The Doctor in a group?

[Police Box]

How are GMs handling the stat disparity between the Doctors and their Companions?

Most groups I've talked to simply omit the Doctor altogether, which does make for a bit less of a Doctor Who game than I'd like. Round Robin doesn't seem to work much either as you get one player with an absurdly overpowered character and the rest of the group with basically nothing relevant to contribute.

There's lots to love about the game, and it's fun to read the books, but in play this is a huge sticking point. If only they didn't set the game up so actually playing what you see on screen is tedious or boring.

[da professor]

Increasing the use of Story Points, and the exponential effect of using two or more, will bring less obviously capable characters up to closer to the Doctor's level. Also, role-play rather than relying on dice for everything will reduce the impact of any remaining imbalance.

[ninjaconor]

I generally like to keep The Doctor as a GM-controlled character if he's in one of my games, but if he was a player character I'd generally come up with some excuse to separate him from the rest of the party quite early on, as often happens in the TV show. The fact he has nobody else to fall back on when he gets in trouble kind of evens out the difficulty.

What da professor said is good too. Make it more about role-playing than dice rolling. Rather than give the party practical problems (Can I roll high enough to hack this computer and blow up the Cybership?) give them moral problems (Should I hack the computer and blow up this Cybership, knowing that it will crash into that planet below and kill millions?). A bit of argument between the party can really add to an adventure and get people more invested in playing their characters.

[Catsmate]

Jun 27, 2015 8:15:55 GMT ninjaconor said:

I generally like to keep The Doctor as a GM-controlled character if he's in one of my games,

This is my preferred option for a Time Lord led party. Though in general I prefer a group of more equal ability.

Jun 27, 2015 8:15:55 GMT ninjaconor said:

but if he was a player character I'd generally come up with some excuse to separate him from the rest of the party quite early on, as often happens in the TV show. The fact he has nobody else to fall back on when he gets in trouble kind of evens out the difficulty.

Also good, and very much in character especially for the earlier Classic Era Doctors who tended to get locked up/knocked out a lot.
Another option is to have the Big Bad recognise the threat of the Doctor/Time Lord and neutralise them, while ignoring/underestimating the Plucky Companions. This is done especially well in the PDA Killing Ground.

Jun 27, 2015 8:15:55 GMT ninjaconor said:

What da professor said is good too. Make it more about role-playing than dice rolling. Rather than give the party practical problems (Can I roll high enough to hack this computer and blow up the Cybership?) give them moral problems (Should I hack the computer and blow up this Cybership, knowing that it will crash into that planet below and kill millions?). A bit of argument between the party can really add to an adventure and get people more invested in playing their characters.

Absolutely. I'm all for a good moral dilemma.

A little off-topic but this incident might be of interest. Many years ago at college I was involved in a time travel RPG campaign when the GM deliberately dangled in front of one of the players (a gay comp-sci student) the opportunity to meddle in the events leading to the arrest and trial of Alan Turing. It led to some truly excellent role-playing as several of the PCs debated the morality and ethics of such intervention.

[Stormcrow]

I've always found Story Points to be quite effective. Whoever plays the Doctor is very conservative with using his, because there are so few, so he can't shrug off bad stuff or bend the plot much. Yes, he makes nearly all his dice rolls, but Story Points are so much more than succeeding at dice rolls.

At times I've found some companions to be overshadowing the Doctor, because of a combination of superior Story Points and more confident players. Plus, the Doctor's player has to sometimes choose to inconvenience himself for the sake of generating more Story Points. In every group I've played in everyone has always been intimidated by the idea of playing the Doctor.

One final word of advice: when using Story Points to bend the plot, feel free to bend the plot to favor another player.

[Marnal]

My suggestion is to balance the total point value of the Doctor and companion [by giving the companion LOTS of Story Points]. And remind the player taking the companion roll about all the things they can do with those points...

Spending Story Points
Even if the character isn't in a scene (or is unconscious) the player can still spend SP to buy events and plot twists (or suggest complications). SP cannot be used to dodge unexpected attacks or on passive Awareness rolls (only active ones). The GM can forbid the use of Story Points to overcome infection (and poison/gas toxins). But, PCs gain 1 SP for every roll they fail.
* Get a nudge or hint from GM (usually by having an NPC show up) (1 SP)

* Get to roll 4D instead of 2D (1 SP)
* Bump failure to a Yes But (1 SP per level shifted) (doesn’t work on unexpected attacks)
* Cut damage from a hit (you didn’t know was coming) in half (1 SP)
* PC’s who kill unnecessarily should be penalized (1-3 SP)
* Voluntarily violating your Code of Conduct or Duty (at least ½ of you SP)
* Build a Gadget (1 – 6 SP)
* Check out equipment from base (Gadget SP cost)
* Discovering a helpful room in the TARDIS (1-8 SP)
* Use someone else’s skill level for your roll
* Encourage or inspire someone and they get your SP (Player choice)
* Activate various Good Traits or TARDIS Traits.
Really crazy TARDIS tricks cost 6-12 points
* Break the Laws of time (2nd 1 SP)(3rd 6 SP)(4th 6 SP)(5th 1 SP)(7th 1 SP)
* 3 SP for a Coincidox: You will travel back and leave yourself something to help now.
* If captured, they can spend 1 SP to be taken to the leader or their captors.
* PCs (if over 500 years old) can say they have already met a new character or species.
* Have their PCs to be mistaken as someone respectable. (1 SP)
* Have their PCs to be mistaken as someone with authority over the NPCs. (2 SP)
* Pick a Character, or Monster that will appear in next story (See below)
* Buying a remarkable or unlikely occurrence (1 - ?? SP)
1-2 Likely details
3-4 Plausible minor additions to story
5-6 Very convenient/significant story change or reinforcements
7-8 Major change to the plot or NPCs
9-10 Breaking the rules of reality. Massive Deus Ex Machina
11+ Campaign altering. Everything changes events.
* Ventilation Shafts Story Point Rules
Go somewhere helpful 4
Go exactly where you need to go 6
Secure Base Trait(prison/high security area) x3
Full sized people +0
Small people only -2
Vertical tubes -1

[Police Box]

Pardon me, I know I'm new here and this may sound a bit flippant, but it appears that there's basically three bits of advice on offer: avoid using the game mechanics whenever possible, when you have to use the mechanics use story points, and story points balance out the Doctor and companions.

The first, avoid using the game mechanics whenever possible, seems to be a great way to avoid buying the game. If the mechanics don't actually support play similar to the stories we see on screen, and the best way to emulate the on screen stories is to avoid using the mechanics, then what's the point of buying the game in the first place?

The second, use story points whenever possible, seems to be a great way to avoid using the other mechanics, but then the resolution of the game comes down to simply earning and spending story points, with no real need for attributes, skills, or target numbers. Just roll a d6 to see what fate gives you on the success/failure scale, then spend story point till you're where you want to be. No need for anything else.

The third, story points balance the characters, doesn't really work when everyone has them, everyone can earn them, and the only real difference is the cap. But then, with the huge disparity between the actual numbers on the character sheets, the Doctor doesn't need as many story points as he'll be succeeding on any rolls he makes far more often than the companions. So, my apologies, but that doesn't wash.

Lastly, if the things that really make for a good Doctor Who story are the things not covered by the rules presented, then why wasn't the game designed around those things that are actually important? For instance, there are some detailed rules for combat and damage when Doctor Who is almost always about avoiding combat, yet there are no rules for moral dilemmas, despite Doctor Who frequently relying on them?

Seems like incredibly odd design choices to me.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 27, 2015 18:51:37 GMT Police Box said:

The second, use story points whenever possible, seems to be a great way to avoid using the other mechanics, but then the resolution of the game comes down to simply earning and spending story points, with no real need for attributes, skills, or target numbers.

No one said anything about using Story Points in lieu of other game mechanics. You use Story Points in a lot of ways, only some of which involve SUPPLEMENTING other game mechanics.

You also aren't considering what happens when you run out of Story Points. If you use them "whenever possible," which wasn't advised above, you'll run out of them pretty quickly. As I've said elsewhere, playing a normal person without any Story Points in a Doctor Who game should be a deathtrap.

[Police Box]

Jun 28, 2015 2:09:09 GMT Stormcrow said:

No one said anything about using Story Points in lieu of other game mechanics. You use Story Points in a lot of ways, only some of which involve SUPPLEMENTING other game mechanics.

You also aren't considering what happens when you run out of Story Points. If you use them "whenever possible," which wasn't advised above, you'll run out of them pretty quickly. As I've said elsewhere, playing a normal person without any Story Points in a Doctor Who game should be a deathtrap.

No, that's not how I meant it. It's not 'spend story points all the time'. Rather, to avoid the companion being utterly useless (mechanically) when the Doctor's in the room you should roll-play as much as possible. Which makes sense, to a degree, though it is kind of wonky. Q: 'What's the best way to run this game system?' A: 'Avoid engaging the game system as much as possible.'

But the next bit of advice is if you cannot avoid dice rolls, you should use story points to make up for the disparity between the characters. Which is true, the companion will either be spending story points or they won't bother rolling if the Doctor's in the room, because why bother, he's drastically better at everything than the companions. No one even comes close to the Doctor (re: mechanically). So the companion can either do nothing, fail their rolls, or spend story points. If they do nothing, they're useless. If the make rolls without story points, they're going to fail. If they spend story points, they're spending a limited resource to possibly match the Doctor mechanically for one roll. So the only way for a companion character to contribute mechanically to the game is through spending story points. That still seems rather wonky to me.

And that's the trouble I'm having with the system. In the stories on screen the companion isn't utterly useless all the time. They're helpful and resourceful and can get things done. They are effective characters with or without the Doctor around (okay, most of them are). If anyone's a gamer and plays more than DWAITAS, it's like one player getting to play a 20th-level character in a party of 1st-level characters. Or in WoW, being a level 100 toon dragging a few level 10 characters through an instance. At best the companions can only get in the way; mechanically they're useless without story points. That may be a blast and terribly fun for the one player who gets the Doctor, but it's dull as paste being 'in the way' for what's supposed to be your evening's entertainment of make believe in the world of the Doctor.

Instead of mechanising the bits that force the game to include this boring disparity between the characters, why not mechanise the bits that wouldn't force this headache into the game?

[ninjaconor]

Jun 28, 2015 3:04:36 GMT Police Box said:

If anyone's a gamer and plays more than DWAITAS, it's like one player getting to play a 20th-level character in a party of 1st-level characters.

I play a few other RPGs: DnD, Pathfinder and some Savage Worlds, and I think if you come into a game of DWAITAS and try to apply the same principles it just isn't going to work. DWAITAS is very much a game of role-play over roll-play. It's not about having higher stats than everyone else and passing rolls, it's about building an interesting character and an interesting character's weaknesses are just as important in storytelling as their strengths.

Let's say you have a character who you decide really wants to be a soldier, but has a terrible marksman stat. It would be amazing fun playing through the game, missing every shot in absolutely ridiculous ways, building up story points and then spending them all at the end to flukishly take down the main villain with some ridiculous trick-shot. That, to me, would be even more fun than playing an all powerful Doctor and is the kind of storytelling this game exists for!

Also, a failed dice role can just mean that a player doesn't succeed at what they originally set out to do, it doesn't mean a net negative result for the party. Similarly a success doesn't mean a net positive result. The Doctor might roll high enough to unlock a bulkhead door, but if all that's on the other side is the vacuum of space then he'd have been better off failing. You can have all the stats in the world and still make bad decisions.

The important thing to remember is that the mechanics are there to support the storytelling and add a bit of randomness. They're necessary, but not the central focus of the game.

[Stormcrow]

I'm not sure how to answer you. When I run or play the game, there is no issue of the Doctor outshining his companions. I don't avoid the game mechanics by just role-playing, although I do recommend only rolling when an action matters and the outcome is actually in doubt. Story Points really do make the difference, but they don't just let a companion reproduce what the Doctor could do without them.

Spending Story Points:

• Spend a Story Point to get a hint from the GM. Any player, even the Doctor's, may need to do this.
• Spend a Story Point to get two extra dice before rolling. The Doctor is less likely to need this for most things.
• Spend a Story Point to raise a task result one level to a maximum of Success. The Doctor is less likely to need this when actively doing things, but when rolling physical reactions he may be as vulnerable as anyone else. Remember, if a Dalek shoots you, you're going to need this one to save your life.
• Spend a Story Point to restore half lost attribute levels. The Doctor may lose attribute points as readily as anyone, since they're usually restored immediately for anything but physical damage.
• A player does something especially brave, dramatic, or selfless, and gets Story Points to use to resolve the situation that caused this. The Doctor is the only one on screen who obviously does this, though there's no reason a companion couldn't do it as well. Maybe some on-screen companions have done it, and I'm not thinking of it. (Rose being sent home, then opening the heart of the TARDIS?)
• Spend a variable number of Story Points to change an element of the game. Every character will want to do this occasionally. Companions with more Story Points can do it more.
• Create or fill a Gadget with Story Points. Anyone can do this. The Doctor does it a lot; he tends to invest a lot of Story Points into his sonic screwdriver. But anyone with a Gadget will do it too.
• Spend a Story Point to show someone how to do something with your level of skill, once. The Doctor does this occasionally, and is more likely to use it than his companions.
• Share Story Points with another player by encouraging or inspiring. The Doctor does this a lot, which means he wants to give Story Points to others. In "New Who" companions do it a lot too, including giving Story Points to the Doctor as well as to non-player characters.

Gaining Story Points

• Gain up to three Story Points for acting heroic and self-sacrificial at an appropriate time. Both the Doctor and his companions do this on screen all the time.
• Gain one or two Story Points by letting yourself be captured. Happens to both Doctor and companions, but very traditional for companions.
• Gain one or two points for invoking a Minor or Major Trait at a dramatic moment or when lowering your task result. Common for both Doctor and companions. When it happens to the Doctor, that implies he fails at something and isn't all-powerful after all.
• Accomplish a Personal Goal. Every player-character has a Personal Goal, and every character can gain Story Points by accomplishing it. Since they are broad, they get accomplished a lot.

Losing Story Points

• Lose all Story Points if you kill unnecessarily. It's rare for this to happen to the Doctor or his companions.
• Lose half Story Points if you stand by while someone is killed cruelly. This actually happens to the Doctor more often than his companions, as the Doctor may have a long-term plan, while the companions tend to struggle and argue with him that so-and-so should be helped right now.

Those are all the uses of Story Points in the basic rules. Story Points are much more complicated and sophisticated than just making up for lesser skills and attributes. A weak or inexperienced character can have or earn a boatload of Story Points and save the day using almost any of these aspects. The rules to Doctor Who are fairly simple for a role-playing game, but they require imagination and ingenuity to use to their fullest potential. If you're used to running a game based purely on mechanical rules outcomes, you've got to learn to think in this way or the Doctor Who game won't be any fun.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 28, 2015 17:11:20 GMT ninjaconor said:

Let's say you have a character who you decide really wants to be a soldier, but has a terrible marksman stat. It would be amazing fun playing through the game, missing every shot in absolutely ridiculous ways, building up story points and then spending them all at the end to flukishly take down the main villain with some ridiculous trick-shot.

Or, more appropriately, you build up all those Story Points by missing badly (intentionally, on the player's part) all the time, then spend them all at the end to take down the main villain with some incredible powers of moral persuasion against his right-hand man, who betrays him because of you.

And also, Police Box, don't forget that non-player characters have Story Points too! Suppose a Dalek decides to shoot a player-character. If this is the only time that Dalek will appear in the game, it has no reason not to use all its Story Points in that scene. If it shoots, it'll use those points to make its shot count. A single Dalek shooting at you can drain a lot of Story Points as you keep its task result down! A companion can withstand this more readily than the Doctor.

[Hedgewick]

Our current campaign features the Doctor, two companions, and the Master played as a major NPC by the game master. In the spirit of Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space, our adventures emphasize role-playing and storytelling. We have never felt there was an issue with balance. We have never encountered a problem with the game play. The Doctor is an important part of each adventure, as are his companions.

Often the companions and the Doctor will split-up, resulting in some exciting sub-plots. Often the Doctor is oblivious to vital information. (This was a major point in our last adventure, "Catatonia." While the Doctor was busy trying to build some gadget to solve the problem, his companion Mohana unraveled what was really going on!) The Doctor can make mistakes, and even the use of story points can backfire unexpectedly. In our campaign, the Doctor has also proven more prone to injury or debilitation than his companions. (He's been pushed off a ship, fallen while trying to climb, and been slashed by a Roman centurion's sword.)

If the players are interested in contributing to an engaging story, if all involved are interested in recreating the dynamics that make Doctor Who so wonderful, and if the game master makes the most of Cubicle 7's flexible and dynamic rule set, I don't see any reason why the Doctor can't be a part of these adventures. The game has been built for role-play and story-driven adventure and eschews many of the mechanics that drive roll-play or dungeon crawls. Embrace it, and it can be great fun.

[Marnal]

Police Box, my list had 20 different ways to spend story points. Only 3 of those are designed to allow the Companion to roll as high as the Doctor. There are 17 other things the companion can do with their story points that have nothing to do with skill rolls, but will have major effects on the adventure. If you follow my advice, and give the companion lots of Story Points and the Doctor a few [or possibly even none] you will find that the gamer playing the Companion will have loads of things they can do that the player playing the Doctor can not do. Indeed even if you throw out the 3 "this lets me succeed at rolls I should fail at" rules, the gamer playing the companion would STILL have 17 other 'powers' that they could call upon that the player playing the Doctor couldn't call upon. Thus both players can contribute meaningfully to the game.

However the issue you raise has always been one that fascinated me. I would be very interesting in hearing what ideas you would use to fix the imbalance inherent to the TV Show.

[Police Box]

Okay, clearly I'm not getting my point across well. So I'll try a different route.

So how do you differentiate the Doctor from the companions in DWAITIS?

Game mechanics? Not a good start. Any check or dice roll in the game, the Doctor will be better at than the companions. So the game system is not a good place to find a positive distinction for the companions, because the companions are useless at rolls when the Doctor's in the room. The only solution to this is splitting the group.

Okay, so how about the role-playing? Nope. Aren't ALL the players role-playing? The player playing the Doctor is role-playing just as much as the player role-playing the companion(s). So that's not something unique to the companion. Each character will be role-played differently, yes, but all the players are still role-playing a character. There's nothing unique about that for the companions.

Story points? Nope. The Doctor can earn and spend story points just as easily (easier, actually) as the companions can. But there is a slight difference, the Doctor starts a game session with four fewer story points than most companions. That's it. Anything the companion can do with story points the Doctor can do as well. There are a few possible solutions to this, such as restricting the Doctor's story points even further... say starting the game with zero, or limiting the Doctor's expenditure of story points to only giving them to the companions.

So in the DWAITIS game there's two basic differences between the companion and the Doctor. The Doctor succeeds at more rolls without spending story points, and the companion starts each session with four more story points. That's the beginning and end of the differences.

So, in short...

Q: What can the companion do better than the Doctor?

A: Nothing.

Q: What can the companion do that the Doctor can't?

A: Nothing.

Q: Are there any mechanics unique to the companion?

A: No, there are none.

That's the problem.

The game isn't set up to make the companions interesting to play, but they should be. Games should be designed around making sure everyone's having fun and contributing equally to the game... but DWAITAS isn't set up that way.

#

To recap the top answers: avoid using the mechanics, story points, split the party, and let the story points balance the party.

Well, nothing's really changed with most of these. But the story point solution seems to be popular. What's being ignored is that the Doctor can earn and spend SP just like the companions, so there's no big advantage for the companion there. There's no balancing being done by the story points except possibly at the very start of the game by having a few more. How long will that last? Remember that the Doctor will normally succeed far more often at checks than the companions so will have more opportunities to trade in those successes for story points as several people have suggested. And yes, there's 20-some different things ANYONE can spend SP on. So what? That is not an advantage for the companion when the Doctor can do all of those things as well.

So again, how do you keep the companions' players interested when they're constantly dwarfed and out-shined by the Doctor's player?

Right... split the party and keep away from the mechanics as much as possible. Okay, got it.

So then the further question is: since the best way to emulate a Doctor Who-style story is to not use the mechanics, why bother buying this game? I can only assume we all collectively know enough about DW to emulate the style without too much fuss. A few TARDISCore searches to iron out the particulars of a few things if we're worried about continuity... but then, it is Doctor Who after all.

Or a better question is: why weren't the mechanics written in a way to help the GM and players emulate the stories of Doctor Who? We don't see a useless companion doing a fat sack of nothing whilst the Doctor does everything on the telly, yet that's what the mechanics push. We do see the companion and Doctor separated frequently, but I'll be damned if I can find advice to that effect in the book. We see the companions as not only friends to the Doctor but also valuable partners in most of his adventures, but there's nothing valuable about a companion in the game system. They're basically useless lumps.

#

ASIDE: Everyone keeps repeating the bit about willingly failing a roll. You do realise that the same paragraph that presents that rule also advises the GM to not let the players use it frequently, right? Am I the only one that takes that seriously?

#

Marnal: However the issue you raise has always been one that fascinated me. I would be very interesting in hearing what ideas you would use to fix the imbalance inherent to the TV Show.

It's not the show that needs fixing, it's the game. As a game it should be fun for everyone and everyone should contribute equally to the session.

But how would I fix the game? By not mechaising the imbalance in the first place. I'm not saying that the characters aren't imbalanced in regards to their experience and knowledge in the show, of course they are. But that doesn't mean you have to focus the mechanics of the game on that imbalance. What I'm saying is the game doesn't need to focus on that, because that's maddening, boring, and dull as dirt to play a useless lump standing next to a shining star. So focus the mechanics elsewhere.

There's far more room in game design nowadays. The designers didn't have to stick with the traditional Attributes and Skills dynamic that only makes the disparity staggeringly clear. They could have gone a more story gaming route and mechanised things like the relationship between the companions and the Doctor. Martha's infatuation. Donna's opposition. Mutual love between Rose and the Doctor. Mechanise the partnership between the Doctor and companions. Give some bonuses for disagreeing with the Doctor, others bonuses for agreeing. Mechanise the personality traits that make the characters unique and fun to play, but don't mechanise the bits that make the characters dull and useless. Look at games like Smallville, My Life With Master, Fiasco, Primetime Adventures, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Fate Accelerated Edition, on and on.

But I could be wrong, so why don't you regale me with stories of how much fun you have had playing a 1st-level character in a D&D game where your friend gets to play a 20th-level character.

[ninjaconor]

Again you're falling back on this fallacy that rolling higher=more fun. That may be the case in DnD, where the goal is to get through a dungeon and win, but DWAITAS is about telling an interesting story. Yes, the Doctor might succeed in opening every door and hacking every computer, but in not having to confront failures he's missing out on some very interesting storytelling.

Keep in mind also that, played well, the Doctor should be averse to selfishness and using violence to solve his problems. Companions may have no such code of conduct though and so can approach situations from a completely different angle. They may even go against The Doctor's instructions and save the day, but at some terrible cost. This could lead to interesting character relationships later on.

I do like your idea about having some mechanic for character relationships though. I think it would be a cool thing to add to the game, maybe via traits or in some entirely new way.

[Stormcrow]

Theoreticals be damned. When I have played the game using the rules as they are written, the Doctor did not outshine or overpower his companions. I think you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist. I also think you're reading responses from the rest of us that we didn't make, or taking them out of context.

I won't repeat myself here, so my final advice is to just relax, play the game WITHOUT trying to analyze its rules, and see how it turns out. Preferably the game should be run by someone who hasn't already formed an opinion about the balance of its characters' abilities, and who won't be paying attention to your own preexisting bias.

P.S.: Comparing the gameplay of Doctor Who with that of Dungeons & Dragons is spurious. If you're playing Doctor Who the same way you'd play Dungeons & Dragons, no wonder it doesn't seem right.

[Escher]

Jun 27, 2015 5:47:01 GMT Police Box said:

How are GMs handling the stat disparity between the Doctors and their Companions?

Most groups I've talked to simply omit the Doctor altogether, which does make for a bit less of a Doctor Who game than I'd like. Round Robin doesn't seem to work much either as you get one player with an absurdly overpowered character and the rest of the group with basically nothing relevant to contribute.

There's lots to love about the game, and it's fun to read the books, but in play this is a huge sticking point. If only they didn't set the game up so actually playing what you see on screen is tedious or boring.

I've never seen this disparity in any group or encountered it myself as a GM. If the game is played properly, there should be no problem. I can understand that coming from gaming D&D where Levels are strictly-defined might be a bit of a shocker, but there shouldn't be an issue with overpowered players.

The game isn't set up to make the companions interesting to play, but they should be. Games should be designed around making sure everyone's having fun and contributing equally to the game... but DWAITAS isn't set up that way.

It is set up this way and you definitely can make interesting companions. From what I understand of your concerns, you need to step back and stop fixating on mechanical power levels (or lack thereof), stop trying to run a mental simulation of the game by analysing the mechanics, and actually play the game for real. Let's know how you get on. I think you'll find that it runs really well and does so with aplomb.

[Marnal]

Police Box said: There are a few possible solutions to this, such as restricting the Doctor's story points even further... say starting the game with zero, or limiting the Doctor's expenditure of story points to only giving them to the companions. ... What's being ignored is that the Doctor can earn and spend SP just like the companions, so there's no big advantage for the companion there. ... You do realise that the same paragraph that presents that rule also advises the GM to not let the players use it frequently, right?

So, if you followed my advice, the Companions will start with LOTS of SP. And the Doctor will start with none, or almost none. And the Doctor can only gain more by creating complications for the group or by failing CRITICAL rolls, both of which screws him and the whole party. My group has found that when I say significant I mean significant. So the Doctor player can't use this rule to just scoop up points without - effectively - dropping the ball for his team.

Are you afraid the Doctor-Player will keep digging himself and the others deeper into a hole just so he can have access to the companion's powers? Or will he focus on using what he's character is good at [intellectual skill rolls] to help the team, and let the Companions do their companion thing?

I'll admit, that my game doesn't include the Doctor [its set after his death]. But it does have two Time Lord type characters [with all the benefits that imply]. And two fairly normal Companion types. I balanced the character building points as the game suggests. Since then I've spent over 500 hours playing this system and [outside of the utterly stupid damage system] haven't had any significant problems.
How many times have you tried playing this game?

Police Box said: There's far more room in game design nowadays. The designers didn't have to stick with the traditional Attributes and Skills dynamic that only makes the disparity staggeringly clear. They could have gone a more story gaming route and mechanised things like the relationship between the companions and the Doctor. Martha's infatuation. Donna's opposition. Mutual love between Rose and the Doctor.

I have to say I've always found rules that try to mechanize social interactions to a LARGE degree to be very off putting. Ignore most of the social interaction / relationship rules AiTaS and I did the same with GURPs. But I've not played the systems you're talking about.

Police Box said: Mechanise the partnership between the Doctor and companions. Give some bonuses for disagreeing with the Doctor, others bonuses for agreeing. Mechanise the personality traits that make the characters unique and fun to play, but don't mechanise the bits that make the characters dull and useless. Look at games like Smallville, My Life With Master, Fiasco, Primetime Adventures, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Fate Accelerated Edition, on and on.
Interesting.

Having not played any of these games I can't comment on them. But I'd be interested in hearing more about their mechanics. Can you give some examples of how this would work? Maybe there's some stuff worth stealing for my Dr Who RPG.

Police Box said: " But I could be wrong, so why don't you regale me with stories of how much fun you have had playing a 1st-level character in a D&D game where your friend gets to play a 20th-level character."

Never made it through a full D&D adventure so I don't know much about it. I game to play in my favorite TV and film universes. But I'm not opposed to changing systems if I find something that work better for that franchise. [For example, despite numerous official systems, GURPS is my system of choice for Star Trek.]

[Stormcrow]

Jun 30, 2015 17:37:24 GMT Marnal said:

I have to say I've always found rules that try to mechanize social interactions to a LARGE degree to be very off putting. Ignore most of the social interaction / relationship rules AiTaS and I did the same with GURPs. But I've not played the systems you're talking about.

I find that many people overuse social rules in RPGs. In general they should be used only when there is something important at stake and success is hard. Want to buy an expensive bauble from a merchant? Skip the skill roll; just buy the damn thing. On a quest to buy a powerful, ancient artifact from an aristocrat without letting him know why it's important? Now is the time to roll.

Furthermore, skill rolls shouldn't be buttons you push on your character sheet. You should just state what you want to do in real-world terms; the GM will tell you if you need to roll something to do it. The game is about what you, the player, would do if you were your character, not what your character would do. Role-playing games are not simulations.

Allow me to go off-topic a bit here to point out that the GURPS rules for social situations are often misunderstood in these ways. Reaction rolls are not mandated by the rules; they are used when the GM doesn't know or doesn't want to decide how his NPCs react to the PCs. If the GM already knows then they do whatever he wants. Influence skills are simply used by the player to try to get a good reaction roll rather than the default, random one. Most socially relevant advantages and disadvantages simply apply adjustments to reaction rolls which, as I've stated, are optional for the GM anyway. Disadvantages with a self-control number are only triggered in the appropriate circumstance: if you've got Bad Temper, you're not expected to role-play being a grouch all the time; you just have to make a self-control roll in times of stress and, if you fail, you lose control of your actions and the GM tells you how you react.

Back on topic, the social interaction rules in Doctor Who are similar. Characters can interact with each other as much as they want. If the GM decides one has a chance of influencing the actions of another he has them roll a simple conflict and whoever wins gets or keeps control. If the game is currently running in action rounds then each round of a social extended conflict involves one character taking an action, the target making a reaction, and, if the "attack" is successful, the target taking damage to his attributes. Reduce the right attribute to 0 and you've influenced your target successfully. Traits may alter one's roll a bit. Doctor Who adds another wrinkle in that players and NPCs alike can apply story points to affect the outcome. A typical guard may have one story point. If you want to fast-talk your way past him, go ahead and roll Presence and Convince. Suppose you get a Success, enough to get you past, even if he remains suspicious. But the guard will likely spend a story point to knock your result down to a Failure, which might result in him not letting you past but not sounding the alarm either. If you still want to get in you have to decide: do you want to spend a story point to bump your result back to Success, or do you want to try to find another way in?

In both GURPS and Doctor Who none of these rules come into play unless the GM decides it is important enough to affect the game and unlikely enough to warrant checking the outcome. If the GM says there's a guard snoring loudly by the door, just say you're sneaking past him; it's not worth rolling for and the GM shouldn't ask you to do so. Of course, the guard may be trying to fool you...

TL;DR: Only roll dice when there's something worth testing. Story points have a significant impact on these outcomes as well as non-tested events.

[Police Box]

Ah, so there's the multi-quote...

Jun 30, 2015 10:46:24 GMT ninjaconor said:

Again you're falling back on this fallacy that rolling higher=more fun.

No, that's not my point. My point is that every character should contribute equally to the game, otherwise it's not fun. It's the question of spotlight hogging the book addresses. Everyone can role-play their character, everyone can earn and spend story points, but once the dice come out, the spotlight shines only on the Doctor... if the group is together.

Jun 30, 2015 10:46:24 GMT ninjaconor said:

That may be the case in DnD, where the goal is to get through a dungeon and win, but DWAITAS is about telling an interesting story. Yes, the Doctor might succeed in opening every door and hacking every computer, but in not having to confront failures he's missing out on some very interesting storytelling.

Exactly. That's what the game and the mechanics should be about. But the mechanics get in the way of that. To me. Hence my asking how to resolve that issue.

Jun 30, 2015 16:08:22 GMT Escher said:

I've never seen this disparity in any group or encountered it myself as a GM. If the game is played properly, there should be no problem. I can understand that coming from gaming D&D where Levels are strictly-defined might be a bit of a shocker, but there shouldn't be an issue with overpowered players. 

It is set up this way and you definitely can make interesting companions. From what I understand of your concerns, you need to step back and stop fixating on mechanical power levels (or lack thereof), stop trying to run a mental simulation of the game by analysing the mechanics, and actually play the game for real. Let's know how you get on. I think you'll find that it runs really well and does so with aplomb.

I appreciate the sentiment, but that's not really where I'm coming from. It's not lack of strict power levels or the like, rather keeping things fun for all the players when one will regularly out-shine all the rest. I prefer story games, which is why the presence of Attribute + Skills and the gap between the companions and Doctor threw me off as that set up is very much a D&D-style traditional way to go.

Jun 30, 2015 17:37:24 GMT Marnal said:

So, if you followed my advice, the Companions will start with LOTS of SP. And the Doctor will start with none, or almost none. And the Doctor can only gain more by creating complications for the group or by failing CRITICAL rolls, both of which screws him and the whole party. My group has found that when I say significant I mean significant. So the Doctor player can't use this rule to just scoop up points without - effectively - dropping the ball for his team...

That would certainly help, to a degree. How many SP would you recommend the companions start with?

Jun 30, 2015 17:37:24 GMT Marnal said:

I have to say I've always found rules that try to mechanize social interactions to a LARGE degree to be very off putting. Ignore most of the social interaction / relationship rules AiTaS and I did the same with GURPs...

Up to a point I agree with you. But then I've played with very charismatic people who can talk an Eskimo into buying a air conditioning unit for their igloo. So they tend to build mechanically effective characters and play them to the hilt whilst also using the charm of the actual player to be perfectly effective for every situation. When the GM lets the player role-play a social interaction, the player wins. When the GM forces the player to roll dice, all their points have gone into the systems the player knows the GM will actually use at the table, so the player does well there too. Accounting for random chance, of course. So I tend to use whatever rules are presented, as close to as written as possible to avoid unnecessary arguments and paperwork.

Jun 30, 2015 17:37:24 GMT Marnal said:

Having not played any of these games I can't comment on them. But I'd be interested in hearing more about their mechanics. Can you give some examples of how this would work? Maybe there's some stuff worth stealing for my Dr Who RPG.

I'll give you the run down of two that I think show something of what I'm talking about.

Smallville. Superhero soap opera, basically. A precursor to Arrow and the Flash is you're familiar. Their are two main sets of stats, similar to Attributes and Skills, but in Smallville they're the character's Drives and Relationships. There are six Drives: Duty, Glory, Justice, Love, Power, Truth. You also have a Relationship with each of the other player characters. All of these are given a die rating (from d4 through d12, similar to the pips or bonuses of DWAITAS). When you want to perform an action, you determine why you're doing that action (your Drive) and who you're doing that action for or against (your Relationship). There's more to it of course, but that's the gist. The benefit being that you can have a young Superman in the same group as Lois Lane and both are effective characters, mechanically. They can both contribute without any hassle.

Fate Accelerated. Generic, rules-light game based on FATE. The main stats are: Careful, Clever, Flashy, Forceful, Quick, Sneaky. These not only describe how your character performs an action, but they also inform the character's personality. If your highest bonus is in Forceful, that's how you tend to resolve conflicts and how you tend to role-play the character. Though that might seems quite close to Attributes, it is subtly different. So generally the Doctor would repair something with his Clever stat, but on occasion he does some Percussive Maintenance, which would be Forceful. Further, there's player defines bits like Aspects and Stunts which are blanket mechanics (all Aspects work the same, all Stunts work the same), but they allow the players to name and apply these bits within reason.

Jun 30, 2015 17:37:24 GMT Marnal said:

Never made it through a full D&D adventure so I don't know much about it. I game to play in my favorite TV and film universes. But I'm not opposed to changing systems if I find something that work better for that franchise. [For example, despite numerous official systems, GURPS is my system of choice for Star Trek.]

Okay, so have you ever tried playing a 100-point character in a group with your friend's 500-point character?

Jun 30, 2015 20:26:51 GMT Stormcrow said:

I find that many people overuse social rules in RPGs. In general they should be used only when there is something important at stake and success is hard. Want to buy an expensive bauble from a merchant? Skip the skill roll; just buy the damn thing. On a quest to buy a powerful, ancient artifact from an aristocrat without letting him know why it's important? Now is the time to roll.

That's how I run games, generally. If the outcome isn't important and nothing interesting will happen no matter how the dice come out, there's no point in rolling.

Jun 30, 2015 20:26:51 GMT Stormcrow said:

The game is about what you, the player, would do if you were your character, not what your character would do. Role-playing games are not simulations.

I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of playing an RPG is to play as that character. To try to get into character as an actor might do. At least in regards to the decision making. If I'm playing Donna, for example, and I do what I as a real person would do, rather than say... what I think Donna would do in that situation, then I'm not role-playing Donna, I'm role-playing me... with Donna's stats.

Jun 30, 2015 20:26:51 GMT Stormcrow said:

In both GURPS and Doctor Who none of these rules come into play unless the GM decides it is important enough to affect the game and unlikely enough to warrant checking the outcome. If the GM says there's a guard snoring loudly by the door, just say you're sneaking past him; it's not worth rolling for and the GM shouldn't ask you to do so. Of course, the guard may be trying to fool you...

Granted. But that's not the issue I have with the rules as written. It's when the mechanics are finally engaged... the Doctor utterly out-shines the companions on every front. Which is not what we see on-screen. We see them as nearly equal partners in most stories. Sometimes the Doctor doesn't notice a damned thing whilst the companions solves the mystery, other times the companion doesn't manage to do much more than scream whilst the Doctor saves her from the monster.

Jun 30, 2015 20:26:51 GMT Stormcrow said:

TL;DR: Only roll dice when there's something worth testing. Story points have a significant impact on these outcomes as well as non-tested events.

And I agree with that. But, once those dice come out, the Doctor is absurdly more mechanically effective than the companions. So once you finally engage the rules, the Doctor out-shines the companions. The companion-player is relegated second stringer status till the dice go away again.

My point isn't that the companion and Doctor should be exactly as effective at everything as the other, no. Rather, that as a game the mechanics should be fun and directly emulate the stories we see on the screen, it is a licensed game after all. Think of it like this. You don't gather a group of friends together to play a game of Monopoly and start doing voices for the play pieces and moving them willy-nilly around the board. You play the game using the actual rules. The less you use those rules, the less the game you're playing is 'Monopoly'. Role-playing games are different than board games, granted. But the rules should still be there to facilitate engaging and fun play that creates an experience like the licensed property, not get in the way of same. And that's what I'm saying. It's a game. The rules should be used to create the game experience, not ignored to create the game experience. That's like saying you're going to play a game of Monopoly but not actually opening the box and getting out the pieces. Without the game rules, you're doing free form storytelling. Nothing wrong with that at all, but that's a completely different thing.

[Escher]

I see where you're coming from.
Fate, Smallville and MHR et al are of course very much different and if you are coming from that gaming direction, then yes, I understand you're not going to grok DWAITAS as much, if at all.

I disagree that the game is broken. Your statement of opinion comes across as being pompous and it is not fact but your opinion. General consensus (fan and professional industry) proves that it's not broken, and the 'outshining' / 'overpowered' issue with central characters isn't a problem in my experience (or anyone else's here or on rpgnet ASFAIK) if everyone roleplays and knows the subject matter. Buffy The Vampire Slayer RPG, uses this same design approach, which has a Slayer (super-powered warrior), grouped with normal people (Sunnydale geeks and losers). Again, it works really well. That game also isn't broken. It's also widely regarded as one of the best RPG's ever.

The Doctor Who game was also designed for everyone in mind, much younger gamers included, and nuanced inter-personal game mechanics for relationships won't be of interest to most younger players who want exciting adventures. Moral dilemmas are to do with good roleplaying and scenario design and a level of maturity. Again, if this is what you and the players need, it's up to the GM. You do have a point that this isn't covered in the rules, but do you need rules for players to decide to make a moral choice during the session? Surely this is good roleplaying and reacting to a situation?

My genuine feeling is to suggest that you use the DWAITAS source material and convert it over to FATE or perhaps Firefly. You might get satisfaction from that approach, rather than having to make do with a system you think isn't working for you.

[Police Box]

Jun 30, 2015 22:28:20 GMT Escher said:

I disagree that the game is broken.

Fair enough.

Jun 30, 2015 22:28:20 GMT Escher said:

Your statement of opinion comes across as being pompous and it is not fact but your opinion.

Never said it was anything more than an opinion.

Jun 30, 2015 22:28:20 GMT Escher said:

General consensus (fan and professional industry) proves...

Wow. Really? There are more problems with that statement than the forum's servers could handle.

And I'm out. Thanks anyway. Good luck to you.

And thanks to everyone that offered advice. I'll get the problem with the system under control somehow.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 30, 2015 21:36:13 GMT Police Box said:

Jun 30, 2015 20:26:51 GMT Stormcrow said:

The game is about what you, the player, would do if you were your character, not what your character would do. Role-playing games are not simulations.

I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of playing an RPG is to play as that character. To try to get into character as an actor might do. At least in regards to the decision making. If I'm playing Donna, for example, and I do what I as a real person would do, rather than say... what I think Donna would do in that situation, then I'm not role-playing Donna, I'm role-playing me... with Donna's stats.

To role-play is to put oneself in someone else's place and make decisions from that vantage point. To make a particular decision because the character you're playing would make that decision is merely acting. Role-playing may or may not involve acting. The two are different things.

If you're playing Donna and you do whatever it is you think Donna would do, you're not really playing a game; you're running yourself through a simulator or acting to a script. If you're playing Donna and you make your own decisions for her in the manner in which she would make them, that's role-playing. If something about Donna would prevent her from making certain decisions something on her character sheet might block a particular choice, or the GM might overrule you, but otherwise you're free to act as you see fit.

[Escher]

Jun 30, 2015 23:13:43 GMT Police Box said:

Jun 30, 2015 22:28:20 GMT Escher said:

General consensus (fan and professional industry) proves...

Wow. Really? There are more problems with that statement than the forum's servers could handle.

I don't see the slightest of problems with my statement and think it's wholly reasonable. The game has been released for several years. No one, anywhere, has ever stated it's broken or criticised any fatal flaw in it's design. Anything but. It's been praised and won awards. It's up for nomination this year (again) in the Ennies. In today's critical gaming world, no broken game would win awards or gather acclaim. Occam's Razor. You may think it's broken according to your own internal perception and prerequisites for a game but that's your subjective opinion.

And thanks to everyone that offered advice

You're welcome. I hope you get round to enjoying the game somehow.

[Marnal]

Police Box Said: That would certainly help, to a degree. How many SP would you recommend the companions start with?

For you, I'd recommend calculating the total point value of which ever incarnation of the Doctor you're interested but do it without story points. [remember 4 character building points equals 3 story points - yes its obnoxious and stupid that it couldn't be one to one].

Then take the companion you're wanting to have play and figure out their value. Then give them as many Story Points as needed to make them equal to a No-Story-Point version of the Doctor.

That would give the Doctor-Player game mechanics that [for the most part] only he has access to [skill checks].
And it would give Companion-Players several mechanics that [90% of the time] only they could use. It's worth noting that the companion can give inspirational speeches to the Doctor to donate a Point, but it's the companion's choice to do that, so they still hold the power.

Police Box Said: When the GM lets the player role-play a social interaction, the player wins. When the GM forces the player to roll dice, all their points have gone into the systems the player knows the GM will actually use at the table, so the player does well there too. Accounting for random chance, of course.

I think is just a style thing for me. I only fall back in social interaction if...
A. Its a minor conversation and I just want to get the whole scene over with [ie, lets bargain with the Gunner Runner for some gear for this mission we are about to go on].
B. It something where I'm not entirely sure which direction the NPC would go, or I'm not entirely sure if, as GM, I'm being objective about the PCs chances for success.

The rest of the time its 'When the GM lets the player role-play a social interaction, EVERYBODY wins.'

Police Box Said: Smallville. Superhero soap opera, basically. A precursor to Arrow and the Flash is you're familiar. Their are two main sets of stats, similar to Attributes and Skills, but in Smallville they're the character's Drives and Relationships. There are six Drives: Duty, Glory, Justice, Love, Power, Truth. You also have a Relationship with each of the other player characters.

That sounds really cool. And I could see it working fairly well with the New Dr Who TV series. I'm not convinced it would work well with Classic Who. Classic who was plot driven, not character driven. Not only was it not a soap opera, it tended to be so plot driven that everyone's characters were reduced to archetypes.

Police Box Said: Fate Accelerated. Generic, rules-light game based on FATE. The main stats are: Careful, Clever, Flashy, Forceful, Quick, Sneaky. These not only describe how your character performs an action, but they also inform the character's personality.

That might be a better fit for Classic Who. I'm less clear on how it would all work.
Of course, in Classic Who the Doctor often WAS the one saving the day while the companions just stood around and got in trouble!

Police Box Said: Okay, so have you ever tried playing a 100-point character in a group with your friend's 500-point character?

Well I did play a Time Lord in a GURPS Dr Who-ish game. I was stranded on Earth in 1985 and working with military in a UNIT like fashion. In GURPS terms my Time Lord was about 200 points higher than all the human soldier PCs [there was just no way in GURPS to get the Time Lord's cost lower]. However my Time Lord was fresh out of the Academy and knew NOTHING of Earth culture or technology. While the human PCs were in their home time and country.
In actual game play this worked out pretty well. My 'fish out of water' disadvantage, and complete lack of combat skills [it was a fairly violent game] depowered the Time Lord enough that everyone as contributing in a meaningful way. However it did take a lot of role-playing effort on my part to ensure that [which I quite enjoyed].

Police Box Said: It's when the mechanics are finally engaged... the Doctor utterly out-shines the companions on every front. Which is not what we see on-screen.

The Story Points are meant to cover for that. They give a set of mechanics that [in theory] only the Companions have regular access to. But, as I've pointed out, you really need to take most if not all of the Doctor's Story Points away if you are going to use the TV Show companions [who often have lower point builds then beginner customs PCs in this system].

Escher Said: The Doctor Who game was also designed for everyone in mind, much younger gamers included, and nuanced inter-personal game mechanics for relationships won't be of interest to most younger players who want exciting adventures.

That's a good point too. I'm not sure if younger kids would really grasp Smallville's system, and they'd probably have some issues with Fate as well. I remember being completely lost on what Charisma and Intuition were for in the old FASA RPGs when I was in middle & high school.

This does lead to the following point: If the game was build with younger gamers in mind then it's perfectly appropriate for more experienced gamers to tweak and alter the system to better fit their view of the franchise. For example I rigorously enforce the Character Building / Story Points balance among the PCs. I also threw out and built a whole new damage system.

[Police Box]

Jul 1, 2015 8:44:56 GMT Escher said:

I don't see the slightest of problems with my statement and think it's wholly reasonable.

Consensus doesn't prove anything. There was consensus that the world was flat, but that didn't make it so. There was consensus that the sun was the center of the universe, but that didn't make it so. There is consensus that Twilight is a book worth reading, but that doesn't make it so. So what's wrong with your statement that 'general consensus proves' something, well... elementary logic. You just happen to agree with the consensus so you overlook the fallacy by ignoring the fact that shared opinion still doesn't make something's a fact.

You're welcome. I hope you get round to enjoying the game somehow.

That 'thank you' wasn't meant for you. It was meant for the other people who were properly helpful that didn't sink to personal insults.

Jul 1, 2015 18:14:22 GMT Marnal said:

The rest of the time its 'When the GM lets the player role-play a social interaction, EVERYBODY wins.'

By and large, simply role-playing works. I'm not saying anything against that. But at some point you have to recognise that your player has different capabilities in the real-world than the character they're playing in the game-world. The character has high social stats, but the player does not. Yet, by making them RP through the scene you're hindering the character they want to play. They put the points where they want to see action. If a player buys a lot of physical stuff for their character, they're telling the GM they want physical challenges. Lots of social stuff on the sheet, they want social challenges.

You don't require your players to stand up and run away as you physically throw things at them to represent a character in the game shooting at them do you? Nor do you require your players dodge punches from yourself or the other players to represent a physical altercation in the game do you? So why would you have the player simply role-play their way out of what otherwise would be a social conflict?

That sounds really cool. And I could see it working fairly well with the New Dr Who TV series. I'm not convinced it would work well with Classic Who. Classic who was plot driven, not character driven. Not only was it not a soap opera, it tended to be so plot driven that everyone's characters were reduced to archetypes.

None of those were 'Doctor Who should work like this' recommendations, rather they were examples that 'role-playing games can work by focusing the mechanics on other things than attributes and skills'.

The Story Points are meant to cover for that. They give a set of mechanics that [in theory] only the Companions have regular access to.

Two things. First, you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying, at all. You're talking about your house rules, I'm talking about the rules as written. Just take a moment to acknowledge how you describe the story points working is a set of house rules you use. That's only how the game works for you because you've changed the rules. What you're describing is clearly not the rules-as-written. Which is totally fine of course, but we're talking past each other here because I'm talking about the rules as written in the game, whilst you're talking about your house rules. Yes, your house rules would go some distance towards fixing the problems I have with the RAW, but that's not the same as saying there's nothing wrong with the RAW. Which seems to be a repeated part of your posts.

Second, in the rules as written story points are not some huge advantage to the companion. Again, most companions are maybe four SP ahead of the Doctor at the start of a given game session. But, since the Doctor has higher stats he can reasonably succeed on more rolls and therefore choose to fail to get more story points (with GM approval) whilst the companions cannot do the same because typically they need SP to succeed in the first place. Further, with those much higher stats, the Doctor can expect to withstand putting himself into many more inherently dangerous situations than the companions could even survive, all the while earning those precious story points for his trouble. So by the RAW, there's a huge problem, mechanically. Which is what I was trying to solve by coming here and asking. So thank you for the suggested house rules. 

Using RAW, I've run into problems with spotlight and dice rolls. You're suggesting making a series of house rules that have fixed the system for you. Thank you for the suggestion. But just recognise that your suggestion of house rules is tacit acknowledgement that the game doesn't work fine as written. You're acknowledging the game doesn't work fine as is which is why you've made those house rules.

So no, RAW story points aren't meant to cover the disparity between the Doctor and the companions... your house rules for story points are meant to cover the disparity between the Doctor and the companions. 

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2015 22:18:52 GMT Police Box said:

That 'thank you' wasn't meant for you. It was meant for the other people who were properly helpful that didn't sink to personal insults.

Personal attacks are in violation of forum rules. Police Box, quote the specific attacks and we shall take appropriate action.

[Escher]

Jul 1, 2015 22:18:52 GMT Police Box said:

It was meant for the other people who were properly helpful that didn't sink to personal insults.

Woah, I never made any personal attacks. Was it because I said your statement that the game is broken came across as pompous? I think my posts have been fair, honest and constructive. I've never attacked anyone on this forum, ever.

I was genuinely trying to be properly helpful and it was never my intention to offend you. I didn't realise I did.

Apologies.

[Marnal]

Police Box Said: "Yes, your house rules would go some distance towards fixing the problems I have with the RAW, but that's not the same as saying there's nothing wrong with the RAW."

At the risk of repeating myself I just posted:
"If the game was build with younger gamers in mind then it's perfectly appropriate for more experienced gamers to tweak and alter the system to better fit their view of the franchise. For example I rigorously enforce the Character Building / Story Points balance among the PCs. I also threw out and built a whole new damage system."

Here it is again in simpler terms:
Yes I think the rules need to be tweaked.
Why? Because it was built for younger gamers and I've been GMing every weekend for 23 years.
How? I think the total point value of all Player Characters needs to be the same [it isn't with most Doctor companion combos so you need to add and subtract SP]. And I think the Damage system needs to be totally replaced.