The Alignment Talk

Still disagreeing about things. Today Jose is attempting to disagree with me about the thing that is hardest to explain on the character sheet: Alignment. Specifically he said "Any D&D campaign loses a lot of flavor and depth by not using a system of alignment. "

Zak

Ok, so alignment.

I feel like, with a new player, when you are trying to explain alignment and stick it on a PC you have done way more to explain how D&D works than you have done to describe the character. In real life, people want things--they want to think of themselves as kind and they want a creme brulee and they want to not go to Hell, etc--and they want some things more than others and that's pretty much all of morality.

If you use alignment, you're trying to shoehorn a pretty simple thing to explain (what does your PC like?) into an artificial scheme for no real benefit. It's not just unrealistic, it seems like a system-specific piece of work you're doing which, on the other side, doesn't automatically spit out interesting results.

Your turn.

Jose

I prefer to approach alignment as the classic conception of where is the PC positioned in a struggle between cosmic powers rather than just as a mere moral compass (although the side you pick has moral implications, of course). On that note, I think, that the way the alignment is treated in a specific campaign helps to convey that campaign's flavor and overarching "cosmology" better than pages and pages of info dump. That's why I encourage people to use their one system of alignment if law-chaos or law-chaos-good-evil doesn't do it for the idea they have in mind.

Also, having alignment as a mechanic has the advantage of giving enemies, magic items, and such one more trait you can play with that is widely used and compatible with other people's stuff (if you use the vanilla version or one that is easily convertible).

Zak

1. that seems to assume a cosmology with only two poles: the Good god and the Bad god. That seems quite poorly adapted to a world where Zeus could easily pick a fight with Odin

2. The knock-on effect on compatibility with classic D&D modules and supplements is an issue, but in most cases these are easily replaced with equivalent bits that refer to allegiance rather than alignment. So instead of a Lawful Good-aligned sword you get an Odin-aligned sword, etc

Jose

Yeah, that's why I too prefer a broader conception of alignment. Be it Norse Gods vs. Greek Gods vs. Egyptian Gods, civilization vs. barbarians, red vs. blue vs. green, or anything of that sort. Which is why I am mostly in favor of alignment mechanics rather than the classic one or two axis system of alignment of D&D. Again, I think they are a quick and efficient way to deliver setting information and add depth to the mechanics.

But I am also not against the classic use of alignment, which is cool if you want something with a big good vs. evil thing going on, Moorcock style; but it's not a cure-all and a lot of times it's been shoehorned into settings where it works to their detriment. But that is not a problem with alignment, it's a problem with not being able or willing to use alignment better.

And I am against using alignment to police the behavior of the PCs. I think it should be a suggestion and they should be mostly in line with it, but sometimes it gets ridiculous. I think the turning point was the addition of the Paladin in 1e and it's only gotten worse with the years.

Zak

If you prefer a "broader conception" what do you mean?

Like, not 9 alignments?

Jose

Yeah, I think there are more ways to do alignment that can serve a given campaign world better. Things like having a numbered scale from law to chaos, or the 5 colors of Magic the Gathering, the colors in Carcosa (people do like using color for this, huh?), or the different realms of power in Ars Magica, or just having 12 deities with different relationships and having everything be aligned with one of them. These all-encompassing cosmic factions can also arise organically as the game progresses, but I think having a general idea laid out from the beginning with game mechanics is useful.

Zak

Ok, tell me more

Jose

Well, I don't think this would have to apply to every game, but D&D, at the end of the day, is about being part of an archetypical pre-modern world from our viewpoint. Of course the real Middle Ages were a lot more complex, but this is still an elf-game. And a huge chunk of the way we perceive that world is one of great cosmical struggle, God vs. the Devil in Christian Europe, for example. And it was something everyone was very aware of and also felt as something deeply personal. That's why I think alignment as a mechanic usually makes a D&D campaign better: if you want the players to care about something in an RPG, the best way to do it is to give it mechanics that affect their success. And having them involved in some kind of confrontation between cosmical powers right from the beginning does a lot to sell the fake Middle Ages.

Or any other pre-modern-like setting.

Zak

Well it seems the issue has split:

1. The  traditional 9-point or 3-point axis. You seem to be down on that, like me.

2. A different things: a faction system, only cosmic and with rules. You seem to like that but what would it be for D&D?

3. Then there's the advantage of being able to use old materials with zero translation--which use the 9 or 3 pt system. But your preference in 2 above seems to preclude that

.

So: what's going on here?

Jose

Well, I think the 9/3 point-axis alignment is serviceable and I do use it. The problems I have with it are mostly ones of implementation.

The first one being that it is used to heavily monitor character behavior; for an alignment system, I prefer one that tells you certain things you cannot do or that you should do, much like the Shugenja taboos in Oriental Adventures or just having the cleric having to make some sacrifice or ceremony to regain spells and having them differ by alignment or forbidding you from collaborating with people of the opposite alignment, or, as D&D already does, making you the objective of certain magical effects.

It think that has more flavor and produces better game than expecting for a player to do something that falls outside a very loosely defined moral system and then say "aha! You lose all your powers".

So that's the way I would implement it in a certain campaign, even if you use good ol' Law/Neutrality/Chaos, sit down and think about what behavior you want to reward and punish for each of the three and what would be the actual "dogmas" for that.

The fun part is that, this way, what the players actually want in the short or long term can be in conflict with their alignment, so they have to choose one or go around it. And having concrete rules makes it more engaging than just having the paladin leave the room while you torture a guy. Also, it adds a new level of strategy, since everything has an alignment and it means they are bound by the same rules. So if you steal the Scepter of Orcus and want to sell it back to him, you know he won't be able to accept the deal if there is a rule that says that no Chaotic entity can buy or sell from a Lawful one, but you can still find workarounds, like hiring a neutral third party as a go-between. That kind of things.

Zak

That specfic implementation that you just described though--it has the same problems we were discussing before:

1. You have to describe the PC, at creation in terms of a game system rather than in terms of what they want or who they're allied to

2. It lumps Zeus and Odin (or other affiliations) together

Jose

Yeah, that's why I think customization is key in this regard. If you want something more like the medieval world or Moorcocks' multiverse, the 9-axis does fine. But for things that go deeper into polytheistic territory (as vanilla D&D has been steadily doing throught it's history), I would certainly refocus alignment to give more focus to different pantheons and adapting their respectives "dogmas" and interrelations. If we are going full age of mythology, you could have each pantheon (Greek, Norse, Demons and devils, Elf gods, etc.) being one axis of the alignment and good-evil being the other, so Odin and Loki are not lumped together either. But that is one example, of course, if you played something inspired by the Polynesian Mythos, for example, it would have make a bit more sense to have a scale between pure and impure. At the end of the day, yes, it makes the classical alignment hard or impossible to adapt, but it is a trade-off, not unlike banning certain classes or races from your campaign or making new ones to fit.

Zak

So how is that much different from just having factions and loyalties (as I was describing) but with numbers pinned on?

Jose

Yeah, at the end of the day, I'd say that's very much my definition of alignment. With the concrete behavior component added in.

Zak

So you like the numbers. Or at least specific categories. So, quickly--just re-rundown the advantage of the numbers.

Jose

If you want players to care about something that abstract as alignment, the best way to do it is to make mechanics for it, so it can affect them in day-to-day play. Having everything have an alignment and being aware of it is important, of course. But also using the stick and carrot of taboos and obligations to make the players act according to what the universe expects from them. Otherwise, it tends to devolve into the kind of play where everyone has to guess what's the DM's definition of "good" and "lawful" and have long winded arguments about it without getting anywhere.

Zak

Ok, but why not just have specific taboos, like 3 per faction?

Seems more concrete, memorable, enoforceable. "Devotees of Odin cannot flee bad weather" etc

Jose

Yeah, that's what I had in mind, but maybe because my concept of alignment is a tad too broad. But one important thing is that I would still require everyone to choose an alignment, much like a clan in Vampire or the like. So it's not just the cleric running into thunderstorms while the rest of the party just sighs.

Zak

So you want some kind of factional choice with an attached rule--doesn't have to be numerical?

Jose

Yeah. And I'd say that, if it is on a cosmical level, not just mundane politics, I would call that an alignment. What can be numerical, if desired, is the alignment itself, with some actions pushing it in different directions.

"Well, you killed all those children, you are 3 points closer to evil".

But that is just one way of many.

Zak

One strike against that is that it requires new players to be familiar with the cosmology of the game

If it's not super-obvious or borrowed from a familiar mythology, you're back to having to explan the minutiae of the game rather than jump right in

Jose

I think it's the opposite. I think the good thing about having alignment is that you can just tell them "look, there are these 2~10 factions, this is roughly what they are about, what they can offer you and what they want you to do". And I think that is more concise and engaging to the players than a long block of test about the setting almost no one wants to read to play. And later, as you organically find out more about them, you can possibly change your mind.

Zak

I mean without an alignment system you can just do neither though. No text, no score, just roll stats and go,

Jose

You can always start without alignment and let them decide later on. 0-level funnel style where you don't even have a class or letting them pick extra languages later as they find out what languages are important. But, in the end, I think the main reason why alignment is cool it's because it is a tool for immersion. RPG players are (on average) western, born in the XX or XXI century, middle-class and of high education. That's not the type of person that can easily tap into the kind of magical thinking that makes for great fantasy gaming (among other things).

Zak

Well I like the idea of starting with no knowledge of cosmology or faction and easing players into it

However, how would you actually do it, if alignment required numbers and stuff--when would you have them make the choice?

Jose

Well, if you are not an alignment fundamentalist like me, you could just let them choose whenever they wanted to start having the benefits and drawbacks. In the most basic way it could be like Dark Souls: you find a powerful NPC of that faction and it offers you to join. Other options include forcing them to choose at level 2 or any time they go up a level. If you are specially lawful evil, you can give them the boons of their alignment every time they go up a level, so, the more time it takes them to decide, the less they will get.

This discussion is actually very interrelated with another one "how and when does the cleric choose their deity".

Zak

Ok, but which position are you arguing for? You said you're a fundamentalist--so you obviously have a preferred position. What is it, specifically?

Jose

Well, I was joking, but I prefer doing it at char gen. Mostly because I think that, even if the players can discover other things about the world by play, I think usually most of them would have some notion of what the alignments are. I mean, even the animals have one.

Zak

So what exactly is the alignment system you use?

Jose

Well, it depends. For example, one campaign I am DMing is kitchen sink D&D, so I use the classic 9 axis alignment with clear descriptions of what good and law are in that particular world. I have different pantheons, but since it is very pulp-y, I have settled for the fact that alignment is more important for the gods than who belongs to their pantheon or not.

On the other hand I also have a campaign set in a magical version of medieval Spain, where I use 7 alignments (the mundane, God, the Devil, magic, myth, the supralunar and the underworldly) and I give players extra powers and taboos by belonging to one or the other. God-aligned or Devil-aligned characters have to be always extra good or evil, but they get the coolest stuff. Underworldly characters only have to do minor things like being underground if they can, but only get small perks like always knowing in what level of a dungeon they are. But the ones that are not mundane or with God or the Devil can actually find patrons of their alignment later on that give them more powerful stuff... for a price.

Zak

Ok, so your original statement was:

"Any D&D campaign loses a lot of flavor and depth by not using a system of alignment. "

But the asterisk seems to be that "sytem of alignment" is a pretty flexible phrase that could encompass anything from good-bad to factions so long as it has some rules attached

Jose

Yeah, that's why I covered my bases saying "a system".

Zak

I suppose I buy it on some level, but is simple greed an alignment?

Jose

I would argue that simple concepts can be alignments, such as civilization vs. barbarism. But the thing is that you need to give it an structure with many NPCs that are all about greed to really make it a faction. And you need other powers to go against greed directly or indirectly. Otherwise it wouldn't be really an alignment in the literal sense of the word, you have to be align with someone or against something.

Zak

I mean simply: lets say (as is often the case) you have a bunch of PCs who are all out to just get lots of xp in the form of gold.

That's their goal. Have we lost a lot of flavor and depth by just letting them be that? Do they need allegiances? Or is that just a nice option?

Jose

I think that you would lose flavor and depth yeah. Both in the setting and mechanically. But I don't think it's necessary, much like political factions or wilderness travel or beholders. You can remove them and some campaigns clearly don't need them, but it adds a lot to most.

Zak

I'm not denying it adds meat--I think you're right that factions are interesting as are a cosmology. I just don't know where the line between "nice to have" and "you lose so much more than you gain you should definitely have it" is.

Without a mechanical faction/alignment system, things are simpler and faster and easier to pick up. With one the world is more interesting and you have a wider variety of interesting choices. Each has an advantage.

Jose

They do. I personally think the benefits of having alignments are superior to the speed lost in chargen, but that's probably personal preference. To make a counterpoint against myself, what I really think that balances the two choices is the fact that D&D as is doesn't support alignment that well mechanically, so the DM has to do a lot of stuff from zero to make it really shine.

Zak

Well I think we've nailed down what's important. Anything to add?

Jose

Yeah, I think alignment is like wilderness travel, in that sense. Before the OSR, it was really shitty and nobody knew how to do it, so most people didn't or didn't do it right. But, with the years, a lot of smart people started thinking about it until the procedures mostly got sorted out. I think allignment might be in that same larvarian stage right now, it just need a little more cooking.

And I think that's mostly it.

Zak

Alright! Thanks Jose!

Jose

Thanks to you!

Disagree-a-thon: Bards

As promised, we're doing disagreements this week. You get to watch human beings talk about something we don't agree on without freaking the fuck out. 

Today Simon will defend the worst thing in all of roleplaying: Bards.

Smirking at what exactly, guy?

Zak

Ok, Bards, so...

1. Late-era bards w/magic powers: Music as magic out on an adventure looks silly. There's literally never been any pictorial or cinematic depiction of this that didn't look ridiculous. (Noise Marines don't count). 

And hokey.

2. Late/middle-era bards as "encouraging you to fight via music"--again, if you picture this happening in a dungeon it's a preposterous image and has never not looked hokey. If goblins are attacking, put down the lute and pick up a rock.

3. Old-era bards who are just travelling thief/fighters. These are just journeyman thief/fighters, the fact they have a day job doesn't make them a new class--why should it?

A duellist is just a kind of fighter, a burglar is just a kind of thief. What's the point?

4. Bard-as-charisma-wizard. Sure, a character can be charming, but the idea that the performer is somehow especially charming suggests a charisma that translates far away from the culture where said performer is famous for performing. While it's easy to picture a performer being charming to people who like lute music in some farming hellhole somewhere, it isnt going to translate when you're doing things other than trying to impress the mayor at festival time. It's not like being in a band helps you convince TSA not to search your bags.

Your turn.

Simon

Hokay. 

1. It does look silly if it happens in a dungeon during a goblin attack. Outside of a dungeon, though, I say it can work just fine. In "Secret of Kells" animated movie the scene where a fae girl transforms a cat into a spirit by singing "Pangur Ban" looks cool. So, the party needs to rescue someone from a locked tower, it's hard to climb, it's suicidal to attack, the bard steps forward and sings, and music makes his magic happen, putting guards to sleep or summoning mist or whatever - I can see it working. 

2. Yes, this, too, is preposterous in a dungeon. It can work if you view it like Jedi Battle Meditation in "Knights of the Old Republic", which is as 3rd edition D&D as it can possibly get, with skills and feats and all. It works when you gather an army and it's on the march and you raise their spirits with drums or battle songs or whatever. It doesn't work when goblins attack in a dungeon, unless you want to play silly. Sometimes playing silly is okay.

3. Sure, playing a bard as a thief or a fighter or a mage who has a day job is fine. Like playing a pirate or a duelist or a knight - basically it's a thief or a fighter but with some fluff. You can add some stuff like this thief is an important member of Thieves' Guild, or this fighter is in the brotherhood of bards so he has some sort if diplomatic immunity, you can't just throw a bard in jail because the next month in every tavern of every town of your neighbouring contries everyone will sing the new ballad about you being a petty tyrant, and also fat and bald and impotent. But it doesn't require a new class, agreed.

4. The charisma-wizard thing seems as natural to me as intelligence-wizard thing. Sure, the mage is smart, but it takes more than just a well-operating brain to summon fire and ice and monsters and transform people into statues, and it takes more than a silver tongue to be a magic-using bard. It's more like someone who's so in tune with music, which is basic and primitive enough that pretty much any culture knows and uses it and is affected by it, - so that this someone can feel and use the very sort of music that would affect this audience before him. Which is, in my view, how charisma works - you meet someone, you feel what makes them tick, you do the thing that makes them tick.

And playing someone like this would be fun for everyone, I'd say. 

Your turn.

Why would anyone want any of this to happen?

Zak

1 & 2 Seem to center around the difference between the actual english word "Bard" and the image it conjures in the mind--which means an either court-bound or travelling medieval-ish poet/musician ---and a much broader definition that only gamers use, which is "music->magic". I have no opposition to someone doing magical effects via some suitably cool-looking music playing, like, you hit a gong and it causes an earthquake. All your examples seem like a VERY poor fit for the english word "bard" though--and I think the associations make it a bit like saying "Well I have a knight but he rides shoes instead of a horse and wears cloth instead of armor (because cloth protects you from cold, so it's a kind of armor) and he wields a paintbrush instead of a sword". Like: why are we using the word "bard" for this kind of PC that's only interesting with a completely different image unrelated to the word "bard" or its english-language associations?

As for "silly is ok" at that point you're arguing you might as well have literally any class, like a ceiling-toucher class made of people who are good at touching ceilings. That's fine to play a silly game, but it's not a good argument that it's as essential to fantasy RPGs as wizards and fighters.

3. Ok, you conceded that we can drop it,

4. First, that isn't how musicians actually interact with the world at all. Second, the wizard-intelligence thing only makes sense because the wizard has magic. And bards having magic is silly as proved up in 1 & 2.

Your turn.

Hail fellow well m...Hey where are you going?

Simon

Okay. 

1. When I say/hear "bard" I think of the old legendary figures like Taliesin. Since I'm not a native English speaker, no wonder that there can be poor fits like this. I don't mind using synonyms instead of "bard", minstrel, troubadour like that class that you made up, whatever. (Or I could argue that King Arthur's knights in reality wore cloth rather than heavy armour which didn't exist back then and didn't have lances, but that would be pointless and not interesting to anyone.) 

Agreed about silly games. 

4. First, if we talk about magic-musicians, I say they should be stranger and different from just musicians, and it should be somehow related to their connection with music. Second, I think we agree about doing magical effects via some suitably cool-looking music playing being okay. Some mages cast spells by reciting strange words and making gestures, some call the wind by whistling, or make the dead rise by tapping a complex rhythm, or make stone and steel shatter by singing a high note like an opera tenor breaking glass. And having a mage whose powers are limited to such musical things is fun. If it's more fun when we don't call him a bard, okay. We can call him something else. 

Are we still disagreeing?

Who's the real troll here?

Zak

1 & 2. Ok, so Taliesin is, if i understand, a travelling mythic middle-ages bard. Not an ethereal faerie singing a song to cast magic spells. 

So none of your reasoning makes sense there.

4. See 1&2

The idea is: Bard --in a rhetorical framework where it's an adventuring class as essential as a wizard or a thief--doesn't have much to stand on.

Wizard-but-singing or banging an organ is really a different image altogether.

No, you're a cringey dork

Simon

Taliesin was something similar to Thomas the Rhymer, a historic figure with legends connected to him. Thomas was supposed to be a lover/prisoner of faerie queen for seven years and gifted with prophetic abilities by her; there's a tale about Taliesin that a king tried to imprison him, and the bard sang a song that called a terrible monster to come out of the sea and do nasty things to the king. The king wasn't impressed until the monster really did arrive. 

So - historically they were travelling poets, but I like to think of them as travelling poets who could make magic happen with their poetry. 

4. When we speak of adventuring class - sure. It can be a variant of any basic one. I mean, Fafhrd wanted to be a scald - here's a fighter-bard, or rather a fighter/thief-bard. Something to fleshen out the character. If we're talking about essential classes, once again, a bard isn't more essential than a burglar or duellist, or illusionist. If we want to have a mage who's specializing in casting illusions, I don't see why not have a mage who's specialty is using music for spells. If we want to have essential adventuring classes - we have fighter, who doesn't do magic, we have wizard, who does magic, we have thief or specialist who does other things - then there's no reason to make bard a separate class.

Stop.

Zak

An illusionist has a job that has to do with adventuring.

A bard only has a job if we add-on to the word "bard" a bunch of associations which either aren't implied by the word (singing and the monster appears, so just a wizard basically) or which look silly (lute during goblin fight).

Simon

Isn't an illusionist just a wizard, basically, but limited to illusions?

Zak

Yes. Which is a legitimate adventuring person.

A "bard" is as much an adventuring class as a baker.

Simon

I could imagine, say, "Butcher" as an adventuring class, though probably not baker. Anyways, 

if we take an essential wizard and slap some limitations on him, and call him something shorter than "wizard who uses music" to keep it simple, would there be a problem with it?

Zak

No problem: but the name can't be arbitrary. Words have associations, especially in historical or fantasy contexts.

The name should be about what the class brings to the adventuring table AND not conjure an image of something that's not an adventurer.

Must be casual friday.

Simon

True enough. And I suppose people could find a name suitable for such a character, I'm pretty sure you could if you needed one. Not that I ask you to give one right now, just that there are suitable names that could be used, aren't there?

Zak

It's probably conceivable, but I don't have one in mind.

Simon

Okay. So I guess we've reached the point where we agree. If it's not called a bard but has a reasonable name, and it's not silly on the level of playing a lute in the middle of goblin attacks to make everyone feel better, it can be fun, and fun things should be used in games.

Zak

Fair enough. A pleasure, Simon.

Simon

The pleasure, dear sir, is all mine!

-

-

-

Thank you for reading the disagree-a-thon. If you left a comment with a good disagreement and haven't gotten in touch yet, email zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm.

The only cool bard--by Jacques Callot.
He's dead now.

-

-

-

Eager for more bardic content. A new Cube World installment, FUCKING BARDS, is now available in The Store, go get one.

Reader Participation: Disagree.

One of the ironies of the recent situation in games is that nobody really likes the RPG conversation right now--especially the people who joined the mob trying to kick me out.

From Wundergeek up there to Matt Mercer to Patrick Stuart to Cavegirl, basically everyone who participated in the harassment is interacting with the community less, there are fewer conversations about anything important, and there are endless complaints about how nothing comes of the endless Discourse and how circular it all is ("System Matters" anyone?).

Of course it doesn't have to be that way. Things are like this because evasive behavior--always acceptable in certain quarters--had a real renaissance during the last 2 years' orgy of cancellation of complexly interconnected industry figures.

So, anyway, here's what's happening: let's do it right.

Disagree with me.

Pick something important you suspect we disagree about (or that you disagree with someone else in the comments about), put it in the comments. I'll pick as many juicy disagreements as I can and we'll have a cheapshot-free conversation about them, without dodging, and we'll find some things out.

System Matters, Existence of God, Vance vs Moorcock, Blades in the Dark vs anything else you could be doing, the utility of D12s, whatever.

Then, soon after, we'll publish that conversation and show how things are supposed to work.

-

-

-

What Are You Playing?

 Simple questions, leave your answers in the comments

1) What tabletop RPG are you playing?

(We're playing D&D in Cube World, as usual)

2) What are the players up to?

(The girls just went into a shark god temple, got to the last room, decided "we're too low level for this" turned around and started a raid on a bandit camp in some ruins.)

Also, there's a new module up in The Store.

-

-

-

New Toys, New Toys

...it's by Angus Warman and here.

-------

So I used this to automate the character generation process for the new superhero game I'm making. It'll help me with playtesting and might be fun for y'all to play with

Things to know if you wanna play with it:

-With the first roll you get a choice, and choices are built into the system, that's why this all doesn't run on one button.

-There are rounds to character gen. The first round you hit the first button, then it tells you what to do or gives you a choice. Then you hit a specific button after this "first round" which tells you what to do next. Thereafter you hit the "second and subsequent rounds" button after each time you get a power/gimmick result.

-Ability scores and power levels are rated as die types, so they go like d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 (max human ability score), d20, d20+d4, d20+d6, d20+d8, d20+d10, d20+d12, d20+d20.

-The game has primary and secondary powers: Secondary doesn't necessarily mean less powerful, it just means people who have that power usually also have another one. Like: flight is secondary, even though its pretty good, because most superheroes who can fly can do something else. In character generation, if the first thing you roll is a secondary power it radically increases the chance of getting another power or enhanced stats.

-Likewise power/gimmick generation has two rounds: in the first round you get powers or gimmicks that will help define your character, so a lot of boring utility powers (like "Energy Detection") only show up in the second round. This is so you don't end up with a character who has Energy Detection and nothing else.

-Boosts: Some results say you get a "Boost" that just means you can get 2 extra skills OR reroll a result until you get a different, better result. You can use a boost for either. Once a Boost is spent it's gone. You start character creation with one Boost--so if you roll a power/choice of powers you don't like you can use your Boost to spin again.

-The purpose of the character gen system in the game is to create characters that combine the unexpected emergent properties of random character gen while still making characters that are fun to play and not just completely goofy. Like more interesting than "You want to make a super soldier so you spend points and ta daa now you have one" but easier to be invested in than "Ok, you have superspeed and enhanced smell, now roll skills". This was hard and this is why character gen is kinda complex (not slow, really, but lots of options). So if you try it, see if it spits out a supercharacter you would play.


Playing with it will be a litttttttle janky for y'all for a few reasons:

-A few times where my actual table says like
19-20 Some result
instead of
19 Some result
I just pasted it in to Angus' widget anyway as-is so the odds are a little different than they would be if you rolled it. Ignore the item numbers.

-Some of the powers you'll see the name and be like "What is that?" because they have obscure names--and I didn't rewrite them just for this blog entry.

-Some of the steps in the process might refer to "tags"--these are like just names for power themes. So like Claws are tagged "Animal" (because people with other animal powers often have them) and "Alien" (because people with other alien-body-shape type powers have them). Giving you the list of all the tags would require listing all the powers which would make this page really hard to navigate. But y'all are smart, so if you get "Energy Attack--Flame" I bet you can figure out that one is tagged "Elemental" and then if it tells you "Same Tag Primary Power" you hit the Full Primary Elemental Powers widget. When in doubt, pick the kind of tag you think goes with that power and we should be close enough.

-If you get a "choose" option--like "choose from a list of secondary powers with the same tag", again that would require pasting the whole list of secondary powers with that tag which would make this page hard to use, so if you wanna play with it and you need to choose (say) an "Occult" power, just stab the "Secondary Occult" button until you see ones you like.

-Different powers have different ranges of available starting Levels (so you could have "Energy Attack--Flame: Level D8") and I don't have a widget for randomly determining your power's level because there's hundreds of powers and each has a custom range. So that part we won't know, but the rest you can do.

-Different powers also have, as a separate lever, different ranges (touch, zap, aura, etc) these are chosen after the power. Since different powers have different options, this isn't included.

-Power/gimmick generation is divided into 2

FIRST ROUND

(So this'll give you a choice--usually between 2  powers but possibly slightly more complex, pick one of the choices. The powers this button gives you are "Primary Powers" unless otherwise noted. If you don't know what it means, ask in the comments.)



 

The tables below you probably won't need unless you roll a specific result that tells you to roll on "First round..." etc, chances are it's time to skip down to the Second Round.



Tables you probably don't need:

SECOND ROUND

Every time you get a new ability roll here until  the result tells you to stop

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

These are non-powers that are cool enough to be like powers. Like: Green Arrows arrows ("Various Devices(Gimmick)"), Punisher's guns (Personal Armory)(Gimmick), or Shang Chi's kung fu ("World's Greatest...")
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Powers By Tag

Powers that involve a nonhuman body type
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these


 

Powers that animals have or human-animal hybrid superhumans have
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Powers involving manipulating chemistry and chemicals (narrowly construed)
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Powers involving the 4 classic elements. These will spit out earth, air, fire and water powers so you may wanna hit the button more than once if, say, you have a power that involves fire and want another fire one.
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these.

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these.

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these.

Powers that can only be explained by having your body altered in a crazy way characteristic of pretty much only comic book science, like flying without wings or a rocket or anything else.

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Powers involving magic but also ones that could only be explained by magic. "Sorcery" is the general purpose Dr Strange/ Dr Fate power
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Powers involving altering basic physical laws, narrowly construed. Technically all powers are this, but the idea of tags is "If you have x power, you are likely to also have powers from list y.
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

"Energy" here means the more generic kind like whatever shoots out of Cyclops' face. This is comic book science so those things are different kinda.
Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these



 

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

Head back up to the panda and roll after you get one of these

OCCUPATION

Your job in civilian life. Now go down to stats...

STATS

Stats: (unless you get "Enhanced..." roll them below. Roll "stats" 7 times and rearrange if you want.)
                       

C alm (Sanity + Willpower)
A gility                                                   

P erception                                                 

T oughness (Strength +Health)             

A ppeal (Charisma)                         

I ntellect                                       

N etwork  (Money and/or network of people willing to help you/lend you things)

A score of D6 is average, D12 is the max, if you have a Boost you can reroll a score til it's better.

Now pick skills..

SKILLS

Each skill is one die-type higher than the associated characteristic, so like if your Agility is D12 your Burglary is D20.

You get 3 skills plus whatever you got for your occupation.

The Skills and their associated characteristics are:

Agility

-Burglary

-Driving (it’s assumed you can drive, this is fancy driving, and also general car trivia)

-Exotic Weapon (this includes pre-modern things not covered under melee or firearms like bows, throwing knives, whips, etc. You have to pick one category specifically like “Exotic Weapon: Bows”, but you get it at two Levels higher than your agility)

-Firearms

-Pilot/Drive Other (anything not a car that requires training: motorcycle, boat, helicopter, plane--pick one now)

-Sleight of Hand (any kind of tricky task involving manual dexterity)

-Stealth

Toughness or Agility, whichever is higher

-Athletics (if you pick this, in addition to Athletics at the normal score you also get to choose a specific sport or kind of training: swimming, triathalon, tennis, mountain climbing, etc. and you get that at two Levels higher. Additional specific sports chosen after that are also at Toughness/Agility +two Levels higher. If your sport is wrestling, boxing, etc you have to take Hand To Hand instead—it comes up a lot. Same with target shooting and Firearms, etc.)

-Hand to hand combat (also includes using most simple melee weapons like swords, clubs, brass knuckles, knives, etc)—You use Hand To Hand instead of Agility to hit, grab or avoid being hit or grabbed in close combat. Damage is still based on Toughness, not this skill though.

-Martial Arts—this is like Hand to Hand but better. It costs two skills:

*You use it like Hand to Hand (above), plus…

*You may try to dodge as many incoming melee or missile attacks (physical ones) as you are attacked with in a round.

*Unsuccessful melee attacks on you (ones that miss or that you dodge) allow you to use a special move against whoever missed you on your next action, whether that’s in the same round or the next (except Speed Strike, which applies to the next round). Pick two of the following moves specific to your style when making your PC:

.Wrestling/Hold: Gain an extra die to grab, restrain, or throw that foe on your next action.

.Boxing/Punch: Gain an extra die to land an unarmed blow on that foe on your next action.

.Kick: Gain an extra die when rolling unarmed damage (roll damage twice, pick the highest) against the foe on your next action.

.Precision Strike: No penalty to make a melee called shot against that foe on your next action.

.Weapon Strike: Gain an extra die to damage (roll damage twice, pick the highest) against the foe with a melee weapon on your next action. 

.Speed Strike: Automatically resolve your action before that foe in the next round, no matter how high they roll. Your action must be an attack (not a dodge) against them for this to work.

Toughness

-Berserker (after the first round of a fight you can go into a berserk rage—you ignore the Berserk Level Number of points of damage but will attack the nearest enemy until the fight is over and cannot take any noncombat actions until every enemy is out of your sight (or otherwise undetectable). Afterwards you must rest for d10 rounds and are at minus one Die for d10 minutes.)

Perception

-Occupational (soldier, student, truck driver, etc—this represents the skills necessary to do a job. If one of the job skills is covered by another skill here, the occupational skill doesn’t cover that. So if you had “Occupational: Police Officer” that wouldn’t cover shooting. You’d have to pick up Firearms separately.)

-Outdoor Survival/Tracking

-Streetwise

-Therapy (talking other people down from certain Calm loss incidents, but can also be used to see if someone’s lying, etc)

Appeal

-Animal Handling 

-Deception (this includes both ability to disguise yourself, and acting/lying generally)

-Persuasion (being good at talking—this only includes telling the truth though or advocating for something you want, unlike just Appeal, it doesn’t make you good-looking)

Intellect

-Electronics

-Explosives

-Forensics

-Hacking

-Humanities (if you pick this, in addition to Humanities at Intellect + one Level, you get to choose a specific subject—Literature, Anthropology, History, etc—you get that free, at Intellect+2 Levels. Additional specific Humanities subjects chosen after that are also at Intellect +2 Levels.)

-Invention

-Law

-Local Knowledge (this is for wherever the campaign starts unless you specify otherwise)

-Mechanics

-Other Languages (Pick one at Intellect+2 Levels or a number of languages equal to your Intellect score each ranked at Intellect minus 1 Level)

-Science (if you pick this, in addition to Science at Intellect+1 Level, you get to choose a specific subject—Biology, Chemistry, etc—you get that free at Intellect+2 Level. Additional specific Science subjects chosen after that are also at Intellect +2 Levels.)

-Supernatural Lore

Perception or Intellect, whichever is higher

-Forgery

-Medic

-Research

Intellect or Perception, whichever is highest

-Well-traveled (a successful check means you can add Local Knowledge of a place other than where the campaign began at the skill lLevel minus 1 Level—minimum of 2. You can use this any number of times.)

-
-
-