Problems with circle advancement and balancing

[Mataxes]

I didn't play that way in my years of GMing Earthdawn -- either in the 90s or after. In my first long-term game I gave everybody the same base amount, and then a variable individual award (that was generally within 50-100 points for each). I didn't even bother with that in my second long-term game.

And the first revisions of the Legend Award table we did back in the ED Classic version were on the assumption that the group would all get their awards off the same row of the table (because most groups have the PCs at the same Circle or maybe one Circle difference due to other Legend spending like thread items, etc).

[etherial]

Over the course of the game, the Circle makeup of the party will vary. One character will fall behind for whatever reason and then Circle twice and be ahead of everyone. One character will Multi-Discipline while another will tie Threads to a powerful Magic Item while a third will invest heavily in Spells while a fourth will invest heavily in Talent Options. A GM has to assume that all characters in the party are roughly the same Circle, which is why there's a range suggested (indeed, except for Circle 1-2, note how every Circle's range overlaps with both the Circle before it and the Circle after it).

[Mataxes]

Yeah. The C1-C3 range is kind of wonky, mainly because of how (relatively) few Legend Points are needed to advance (given free ranks).

Frankly, getting to C2/C3 as quickly as possible is what I try to do in any game I run. The first circle gives new players basic tools to get the system under their belts, and the next couple of Circles add in a couple of useful/primary tricks for most Disciplines. The Steps also get to a point where things aren't quite so swingy, even if you didn't optimize your character's attributes at start.

[Calamrin]

Our groups just a bunch of friends and never changes.... everyone just gets the same reward regardless of circle...we track legend point totals from campaign and if anyone died or wanted a change, or a new player joined, could just create a char with the overall legend point total.

Of course the optimiser player gained a tiny advantage by putting a stat up to 3 at the start, but now we up to 50k legend points it drifts into insignificance...

[Calamrin]

Optimisers are an out and out pain in any system...we had to take out human versatility, and Multi-Dicipline before we even created chars, as one player would work the system to build a char, while the others just created chars.

All systems suffer from that to some degree....apart from having to alter that for a single player who cant help himself, Earthdawns pretty damn solid.

[Mataxes]

From my point of view, the only real issue with Multi-Discipline characters (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Versatility) is spotlight hogging. That is, when a character picks up something that treads into another character's specialty. Like, the group has a Scout who mainly handles the tracking and wilderness stuff, but then the spotlight hog picks up Beastmaster and starts trying to do it all.

That's a player/table issue though, not really a system/rules issue.

The tweaks to talent costs in additional Disciplines (and Versatility in ED4) have made it somewhat less efficient to pick up that extra stuff, so usually a person who tries that will find themselves a rank or two behind a more focused character. Aside from prohibiting it outright (which is fine at your table if it floats your boat), there's not really any concrete rules that can prevent abuse.

I mean, aside from, "Don't be a jerk."

[Bonhumm]

From my point of view, the only real issue with Multi-Discipline characters (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Versatility) is spotlight hogging. That is, when a character picks up something that treads into another character's specialty.

I can see your point here. But then again, some overlapping can be useful, you never know when the scout will fail a critical roll and it will be great to have an alternative.

It can also result in some great roleplaying as had happened once between my scout and (I think) a beastmaster when we both rolled tracking and one of us rolled a great test while the other got a 1. Both characters, of course, are absolutely certain of their conclusions despite the fact that they point toward completely opposite directions and the other characters had no way to determine who was right by themselves so it was a question of roleplaying and... charisma; guess who had a great charisma roll despite having just rolled a 1 for tracking?

As for the 'optimizers', I would have them sit down with the other players at character creation and make them all optimized so balance problem solved

[Mataxes]

"Overlap" is fine, and I wouldn't consider that spotlight hogging.

Spotlight hogging is when a player is striving to make it all about themselves (through their character), rather than helping advance the group's fun. It often comes along with a desire to be "the best" at whatever task, and they can get sullen when things don't go their way, or other characters get focus or attention.

It's a player issue, not a rules issue.

[Calamrin]

ohhh i wholeheartedly agree its a player thing and so not a rules problem/issue, i was just sharing.

Overlaps in talents are important in my view..our gm often if its applicable often lets players combine talent overlaps to either lower target numbers if one player assists another, or grant additional successes, dependant on talent and situation...just basic common sense house rulings.

[Tattered Rags]

ohhh i wholeheartedly agree its a player thing and so not a rules problem/issue, i was just sharing.

Overlaps in talents are important in my view..our gm often if its applicable often lets players combine talent overlaps to either lower target numbers if one player assists another, or grant additional successes, dependant on talent and situation...just basic common sense house rulings.

I've been trying to figure out a good houserule for assisting, since I don't remember a rule for it in the book. Might be wrong about that.