Apperance Rate For Advantages

[scc]

OK, somewhere, I think it's one of the Kromm quotes Dataweaver's got linked in his sig or it could be in a book, most likely Basic Set, there's this bit about point cost representing frequency of appearance, or rather the cost is based upon how often the designers think it should appear, or something like that.

So with that in mind how often should characters encounter people with various traits? 1 in X, where X is the cost of the trait in question. Now I think this works out OK for Combat Reflexes, as that sounds about right for the Mook to Worthy or Boss ratio.

But I believe that Magic says that 1 in 100 people have Magery. Now obviously these are comparing the presence in different populations (Or rather between the population at large and a biased sub-group).

So what do people think the appearance ratios should be?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by scc

So what do people think the appearance ratios should be?

I don't think it should directly reflect the point cost. Making something cost a lot of points won't stop players taking it if it grants huge benefits; making it cost few points won't get them to take it if it doesn't do much. The point costs are intended to encourage or discourage taking traits in proportion to how useful they are.

[scc]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't think it should directly reflect the point cost. Making something cost a lot of points won't stop players taking it if it grants huge benefits; making it cost few points won't get them to take it if it doesn't do much. The point costs are intended to encourage or discourage taking traits in proportion to how useful they are.

This has nothing to do with players, I'm asking how often people think traits appear in NPCs, primarily based upon point cost of the trait

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by scc

This has nothing to do with players, I'm asking how often people think traits appear in NPCs, primarily based upon point cost of the trait

I dont use point costs in determining NPCs. I base what they have based on setting and the role the NPC has.

[Imion]

The occurrence of certain traits is too dependent on the campaign to give any meaningful answers. Playing in a contemporary Action-style campaign in our world? Then I'd say Magery is nonexistent. Playing in Burrough's Barsoom? Then I'd say the NPCs have quite a good chance of being four meters tall and having four arms.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I dont use point costs in determining NPCs. I base what they have based on setting and the role the NPC has.

Ask your self: How common are Mages? (Or any other highly noticeable trait) It's the same thing.

Originally Posted by Imion

The occurrence of certain traits is too dependent on the campaign to give any meaningful answers. Playing in a contemporary Action-style campaign in our world? Then I'd say Magery is nonexistent. Playing in Burrough's Barsoom? Then I'd say the NPCs have quite a good chance of being four meters tall and having four arms.

This should be implicit and not need to be said

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by scc

This has nothing to do with players, I'm asking how often people think traits appear in NPCs, primarily based upon point cost of the trait

The point costs are there to influence the decisions of the players. That's their purpose. They are not there as a basis for deciding how frequent the traits are in the world. That's a worldbuilding decision, and has to be based on the GM's concept of what the world is like.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by scc

Ask your self: How common are Mages? (Or any other highly noticeable trait) It's the same thing.

Originally Posted by whswhs

The point costs are there to influence the decisions of the players. That's their purpose. They are not there as a basis for deciding how frequent the traits are in the world. That's a worldbuilding decision, and has to be based on the GM's concept of what the world is like.

What Bill said.
To use your example I decide it based not on points but on how common or rare I want magic to be. Same with Status, Rank, or anything else I can think of.

[AlexanderHowl]

I generally feel that more expensive traits should be less common than less expensive traits (similar to how lower levels of an advantage should be more common than higher levels of an advantage). Of course, there are some traits that do not make sense. For example, why do certain tiered advantages (Double-Jointed, Very Fit, and Very Rapid Healing) cost three times as much when they only give twice the bonus of the base advantage?

[ericthered]

I don't think "how common the trait should be" is in any way the sole way an advantage is priced. I do think it interacts with "useful" and "effort required" to determine the final price though.



The class of NPC being statted really matters, as does the setting and genre (yes, setting and genre are separate variables).


When assigning character traits to NPC's I usually use my gut. Combat reflexes goes to NPC's who have seen a decent amount of combat (note: a lot of mooks haven't). Magery goes on mages, and if I'm going with inborn magic that required IQ, about 1 non-mage per mage. (The exact frequency of mages is very campaign dependent).