - a stronger or faster character is a base template character with points spent on it.

 

3. We do, arguably, need a different template for some builds that can do LESS. Less running is not a problem - sell back your running, but other things are a problem. For instance, the GORAXIAN STONE PEOPLE are much denser than normal humans, weighing about 400kg, and are 8 times stronger then humans with very tough hides, then have sight and hearing but cannot sense by smell, taste or touch and they are all afraid of fish. However they do not need to breathe or eat, and they do sleep, but for 4 months of the year, a sort of hibernation period, but need no rest for the remaining 8 months.

 

Now this GORAXIAN would be built with certain abilities; 25 STR, for example and 5/5 armour. They would have various Life Support options, probably bought as inherent (you can't drain the ability to not breathe from something that does not need to).

 

That bit is easy - just spend your points.

 

Now we come to the kicker - the rest of the customisation has to be done with disadvantages and I'm here to tell you that disadvantages have two problems in this context:

 

1. They do not 'balance' - lacking the senses of smell/taste and touch would get you less points in disadvantages than buying (or selling back) the senses would get you. The hibernation thing is a judgment call and the fear of fish is, well, silly but also is not going to accurately reflect in-game issues on a point basis (if it is too silly assume they have a susceptibility to water, and you get the idea). Then we have the increased density physical limitation.

 

2. They do not give you points to play with: in a 50+100 game, the GORAXIAN does not have to try s hard to find disadvantages, as he already has a number of 'racial' ones, but he's got no more points to build his character with than a normal human, and given that he HAS to spend points on LS, STR and armour, he is going to be a less competent character overall, especially in a heroic game where equipment can provide a lot of those bonuses anyway. The GORAXIAN even has to pay double points for that last 5 strength.

 

So, non-basics with superhuman abilities tend to be 'worse' characters than humans, and non-basics with abilities less than humans tend to also be worse (having no more points and certain inflexible disadvantages). Deviating from the basic template is always penalised.

 

You could solve this by templating other races, or types of being. You might decide that the basic GORAXIAN mentioned above would cost , say 10 points - the armour, STR and LS cost being partially offset by inherent disadvantages and neither the bonuses or penalties being separately charged: a GORAXIAN has those disadvantages, but gets no point s for them, and has the extra abilities but pays only the 10 point 'GORAXIAN' charge, rather than coughing up the 40 odd points it would normally cost). This is always going to be a bit of an art form: creating Package Deals (in the old, and genuine 'deal' sense). So a GORAXIAN in a 50+100 game spends 10 points to be GORAXIAN, and all that entails, but does not start with any disadvantages that are worth points, or any charge for his inherent abilities (other than the 10 point 'racial charge'*.

 

Alternatively we could overhaul disadvantages so that they (either or both):

 

1. Balance points better

2. Actually add to the points available, rather than just balance them (which might be a simple matter of a perspective change).

 

 

 

 

* The 10 points is arbitrary and for illustration only. I'm not saying it ACTUALLY balances at 10 points.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

...You could solve this by templating other races' date=' or types of being. You might decide that the basic GORAXIAN mentioned above would cost , say 10 points - the armour, STR and LS cost being partially offset by inherent disadvantages and neither the bonuses or penalties being separately charged: a GORAXIAN has those disadvantages, but gets no point s for them, and has the extra abilities but pays only the 10 point 'GORAXIAN' charge, rather than coughing up the 40 odd points it would normally cost). This is always going to be a bit of an art form: creating Package Deals (in the old, and genuine 'deal' sense). So a GORAXIAN in a 50+100 game spends 10 points to be GORAXIAN, and all that entails, but does not start with any disadvantages that are worth points, or any charge for his inherent abilities (other than the 10 point 'racial charge'*...[/quote']

This is kind of how I had imagined the actual mechanics working for the different Templates, although all the Templates would be build from zero and you would just compare the cost difference to see how much you would have to pay or how much of refund you would get by switching from the GM chosen Default Template.

 

I can't really argue with the idea of overhauling how Disadvantages are done. Why many of them are designed in a finite way instead of scaling like powers baffles me.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

While I agree with Sean's post, to a point, I can easily see templates becoming "the new EC". Let's say I want to build Superman. Well, he's Susceptible to Kryptonite, Vulnerable to magic, loses his powers under a red sun. What if I make a Kryptonian template so all those disad's are a direct reduction to the cost of the character, and then I get to take another 150 points for having a Secret ID, some human DNPC's, etc? Now I get 100 points from "Kryptonian Template" disad's plus 150 from my other disad's, so I really have a 450 point character where everyone else has 350.

 

Now, let's take that one step further with a point leveraging tactic many have complained about before - I'm a human who can become a Kryptonian, so I'll slap OIHID on most my abilities, including the Kryptonian template, say on 325 points so they cost 260, leaving 90. Now I have 325 + 100 + 90 = 515 points to play with.

 

Assuming my OIHID as a limitation is really worth -1/4, no big deal. That's always been the OIHID issue. Are my disadvantages really worth an extra 100?

 

This issue can be just as easily mitigated by returning to the Glory Days of Yesteryear and not capping points from disadvantages. Your Human has 150 points of disad's, so he's a 350 point character. My Kryptonian has 300 points of disad's, so he's a 500 point character. That's a much easier fix than adding templates.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The problem is partly terminology here (I seem to say this a lot).

 

I think it is about when you apply a 'template' and when you apply a 'package deal'.

 

A template would be useful for those times when most of the assumptions about the character are not the same as the assumptions made about the Hero baseline.

 

Kryptonians are essentially humans writ large with some silly disadvantages to give writers the ability to make them vulnerable and worthwhile storywise. They dont need a template.

 

beings who exist only as electrical discharges do. They may effectively have no BODY/CON/STR - pure consciousness. The game does not give a good way for getting that done - they are partial characters as far as the system is concerned.

 

It would be nice to see a true zero baseline. Have costed templates - they would then work well within the package deal concept. Thus people would be able to buy the template they want.

 

You want a kryptonian template then buy it. If it is cheaper to buy a human template and customise it for your character concept then go that way. There will still be stuff that you need.

 

The template could allow for different things - some beings should not be subject to stunning. Others not to bleeding. Others should not drown in any way.

 

Players should be able to purchase the template most reasonable to their manipulations and costs. Shouldn't be any hurt feelings or any more than if they chose to base their energy blast on EB rather than RKA.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The problem is partly terminology here (I seem to say this a lot).

 

I think it is about when you apply a 'template' and when you apply a 'package deal'.

 

A template would be useful for those times when most of the assumptions about the character are not the same as the assumptions made about the Hero baseline.

 

Kryptonians are essentially humans writ large with some silly disadvantages to give writers the ability to make them vulnerable and worthwhile storywise. They dont need a template.

 

beings who exist only as electrical discharges do. They may effectively have no BODY/CON/STR - pure consciousness. The game does not give a good way for getting that done - they are partial characters as far as the system is concerned.

 

It would be nice to see a true zero baseline. Have costed templates - they would then work well within the package deal concept. Thus people would be able to buy the template they want.

 

You want a kryptonian template then buy it. If it is cheaper to buy a human template and customise it for your character concept then go that way. There will still be stuff that you need.

 

The template could allow for different things - some beings should not be subject to stunning. Others not to bleeding. Others should not drown in any way.

 

Players should be able to purchase the template most reasonable to their manipulations and costs. Shouldn't be any hurt feelings or any more than if they chose to base their energy blast on EB rather than RKA.

 

 

Doc

 

Absolutely - I'd see 'templating' as a GM, not a player activity. The GM can set the different templates, and so balance them to an extent, and would only erally do that for quite different types of character. Players can chose the most approriate template, but not just 'custom build' one...

 

In some games each race could be templated (Star Hero, Fantasy Hero), in some games only radically different types would need to be (The Silicon Thinking Beasts), and similar characters (all humanoids) could work from the base template.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The problem is partly terminology here (I seem to say this a lot).

 

I think it is about when you apply a 'template' and when you apply a 'package deal'.

 

A template would be useful for those times when most of the assumptions about the character are not the same as the assumptions made about the Hero baseline.

 

Kryptonians are essentially humans writ large with some silly disadvantages to give writers the ability to make them vulnerable and worthwhile storywise. They dont need a template.

 

beings who exist only as electrical discharges do. They may effectively have no BODY/CON/STR - pure consciousness. The game does not give a good way for getting that done - they are partial characters as far as the system is concerned.

 

It would be nice to see a true zero baseline. Have costed templates - they would then work well within the package deal concept. Thus people would be able to buy the template they want.

 

You want a kryptonian template then buy it. If it is cheaper to buy a human template and customise it for your character concept then go that way. There will still be stuff that you need.

 

The template could allow for different things - some beings should not be subject to stunning. Others not to bleeding. Others should not drown in any way.

 

Players should be able to purchase the template most reasonable to their manipulations and costs. Shouldn't be any hurt feelings or any more than if they chose to base their energy blast on EB rather than RKA.

 

 

Doc

Doc, you could get into trouble if you keep reading my mind and all... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Doc, you could get into trouble if you keep reading my mind and all... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I try not to channel you too often. You have too many things going on in there....

 

[casualplayer]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Maybe I should cross post this to Rules I Didn't Know, but I played for years with Package Deals being considered as the net cost during character construction and Package Deal disadvantages not counting against the campaign cap. Otherwise what's the friggin' point of the things? Woo hoo, sign me up for restricting my choices and versatility.

 

I actually did sometimes interpret Package Deals as "The New EC" like when an enemy mentalist removed the memory of a player's college years all the related (Package Deal) memories went poof! No more KS: Engineering, no more Football/Wrestling martial arts, no more memory of any of the college Contacts.

[Lucius]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I definitely think we are into some confusion here about the distinction between "template" and "package deal."

 

Or perhaps it is I who am confused. It is certainly true that the game seems to penalize characters who deviate from the standard, and it is worthwhile to address and correct that.

 

 

But consider what "templates" are currently used for. Besides the standard humanoid biased template, what do we have?

 

 

Automaton.

What is the fundamental difference between this template and the standard? No, it's NOT "Takes No STUN" and it's NOT any of the other "Automaton powers." You don't get those for being an automaton, and you can design automatons without them - I have. You can also take those powers, which have assigned costs, and apply them to normal characters - in some cases, such as Does not Bleed and No Hit Locations, this doesn't even (in my opinion) cause any serious issues, in others, such as Takes No STUN, using it for player characters is a lot more problematic.

 

No, what you get for being an Automaton is lack of free will. You get no EGO score. This is NOT the same as buying it down to zero, or to -30, or any finite number. And it is a FUNDAMENTAL difference, and one that makes an automaton pretty unsuitable for a player character. And how could you assign a "cost" to that difference??

 

If I were to use Mr. Long's cosmology, as (lightly) expounded upon in the section on Transform, I would say this is something with no Spiritual existance - only Physical and (in a sense) Mental.

 

 

Computer/AI

This one may or may not have EGO, but by default does not have STR, BOD, CON, or any physical traits or powers - in fact, unless bought via Focus, the "Computer" template does not even seem to have a definite location in space! And certainly does not have a physical body. Again, this is a very FUNDAMENTAL difference, not something that I can see easily simulating with Powers and Disadvantages. I can see using it as a PC (pardon the pun) but how can you "balance" the ability of being fundamentally immune to all physical forces and powers??

 

In Mr. Long's terms, this would be something with no Physical existance - only (in a sense) Mental and (possibly) Spiritual.

 

 

 

Hm, I wonder what you'd have if something had Physical and Spiritual existance, but not Mental?

 

 

 

I could go on with Vehicles and Bases, but I think I have demonstrated the point - templates, at least in the Rules as Written, are used for things that can be "statted out" in terms of point values, but that differ from the expected player character type in very BASIC ways - things that go way beyond number of limbs, to the very question of whether "limb" is a useful concept to something built under that template. Not a question of higher or lower STR, but of having a STR score at all. Not what Disadvantages you have automatically, but what KIND of Disadvantages are even possible for you.

 

 

Given the kind of world Mr. Mullins envisions, he DOES have to struggle with issues of this kind. This could get interesting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Reinventing the Palindromedary

[Sean Waters]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Some things could be accomplished with 'net' package deals - stuff like different but similar humanoid races - no problem. Of course we would have to re-introduce net package deals....

 

Other things would need a fundamentally templated approach - stuff like automatons, Ais, anything that used specific rules not normally avaoilabel to other characters, and also, potentially, characters with inherent abilities, although in many cases that could be accomplished with a power with the 'inherent' advantage.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Hm' date=' I wonder what you'd have if something had Physical and Spiritual existance, but not Mental?[/quote']

Forces of nature that have identity but only act/react as designed with no need for communication or thought. They do what they do based on instinct or by design.

 

Perhaps a grove of trees that have the primary goal of growing in a certain direction. You couldn't communicate with them to get them to change their growth, but you certainly could change their growth by changing the environment around them (placing obstacles in the way, change the source of the light they are growing toward, and so forth).

 

But then you have to define what Spiritual is whenever you deal with these types of things.

 

I could go on with Vehicles and Bases' date=' but I think I have demonstrated the point - templates, at least in the Rules as Written, are used for things that can be "statted out" in terms of point values, but that differ from the expected player character type in very [b']BASIC[/b] ways - things that go way beyond number of limbs, to the very question of whether "limb" is a useful concept to something built under that template. Not a question of higher or lower STR, but of having a STR score at all. Not what Disadvantages you have automatically, but what KIND of Disadvantages are even possible for you.

Pretty close to what I think also. Although I see nothing wrong with including the differences in levels and/or disadvantages.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Bump.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Trebuchet]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The way I rule it' date=' [i']especially[/i] in a supers game, is that the "alien" class of mind means REALLY alien.

 

Vulcans don't get the Alien class of mind. The Hounds of Tindalos get it.

 

Basically, any being that a human could have a meaningful conversation with, assuming the language barrier is bypassed, is a human class mind. Some of them may ALSO be other classes. For instance, a sapient computer system would be both human and machine class. It might have a lot of mental defense, Only Vs. Powers That Target Human Class Minds, but it doesn't get to be immune to them for free.

That's something that is so patently obvious it's absolutely brilliant!

[Vondy]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The people who play the game are human. The majority of games are about humans (or humanoids who are close enough to human for the point to be moot). As such, the game asssumes a human base template. I have no issues with that. I think it makes sense. I also have no issues with a game-master deciding "since this game is not about humans (or humanoids close to human) I'm going to create a different base template to use..." That also makes sense. However, the system as a whole presents the most common base template because that's the norm for most games. The other templates provided are for stuff (mostly) that you can't play as a character, not for alternative character templates.

 

I don't think presenting alternative character templates in the core rules is a good idea. This is because the number of base templates is essentially infinate. There isn't room in the core rulebook for much of a sampling. It could, however, comment briefly on the fact that while the system assumes a certain base template, the gamemaster is of course free to change it..

 

Alternative templates could be provided in genre books or setting books as needed, or even in "The Ultimate Template" Tut-tut. It could aslo be left to the gamemaster to create as needed for their campaigns. Personally, I advocate the latter. Its something that can be done, but not something I think the system needs to explicitly spell out / provide.

 

The system makes an assumption about the base template based on the vast majority of cases. It does not say you cannot go and create a different one if you want one. If you want one I say go for it. But, for the majority of games its not necessary and adds a level of complexity that most people simply don't need.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I don't think presenting alternative character templates in the core rules is a good idea. This is because the number of base templates is essentially infinate. There isn't room in the core rulebook for much of a sampling. It could' date=' however, comment briefly on the fact that while the system assumes a certain base template, the game master is of course free to change it..[/quote']

I don't think anyone was suggesting this, I know that I certainly wasn't.

 

Alternative templates could be provided in genre books or setting books as needed' date=' or even in "The Ultimate Template" Tut-tut. It could also be left to the gamemaster to create as needed for their campaigns. Personally, I advocate the latter. Its something that can be done, but not something I think the system needs to explicitly spell out / provide.[/quote']

This is how I envisioned it working also.

 

The system makes an assumption about the base template based on the vast majority of cases. It does not say you cannot go and create a different one if you want one. If you want one I say go for it. But' date=' for the majority of games its not necessary and adds a level of complexity that most people simply don't need.[/quote']

As far as complexity is concerned, a lot depends on the presentation and how such a Template system is implemented. If done in a certain way, the level of complexity could be minimal or even none with presentation.

 

However, in order to build different Templates there needs to be some guidelines and mechanics created to make this cohesive and consistent in application. Currently in the rules, nothing like this exists beyond the current pre-generated Templates that have been presented. Of those who would use such mechanics just don't even attempt to build campaigns that would require it since the amount of work and time wouldn't be worth it.

 

Which kind of goes right along with reason from those who are resistant the decoupling of Figured stats (as a stand alone change), it would just be too much work to add the Figured stats back in for their games, so they won't even bother with such a system that requires that much work.

 

So I think the mechanics to build such Templates needs to created, but the presentation should leave such mechanics in a section for building campaigns and such, or possibly in a completely separate supplement dealing with specifics of campaign building.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[SteveZilla]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

However' date=' if the campaign is designed so that all th characters built are going to be Ogres, then there is no need to charge for that extra cost since it is now the Baseline for the Campaign. Then if someone wants to play a Human, they are going to get a lot of points back.[/quote']

 

But defining a Campaign Baseline means for the whole campaign, not just for the PCs. Are the significant majority of NPCs the players meet also Ogres? That is what making it (the Ogre "Template") the Campaign Baseline is saying. Not that all the PC's are Ogers, but that *everybody* is an Ogre (or has to be modified from that).

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

But defining a Campaign Baseline means for the whole campaign' date=' not just for the PCs. Are the significant majority of NPCs the players meet also Ogres? That is what making it (the Ogre "Template") the Campaign Baseline is saying. Not that all the PC's are Ogres, but that *everybody* is an Ogre (or has to be modified from that).[/quote']

Let's put this in a more believable setting.

 

Let's say that you are going to run a campaign based on the LOTR world and that the campaign will center around the Elves that will be fighting a war to save their lands. So under this premise, most PC's, NPC's and so forth will tend to be Elves, with any other race being the exception. Thus, there is no reason to base everything on a strictly Human Template. The Elven Template would be the default.

 

Now if someone wanted to be Human, Dwarf, or whatever, then the GM would decide whether they started from the Elven Template (I wouldn't), or from the Human Template (which may grant or take points for building based on the point difference in the two templates (for balance reasons).

 

So yes, in most cases a Campaign Baseline will mean for the whole campaign. There are a few rare campaigns where the Campaign Baseline must start at zero (such as the Well World), where many races/creatures interact regularly and it is normal to find many races/creatures in certain areas and so forth. Since the PC's can choose from a variety of races/creatures (or sometimes they don't get to choose), the Templates must be handled separately and thus need to have some sort of balancing mechanism (for the PC's at least).

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Let's put this in a more believable setting.

 

Let's say that you are going to run a campaign based on the LOTR world and that the campaign will center around the Elves that will be fighting a war to save their lands. So under this premise, most PC's, NPC's and so forth will tend to be Elves, with any other race being the exception. Thus, there is no reason to base everything on a strictly Human Template. The Elven Template would be the default.

 

Now if someone wanted to be Human, Dwarf, or whatever, then the GM would decide whether they started from the Elven Template (I wouldn't), or from the Human Template (which may grant or take points for building based on the point difference in the two templates (for balance reasons).

 

So yes, in most cases a Campaign Baseline will mean for the whole campaign. There are a few rare campaigns where the Campaign Baseline must start at zero (such as the Well World), where many races/creatures interact regularly and it is normal to find many races/creatures in certain areas and so forth. Since the PC's can choose from a variety of races/creatures (or sometimes they don't get to choose), the Templates must be handled separately and thus need to have some sort of balancing mechanism (for the PC's at least).

 

Simplistically, that balance mechanism is to use the default starting template and build any variations from same as a package deal. The standard Elf in your LoTR game would have the Elven package, which would include longevity and any other traits you considered appropriate for every elf.

 

To make this simpler for those playing elves, you might, behind the scenes, set out the abilities of all elves, and include those as "everyman skills" in your game. Let's assume that the package for all elves consists of 15 points, for the sake of illustration, and that you have decided PC elves get 75 + 75 points over and above their 15 points of elvish abilities. Included in those elvish abilities is +2 DEX, because you consider elves especially agile, and -2 CON because you consider them frail, as well as Longevity. Any Elf character could be sturdier (buy up his CON) or slower (sell back his DEX), but losing Longevity means "not an elf", so elves cannot sell this back.

 

A Human could simply sell back "elf" for 15 points and start at the baseline, but now he has to revise his starting character for the new baseline. A Dwarf would sell Elf and buy Dwarf. A bit more work, but you wanted an unusual character!

 

Or you could rebuild the packages from the Elf baseline (Humans have +2 CON, -2 DEX, - Longevity, etc). A lot of work for questionable payoff - but if all your templates are unpublished anyway, not a lot more work than designing them from the human baseline, I suppose.

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Or you could rebuild the packages from the Elf baseline (Humans have +2 CON' date=' -2 DEX, - Longevity, etc). A lot of work for questionable payoff - but if all your templates are unpublished anyway, not a lot more work than designing them from the human baseline, I suppose.[/quote']

The example I chose was for something everyone could relate too. So for this specific example, yes, racial packages would do just fine and the amount of work for creating templates probably wouldn't be worth it.

 

But for those more esoteric games where racial packages won't do it, and Templates are required just from a concept and numbers point, then creating Templates would be more than worth it.

 

Beyond that, I agree with you.

 

- Christopher Mullins