I know it's been done before but....

[BumblingBear]

I'm thinking about starting my own game.  Whether online or in person doesn't matter to me but I'll probably go in person since more can get done and more smoothly that way.

I know that others have started games in the DF where all the players do their best to stat themselves at a fairly low refresh and then organically take on powers or skills in game as the campaign progresses.

My question to the community is: if you have done that (letting players stat themselves), how has it gone?

Were there any sore feelings because some players were obviously more capable than others?

Is this injecting too much reality into what is essentially a game?

I've realized that my personal playing experience and my enjoyment of it revolves around what kind of choice I feel my character has.  The more choice, the more options I can take, the happier I am as a player.

In some ways this is true of my video gaming experiences too.  Linear games don't appeal to me anymore.  It's games like Fallout 3 or Oblivion, games that really let the player not only decide where they want to go but also how they want to get there that I enjoy.

So last question:  do games with that amount of reality increase immersion and offer more choice to players, or does the added emotional investment in the characters cause problems?

[Sanctaphrax]

I've never done anything like that, and I don't think I'd want to.

I mean, I'm probably a 4 refresh and 15 skill point character. My best skills are probably Performance and Scholarship. My stunts are probably not very useful outside of my fairly mundane life.

I'd be killed and eaten inside of an exchange if I ran into a ghoul.

[Moriden]

If you permit them to make themselves as "they would be" if they had grown up in the dresdenverse it can be very satisfying. ie got a player whos spent *way* to much time studying the occult? let him have a minor talent that he just hasn't told you all about. Have a player whose really charming? White court member. Ect.

[devonapple]

Once, way back in college, we did a D&D game with exaggerated fantasy versions of ourselves. We used our aptitudes as class and ability guides, and created goofy magical items based on mundane items or clothing which we actually possessed, but our characters were otherwise fairly balanced.

[Katarn]

Once, way back in college, we did a D&D game with exaggerated fantasy versions of ourselves. We used our aptitudes as class and ability guides, and created goofy magical items based on mundane items or clothing which we actually possessed, but our characters were otherwise fairly balanced.

I've done the same, it can be quite fun.  Make sure you approve their stats before play.

*Classes would be Pure Mortal, maybe True Believer
*I'd use Feet in the Water as the refresh and skills.
*Have them constrained somewhat by actual facts (for example, I speak English Spanish German so I'd take Scholarship 2+)

Depends on your realism level.  If they can be wizards then, just have fun, based roughly on IRL personality/skills.

[BumblingBear]

Thank you for all the replies so far.

I liked the idea of letting players stat themselves as if they had grown up in the DV, but I was actually considering RL, In the Dark stats.

I honestly don't think this would be a problem with a group of people I could put together in Austin.  I have a large number of friends who are actually avid marksman, or x military, or avid swordsmen, or any combination of various skills.

I myself would probably be a submerged character.

I realize this would not work for every group, but I was thinking it would be both really fun and really rewarding for one of my PCs to be assaulted by something while carrying a sword to practice, or witness a ghoul start eating someone alive and take an ambush shot with a concealed carry pistol.

Honestly, what I'd be most concerned about is that so many people I know would not be able to fit all of their skills in with the amount of skill points available to the various refresh rates.

I was actually thinking of having people stat themselves as best they could regardless of point count or refresh rate.  In this way, everyone would still be the same refresh (since I would not want to juggle refresh rates) but it would be more realistic than the current rules.

I mean, someone who's been eating junk food, playing WoW, and working at Hollywood Video is going to have much fewer skills than someone who graduated from college early and then commanded a platoon in the Infantry for a few years.

[toturi]

I mean, someone who's been eating junk food, playing WoW, and working at Hollywood Video is going to have much fewer skills than someone who graduated from college early and then commanded a platoon in the Infantry for a few years.

I think that the skill set for the WoW player will be different from the officer. The "refresh" level may well be the same though.

Sure, the junk food eater make not be really healthy but his body/immune system may well be used to dealing with sub-nutritious material. He could also well be a top ranked WoW player who has sold characters or has a thriving gold exchange business and his eye-hand coordination(reflexes) may well put the officer to shame. He could also have dealt with onery customers (as the lowest man on the totem pole) and amassed a wide spread of knowledge with respect to Hollywood movies, maybe he has watched so many foreign movies he begins to understand the language.

[Moriden]

Interestinngly, if the wow player is a "top" raider and an officer he likly has remarkably high discipline, conviction, and endurence as well as several social skills necesary to keep a guild going and play for 10+ hours a day on top of a minemum wage job.

[Sanctaphrax]

I feel that you and I might have different ideas about what a given power level implies. In my opinion, a Good skill is something quite impressive. Heck, even Average is better than average. A Submerged character, in my opinion, is fairly awe-inspiring.

I'm a second degree black belt in Taekwondo, and I might well compete at Worlds next year. But my Fists are probably no better than Fair.

PS: The WoW player was just a convenient example by way of stereotype. Let's not make a big deal about it.
PPS: I tend to overstat mortals on the Generic NPC thread, by my standards. Would you consider said statblocks generous, accurate, or weak?

[BumblingBear]

I really didn't intend this thread to devolve into a philosophical debate over who can do what or if one person is better than another.

I personally believe that people who actually do something with their lives tend to have more to offer a group than someone who is a stereotype to sloth.  ::shrug::

Fists skill.. I've taught two styles of martial arts.  Guns.. I was on the rifle marksmanship team for my battalion in the 82nd.  ::shrug::  Some of the players I could probably get into a game would be subject matter experts in various fields or extremely gifted craftsman.

I feel very blessed to have met the many people I have the honor of calling friends.

And no, I highly disagree with a WoW raid leader having discipline etc.  I was a big WoW player for three years, and it is a game - nothing more.

Halo skills or Call of Duty do not translate to real life either.

I am a gamer myself.  I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my stereotypes, but the fact remains that some people work harder in life to achieve greatness than others.  "Your Story" actually mentions that a "normal" preson involved in a DFRPG story is more than likely mediocre at everything - only exceptional people have the exceptional skills that a PC would have.

And yes, I would be submerged.  Easily.

I would like this discussion to continue, though... because this is exactly what I would be afraid of.

I would imagine it could be one hell of a slam to someone's ego to be 10 skill points lower than everyone else in a group.  

Maybe it would just take a very mature and specific sort of group to handle something like this.  I mean, if I were statting myself right now I wouldn't be especially happy about my resources stat... lol.  My driving would suck... probably rapport too.

All that said, it seems like it would be easier (at least at the start) to run the game if everyone were playing themselves.  For instance, whether someone has something in game would depend on whether they had it in RL.

Back on the subject of a WoW player, I think I would give a serious gamer a bonus to a power they pick up in-game depending what it is.  For instance, if they were to pick up magic, I would allow a stunt that gave them +2 conviction in the field of magic since they've "cast" so many spells online that it is not that big of a leap to do it in RL.

Whether someone's RL skills would affect their powers would have to be seen.  I would still want the players to pursue power in their own way, but I think that grounding it and making the game more real would actually increase creativity.

[BumblingBear]

Once, way back in college, we did a D&D game with exaggerated fantasy versions of ourselves. We used our aptitudes as class and ability guides, and created goofy magical items based on mundane items or clothing which we actually possessed, but our characters were otherwise fairly balanced.

This was exactly the kind of input I was looking for.

Thanks a ton.

[UmbraLux]

My question to the community is: if you have done that (letting players stat themselves), how has it gone?

Haven't tried it with FATE but have it other systems.  Only we built characters as a group with each person relegated to an advisory role for their character - the group had final say.  If nothing else, you'll learn how others see you.    I do recommend against trying that with anyone who might take it personally.

Were there any sore feelings because some players were obviously more capable than others?

Is this injecting too much reality into what is essentially a game?

We built the characters using the same number of points.  Partially for game purposes and partially to keep it easy, but mostly because game skills don't accurately reflect real life skills.  IRL we're far more specialized.  For example:  I'm a far better shot with a rifle than a pistol (largely due to practice - I grew up with a rifle) which makes Shooting difficult to represent; Scholarship is even worse since it represents a broader potential knowledge pool; and Craftsmanship should have to be a specialty area if you want realism. 

I've realized that my personal playing experience and my enjoyment of it revolves around what kind of choice I feel my character has.  The more choice, the more options I can take, the happier I am as a player.

In some ways this is true of my video gaming experiences too.  Linear games don't appeal to me anymore.  It's games like Fallout 3 or Oblivion, games that really let the player not only decide where they want to go but also how they want to get there that I enjoy.

So last question:  do games with that amount of reality increase immersion and offer more choice to players, or does the added emotional investment in the characters cause problems?

I'm just as happy without realism as a goal any more.  I want a good game, a fair amount of consistency, and good friends to play it with. 

It's also worth pointing out that knowledge (or numbers and levels of skills) have little to do with the number of choices available.  I often find a weakness or lack of knowledge far more interesting to play than a Jack of All Trades.  It pushes me towards more creative solutions!

[deathwombat]

If only this was a DFW in person game........

[Ophidimancer]

My group calls these Avatar games since the character becomes an Avatar of the player.  We've done a few of these, most notably a Changeling The Lost game that took place in Chicago and was pretty damn epic, as well as a DC 'verse game where we played super powered versions of ourselves.

They were "balanced" in the fact that we all got the same amount of points to build our characters, though.  Of course, different powers are more and less useful in different situations, so even if you have the same amount of point, differentiation allows for characters to shine at their own niche.

On the whole it doesn't really accomplish that much to try and be "realistic" with differing power levels.  Just give everyone the same amount of points and make sure they tailor their character to fit their own unique skill set.

[BumblingBear]

Haven't tried it with FATE but have it other systems.  Only we built characters as a group with each person relegated to an advisory role for their character - the group had final say.  If nothing else, you'll learn how others see you.    I do recommend against trying that with anyone who might take it personally.
We built the characters using the same number of points.  Partially for game purposes and partially to keep it easy, but mostly because game skills don't accurately reflect real life skills.  IRL we're far more specialized.  For example:  I'm a far better shot with a rifle than a pistol (largely due to practice - I grew up with a rifle) which makes Shooting difficult to represent; Scholarship is even worse since it represents a broader potential knowledge pool; and Craftsmanship should have to be a specialty area if you want realism. 
I'm just as happy without realism as a goal any more.  I want a good game, a fair amount of consistency, and good friends to play it with. 

It's also worth pointing out that knowledge (or numbers and levels of skills) have little to do with the number of choices available.  I often find a weakness or lack of knowledge far more interesting to play than a Jack of All Trades.  It pushes me towards more creative solutions!

Thank you for the excellent feedback.

Based on this post, I don't think I would allow any players to have more skill points than others.