|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:49 pm
Roleplay Character Sheets?
I realize that, currently, we pretty much leave personnel details out of the equation (On purpose, so that we don't have to worry about "My Character shoots out lightning bolts and can run 8,000 miles per hour", other weird s**t..._
But, I was wondering, if balanced character sheets could be an asset.
Like, it would be be X, and you would have X amount of points to spend in whatever factors present.
If I did, I was thinking of using WoD character sheets, although I'm not sure that the idea is even a good one, as us imagining our character however we want to with basic human limitations seems to be the way to go...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:16 am
Yeah, I'd say that just having the rule for character sheets be that they can't exceed human limits would be best. Points would be awkward to try and explain and use, considering that we don't have a program for tracking them like a game would. That being said, if veteran RPers were rewarded with more points for some sort of action, then a lot of heat would be started about the validity of their points and whether they had actually earned them, unless someone were to step in and confirm it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:51 pm
Exactly.
I think that we would all have equal points to start with, and could disperse them however we saw fit.
What it would do, per say, is let someone who wanted to be a heavy weapons guy be able to one-hand a machine gun from the hip on a regular basis- if he put enough of his "points" into strength or something. That of course, would cut into dexterity or intelligence, or whatever, and of course would cause him be slower or stupider.
While in real life you may actually be able to run fast and carry a heavy machine gun, in the game you would have to choose your stats according to a normal human or a "Normal Soldier".
Of course, that's delving into game mechanics and making things a little bit more complicated...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
