Let's Read - HackMaster 25th Anniversary Edition

[deaddmwalking]

In July of this year, KenzerCo launched a Kickstarter, and I had this to say:

I don't know if we have a general thread about Kickstarters, but if we didn't we do now, and if we did, now we have two.

KenzerCo (publishers of Knights of the Dinner Table) have released a Kickstarter for the 25th Anniversary Edition of Hackmaster.

The game describes itself as the original 'Old School Renaissance (OSR)' game, and since it came out early in the 3.x era, that seems likely. I've looked at Aces & Eights, their Western RPG, and I'm fairly certain that it shares a lot of DNA with Hackmaster, including the 'count-down' mechanic of partial initiative. In the comic, saying things like 'bouncing Betty's coming online in 3 counts' can be pretty dramatic. While the Gaming Den crew typically doesn't overlap with the OSR folks, I thought this was interesting enough to mention. Kenzer and Co are good people, so that may be reason enough to support this effort. For me, it'll be worth it for some review materials.

The campaign ran for 45 days, ending on September 10th. Now, a bit over a month later, we're starting to see a trickle of digital rewards. On the 15th the folks at Kenzer Co released their Alpha Version .001, billed as my gateway of Levels 1 thru 5. For those who don't know, HackMaster has long been the not-D&D played by the Knights of the Dinner Table, comic book characters that have been poking loving fun at gamers for more than 30 years and now for more than 300 issues of a (now bi-monthly) comic book.





D&D, at least prior to Critical Role, didn't seem to lend itself to dramatic stories, so Jolly Blackburn improvised and created more dramatic moments in the comic. Things like:




People enjoyed the descriptions, and Jolly and the team at Kenzer Co ended up codifying and playing HackMaster (or something very much like it) at their own table. These are definitely old-school gamers, who were familiar with multiple variations of what was nominally the same game and grew up with the assumption that the game would be incomplete and the GM would fill in as necessary - but in the comic, the game rules are treated as sacrosanct and all players faithfully abide by the minutia of the games. In the game, character deaths are frequent (conga-line of death) and making 'name level' is considered a major achievement.

This makes HackMaster a little difficult to categorize - it's like the Platypus of TTRPGs. There are features of lots of different things, and it's probably easy to find evidence that it is whatever you think it is. So for this review, we're setting aside preconceptions, we're reading a 225-page Alpha version 0.001, not to provide a comprehensive analysis of what's included, but to look at what the designers say they're aiming to do and look at the mechanics and try to judge them against those design goals.

Let's get started!

So, what is the design philosophy anyway?

In HackMaster, your characters don't begin as powerful warriors, masters of the arcane, or larger-than-life adventurers capable of wading through a dozen enemies without breaking a sweat. They start from humble beginnings, with limited options, plenty to learn, and a very real chance of getting in over their heads. That's the point.

The journey from commoner to renowned hero is one of the great pleasures of role-playing. You earn your victories. You learn from your mistakes. You discover what your player character (PC) can do and when it's time to let someone else take the lead. That first hard-won victory over a dangerous foe can mean a lot more when it wasn't all but guaranteed before the dice were even rolled.

Kenzer & Company has spent twenty-five years honing that philosophy through HackMaster, winning Game of the Year in 2001 and signaling to the world that old school gaming was thriving and ready again for popularity. HackMaster is a beacon of the old-school approach to role-playing: meaningful choices, tactical challenges, resourcefulness, teamwork and consequences that can't simply be brushed aside with raw power. We believe that the player should have a chance to outthink monsters, not just rely on their character's impressive powers to carry the day.

That philosophy extends beyond combat and character advancement. HackMaster is about exploring a world, not just flexing in it.

Whew! That's a lot (and there's a lot more in the Foreword), but I think that provides the gist. While HackMaster was the Origins Game of the Year in 2001, it was not the Best Role-Playing Game - that honor went to Adventure! by WhiteWolf. There was no Game of the Year award in 1999 or in 2000 when Dungeons and Dragons won RPG of the year. There was no Game of the Year award in 2004 (but there was in 2005). After HackMaster, MechWarrior and HeroClix won in the following years. I don't mean to demean the prestige of the award - simply to provide some context. I don't know how a game is considered for Game of the Year and if that automatically removes it from consideration in the category it represents. But it does mean I'll try to review ADVENTURE! if I haven't already...

When we take a look next time we'll be in the Introduction, looking at 15 ways the designers identify that HackMaster is different than other games... At the same time, I'm looking for ways that it is meaningfully different than the 2001 version. If any.

From the Kickstarter Campaign:

The newest edition of HackMaster (HM XXV) seeks to expand on and enhance several areas of gameplay from past editions:

-Better balancing of core abilities (Con, Int, Cha improved and better aligned), as well as species and classes
-Skills revamped (all rolls are now competing, high is always the target, streamlined list)
-Tons of new talents and modifications to the originals
-Proficiencies expanded (many skills have become proficiencies, new specializations available such as shield and weapon types)
-Unarmed Combat and Fatigue both overhauled
-Combat has certain modified rules (e.g., ties go to the attacker half of the time, armor coverage makes it more difficult to be stung and bitten)
-New spells and spell lists as well as tweaks to, and re-leveling of, some of the classics in addition to a retooling of spell mishaps
-Completely new social engagement rules
-Revamped Quirks and Flaws and two new categories (Imperfections and Idiosyncrasies) for improved roleplaying opps -- even Paladins can have them!
-New magic items, new special items charts, and MORE LOOT!

This read-through will probably not have daily updates. I have a few other more pressing matters, but when I manage to take a break from real responsibilities, this will be what I try to spend some time with. Hope this ends up being as fun for you as it is for me!

[deaddmwalking]

Just taking a closer look at the planned improvements.

-Better balancing of core abilities (Con, Int, Cha improved and better aligned), as well as species and classes

The game makes a major point about how 'average' abilities are playable, and a player's choices matter more than having high attributes. In a very real sense, I have no idea what they mean by balance in this case. If a 10 or an 18 are equally playable, than does it matter whether some races have a higher ability? If they are not, then don't attributes matter? Maybe player choices have some impact, but it feels disingenuous to

-Skills revamped (all rolls are now competing, high is always the target, streamlined list)

In general, I think consistency is good. Having roll under for some skills and roll high for others is needlessly confusing. Competing skills like stealth/perception are probably straightforward, but what about jump/athletics? Maybe those are not skills, and are now proficiencies?

-Proficiencies expanded (many skills have become proficiencies, new specializations available such as shield and weapon types)

I'm curious to delve into this further. I know that HackMaster uses Building Points (BP) rather than character level, and I suspect that it is very easy to get lost in whether to buy more 'basic proficiencies' or advance others. I don't have a problem with complexity, but I think it is important to recognize that it responds to optimization. If one player spends a lot of time analyzing options and crunching the numbers, they can be significantly more powerful than other players. In a cooperative game that might not matter, but it's definitely something I'm watching for. Nobody I game with has hundreds of hours to spend outside of our actual game sessions for character planning.

-Unarmed Combat and Fatigue both overhauled

Also worth looking at. Often simpler is better, so I don't object to anything here on principle. What I would really like to see is an explanation of what wasn't working and why the changes were made - if you can't identify what the original problems were, why would you expect your changes to fix the problem? Presumably you didn't design a system you thought wouldn't work on purpose, so when improving a system, you should be able to say what didn't work and why this should be an improvement.

-Combat has certain modified rules (e.g., ties go to the attacker half of the time, armor coverage makes it more difficult to be stung and bitten)

The system proudly says armor makes you easier to hit, but it absorbs damage. Within that paradigm, it probably makes sense that it protects you from bees and scorpions. I have thoughts about whether the armor system is as realistic as they claim (or if that's even worthy of consideration). More on that soon! I generally prefer a single simple rule that applies universally, rather than having an additional roll to decide which way something works today. How often are there ties? If you have to roll again anyway, why not just do a roll-off (re-roll the original opposed check). Nothing about randomly determining who wins the tie sits right with me.

-New spells and spell lists as well as tweaks to, and re-leveling of, some of the classics in addition to a retooling of spell mishaps

In the comic there are crazy specific cantrips, like a spell that makes you urgently need to use the bathroom. Perfect for getting a guard to turn away from their duties to take care of their doodies. This is only low-level, but so much of what is possible in a game comes from spell lists, so I'll definitely be looking at this - but if they don't tell me what changed and why I don't know that I'd spot the differences.

-Completely new social engagement rules

Social rules are, in my opinion, the hardest to write. I am definitely a curious spectator here, and I'll look at any rules they provide in detail. Get your popcorn ready.

-Revamped Quirks and Flaws and two new categories (Imperfections and Idiosyncrasies) for improved roleplaying opps -- even Paladins can have them!

Making more categories of the same thing sounds pretty redundant. Why couldn't Paladins have quirks before? I expect that I am going to wish that they were all in a single category and everyone had access, even though I KNOW that it is all about point-whoring to pick up a deficiency you think will never come up to qualify for some 'kewl-combo'. Well, at least in the comic. I have major concerns here. Even if it is true to the comic inspiration, this game is supposed to be fun and playable, not just an extended meta-joke about the game the Knights play.

-New magic items, new special items charts, and MORE LOOT!

Nothing wrong with that. Though I strongly believe that all magic systems should have a consistent metaphysics that determines both what is and isn't possible. The 2nd edition tradition that this draws from was pretty loose with 'a mad wizard did it, but no, of course you can't'. From my perspective, that is extremely unsatisfying. If something is possible for NPCs, it should be possible for PCs (even if it isn't PRACTICAL).

But that leads me to something I wanted to say. The release of Pathfinder as a reaction against D&D 4th edition is pretty well understood. Keeping in mind that D&D 3.0 was released in 2000 and this was released in 2001, this feels to me like the same thing, but with 2nd edition rules - essentially a refusal to move on with the general gaming community and double-down on what were recognized as being some byzantine rules. Kenzer also released an officially licensed D&D setting in 3.x (Kingdoms of Kalamar). It sounds like there were some legal wrangling about electronic rights to KoDT/Dragon, but ultimately Kalamar transitioned to HackMaster.

Next up, looking at the introduction and the 'unique elements' of this game.

[deaddmwalking]

Continuing with establishing our judging criteria, the introduction has a lot to say.

At this point, a fair warning is probably in order. HackMaster was born out of the desire to fix the shortcomings of slow-moving turn-based games and provide players with more (sometimes brutally) authentic experience that they did not even realize they were missing! Many other games are written using the easy way out; they hand wave around time, physics and real world dynamics at the cost of engagement and verisimilitude.

There are definitely constructs borne of the game conventions, like the ability to accelerate objects to relativistic speeds by enough people holding an action to pass an object between them, that defy physics. But those are outliers. What could be more of an issue is when a single character makes 3 attacks before their opponent can make one, when presumably they're moving at the same speed. Having the character with more attacks make their first attack followed by the second character's attack, followed by the other two attacks probably seems more fair and/or realistic. So putting every action on a timer from initiation to resolution isn't inherently bad. But turns exist in part to streamline action resolution. Potentially things take more time to resolve because you have characters declaring aspects of their 'turn' more often, rather than condensing it into a single block. On the other hand, no action feels like it uses up your entire action economy. Pulling a potion for 2 counts and drinking it for 2 counts may be the same as swinging a sword for 4 counts, but you're never waiting for a whole cycle of actions before you can declare again. We're going to talk about this more later, because this is probably the single biggest difference from standard D&D impacting the game feel. It is also the second unique feature they identify: "you needn't ever wait for your turn - the whole game is based on the Count Up system, in real time increments....lean in and be part of every second of action."

The first claimed difference is that HackMaster (incidentally sometimes spelled Hackmaster in the book) is a game about the hero's journey - instead of larger-than-life characters that become larger-than-life-characters.

Ultimately, that's a decision that groups can decide, and there's no reason that players should have to begin as rat-catchers and never start as wizards. Zero-to-Hero can be a fun game, but it's not the ONLY game. There are elements of wish-fulfillment, and beating up on some goblins and then advancing to the point of beating up on some storm giants FEELs like advancement, provided that goblins stop being a challenge. Here, they're not supposed to. For the moment, I'm going to just say that supporting a level of play where housecats are fearsome foes isn't inherently bad, but choosing to play 'experienced adventurers' instead isn't a moral failing, and always starting from the basement doesn't make you superior in any form or fashion.

Shields and armor make it easier for foes to hit your character - they simply absorb damage and deflect blows, making your character more likely to be hit but less likely to be injured. Just like in real life!

I don't find that argument convincing. Armor that deflects a blow is preventing a hit, and a deflected hit should have no chance of dealing damage. It's not impossible that a blow against a shield could break your arm, but its pretty much impossible that it would pierce your heart. I think there are valid design reasons you can choose this paradigm, but I don't think 'realism' is much of a justification. I'm sure I'll have more to say on this later because I know it comes up in some other forms, too. Moving on...

Characters use an active defense (and roll to defend as well as attack)

This sounds like the Unearthed Arcana variant; instead of AC being 10 + a bunch of stuff, it could be 1d20 + a bunch of stuff. It definitely means more die rolling. You can't trust that a 17 that was a hit will be a hit the next time you attack, so it requires a higher cognitive load. Adding more steps and more difficulties for players to calculate has some significant trade-offs, so I definitely consider this suspect.

Going first and fastest is not always best

Charging in alone can be a problem in any system.

Being surrounded or even outnumbered is a very bad thing. Taking on multiple foes, even if far inferior to your character, can be bad news.

This is another aspect that I view with deep suspicion. Stories about how your high-level character was killed by a pack of wolves don't sound very exciting to me. Basically increasing randomness is mostly bad for the PCs. If you have a roll that 20/20/20 (1 in 8000) is an auto-kill, PCs may see it against generic orc #92 but probably won't see it against Smaug. The thing is, PCs are going to face a lot of generic orcs. I'm withholding judgement, but with so much of encounter design beyond a player's ability to manage, even with smart play, this type of mentality comes with major risks for many play styles.

Ranged weapons don't work quite as well in real-life (or for low level/inexperienced characters) as they do in most recent RPGs. Frankly, I'd rather be shot in the chest with an arrow from a bow than hacked in the chest with a broad sword if forced to make that choice. Think about it.

Yeah, I'm going to mostly disagree. Both can be deadly. Arrows have penetrating power. Even a jerkin of leather is likely to protect you from a single-hand slash in a melee if you're not helpless and the opponent can't carefully prepare the blow. In most cases, I think I'd choose the slash over the arrow, but I can see how it would be the subject of debate. I don't think there's a clear answer and coming down hard on one over the other 'for the sake of realism' doesn't make any sense at all. Now, from a GAME DESIGN perspective, I think there are some compelling reasons that you might want melee to be 'the default option' and not have ranged combat be much of a thing. When two melee characters engage each other, they're risking taking damage. When an archer hides in a tree and starts sniping people from 300+ yards away, he isn't taking a physical risk in the same way. For a game that wants to encourage 'smart play', making ranged combat too good makes the game boring and repetitive where everyone always tries to use ambush tactics. Horse Archers were actually really effective, but if you want infantry clashes with halberds, you can justify not allowing it... not because of realism but because you want to encourage the type of combat that fires your imagination. Setting realism aside (and that's mostly a good thing with 20-ton flying dinosaurs) this is a game, and making some concessions to that is absolutely necessary.

The game is team based, and every class has a role

I'll be looking at the classes, of course, but it sounds pretty limiting.

Min-maxing won't save you if you don't play smart and an average character (10-11 ability score) is playable

I've mentioned some questions about 'balance' when player intelligence is supposed to matter instead.

Intelligence increases your chances to hit an enemy - that's why the stupid giant can be defeated by the clever warrior.

I think there are other reasons that could be explained. But again, justifiable... We'll withhold judgement until we read more.

The last thing the designers want to stress is that they PLAY this game and they LOVE this game. So that's something.

[deaddmwalking]

Character Creation

Characters have 8 attributes, and you're expected to roll 3d6 for each. In addition to the raw ability score (ie 10) you also roll a percentile die that represents how close you are to advancing your attribute. For example, a 10.45 takes more investment to raise to an 11 than a 10.95. In addition to rolled ability scores, you get 100 BP and they can be used to purchase higher ability scores in addition to additional skills. Raising an attribute below 16 gives you +0.05 for each BP, and +0.03 for an attribute of 16 or higher. Thus, if you had a 15.00, you could spend 20 BP to raise it to a 16.

What that also means is that a player with a character with 10s in every attribute is effectively starting out 640 BP lower than a character with 14s in every attribute. In the KoDT comic books, the players would generate hundreds of characters in order to create one that was exceptional. Officially, by the book, you can't do that. Every character has to be played for a full session before replacing him with another character. If a character has all scores below 13 or two scores of 5 or lower you get an exception and can retire the character immediately.

Right off the bat, I don't think it's a good idea to mix that type of randomness with a building system. Presumably, there are all kinds of people in the world, and as a player you could want to play either the village blacksmith apprentice or the village idiot. If you want to play the apprentice blacksmith and your rolls don't support you, you can't play what you want. Now it's totally possible that you can have fun playing something that isn't what you want, and maybe even more fun than you expect. But it's not for everyone. And if you're forced to play the village idiot while everyone else has significantly better characters based on 'BP costs', even playing smart you're on 'hard mode' relative to your friends. But more importantly, within the context of the game, why would the other PCs choose to let the Village Idiot join their team when they can just say no and try to recruit someone better?

If the players had an attribute array or bought attributes, they'd all start on a level-playing field, and only system mastery would matter. Basically there is no compelling reason to do random attributes except it appears clear to me that the people playing this think that it is more fun that way.

Ability Scores

There are 8 ability scores; Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Looks, Charisma, and Honor. That's the standard D&D six, plus Looks and Honor. I'm going to talk about the new attributes before I talk about the ones we're all familiar with, but before I do that, I have to talk about standardization of scores, or rather, non-standardization.

In 3.x, if you had an 18 in STR, it gave you a +4 to attack/damage. If you had an 18 Dexterity, it gave you a +4 to AC/Initiative. With this, everything is a Table Lookup, and an 18 might provide a +4 to one thing, a -3 to another, and a +5 to a 3rd. This is not an exaggeration - those are the real values for Dexterity 18.50 (Attack Modifier +4, Initiative Modifier -3, Defense Modifier +5).

In AD&D, prior to 3rd edition, that was basically how attributes worked. Each thing that might be impacted was on its own schedule and the break points appeared rather random. Strength was the big one, and if you had an 18, you could also have an exception Strength like 18/93 and there were real differences between an 18/99 and an 18/00.

So basically every attribute impacts things, and you're never going to be able to say 'an 18 is a +4' because sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't and it depends on the Attribute.

Looks

It sounds puerile having a looks attribute. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. I might think that nymphs are good lookers, I know there are people that prefer a bulky muscle-bound female orc. I know because they keep sharing memes and pics with me. That, alone, would be reason to ditch it, but it gets stupider the more you look at it. Elves get a +2 to Looks; Dwarves get a -2 to Looks. That means that Dwarves think that Elves are more attractive looking than other Dwarves.




The Dragon has a Looks of 18


Okay, but so what. You write a number on your sheet and it either says you're beautiful or ugly, but does that matter? Well yes, it does. You see, if you have an 18 in Looks, you get a +4 to your Charisma and a +4 to your Honor. Do you think that Elves are more honorable than Dwarves? Do you think that Dwarves automatically view Elves as more honorable by default? Do Dwarves even have standards of beauty for hobgoblins?

Like it or not, physical beauty affects how people are viewed by society.

I don't disagree with that statement, but what society and what standards they judge by matter an awful lot, and even if you're shooting for a consistent standard, the use of beauty products matters more than 'natural looks' in most cases, anyway.

Setting all of that aside, imagine that you rolled a character with a 12 in Looks, Charisma, and Honor. You decide that Honor is the most important thing, so you spend 80 BP and bump it 4 points to a 16, leaving you 20 BP to spend on something else. Your friend with better system mastery spends those 80 BP to bump Looks to a 16, raising their Charisma to a 14 and their Honor to a 15 for the same points cost. But it gets better! You see, Charisma also modifies Honor, and having a 14 in Charisma gives you an additional +2 Honor. So now he has a 17 Honor (1 point higher) for the same cost, and picked up Looks and Charisma effectively for free.

Honor is not described in the attribute section. There are a number of formatting issues with the Alpha version, so it may get an overview later, but I presume that how Honor matters gets covered more later.

Strength includes a Damage Modifier and a separate modifier for a 'Feat of Strength'. The modifier breaks are every .50, so this table has more than 30 entries (3.00, 3.50, 4.00 etc). An 18.50 gives you a +5 to damage and a +14 to 'feat of strength'. I can see how a more significant modifier to a d20 roll matters in this case. In 3.x, a character with an 18 STR in an arm-wrestling contest with a STR 10 character has an advantage, but not as much as is perhaps appropriate, winning 66% of the time. With a +14, as in HackMaster, they win 95% of the time.

Intelligence modifies attack (high intelligence gives you a bonus). Wisdom modifies Initiative and Defense. A high wisdom gives you a negative to your Initiative, but since that modifies how long an action takes, that's a benefit. You might expect that an 'average' wisdom wouldn't modify your Initiative at all, but that's not the case. If you have a 10, you have a +2 (meaning any action you declare takes 2 extra counts to resolve). You need a 15+ to avoid any negative impact to Initiative.

Dexterity modifies Initiative, attack, and defense. If you have an 'average' Dexterity, you will have modifiers for something. If you have a 10, you have a +1 Initiative (a penalty) but no adjustment to attack or defense.

If you had a single 15, and you wanted to be good at combat, you might reasonably ask where you should be the score. If you put it in STR you would get a +2 to damage, but no benefit to hit. If you put it in Intelligence, you would get a +3 to hit. If you put it in Wisdom, you would get a +2 to Defense (and no modifier to Initiative). If you put it in Dexterity, you would get a -1 (bonus) to Initiative, a +2 to Attack modifier, and a +3 to Defense. Do I buy that Intelligence matters more for connecting with a baseball than Dexterity? No, I don't. Could I accept that from a game balance perspective, Intelligence needed a little more oomph relative to Dexterity to make it 'equal'? Sure. But did they?

In the 2012 print I'm looking at a 15 INT gave you a +2 Attack modifier (rather than +3), and 10 extra BPs. In the 2012 version, Dexterity had the same attribute adjustments, but also had a 'dodge saving throw modifier' and a 'feat of agility' bonus that was more akin with what Strength lists; those seem to be gone, now. Making INT a tiny, itsy-bitsy bit better and making Dexterity a little worse by removing some extra benefits could be balancing them, but I'm skeptical.

Since Honor isn't covered here (even though it says it will be), the last one is Charisma. Charisma includes an Honor Modifier as previously mentioned, but also has a Turning Modifier (meaningful only for clerics turning undead) and a Morale Modifier.

From my perspective I think that they could make Attributes easier to understand and apply. Moving numbers from one side of an equation to another is the easiest thing. If the 'average' attack bonus is +0 and the 'average' defense bonus is +0, it doesn't really matter if you make them both +5 or +10 or -5 or -10 - the important thing is that they're balanced against each other. Given that, there's good reason to make a 10 always a +0. Personally, I don't really care for penalties (I just don't like them from a psychological perspective). If most people have a +5 and you have a +1, that's the same as if most people have a +3 and you have a -1, but it doesn't feel the same. Having larger bonuses does mean that players are adding slightly larger numbers to their d20, but since adding is usually easier than subtracting, I don't really care.

I do think the 'feat of strength' modifier being different than the damage modifier is something that D&D could have benefitted from. Perhaps you think that the stronger person should always win against the weaker person when arm-wrestling, but I can see a situation where the stronger person wasn't quite ready, or distracted, or pulled a muscle just as they were starting. So I can see a benefit for having it impacted by random chance, but not to the degree that 3.x does by default.

So let's look at an 'average' character with all 10s versus a 'chiseled like a Greek-God' all 18s.

Average: Damage Modifier +0, Feat of Strength +0, Attack Modifier +0, Initiative Modifier +3, Defense Modifier +0, Morale +0, Turning +0, Honor +0
Super: Damage Modifier +4, Feat of Strength +13, Attack Modifier +6, Initiative Modifier -4, Defense Modifier +8, CHA +4, Morale +4*, Turning +8*, Honor +8*
*The highest listed Charisma is 18, with the +4 from looks, actual CHA should be 22, so these could be higher.

Swinging a Longsword takes 10 counts. Our 'average' character has a +3 Initiative, so it takes him 13 counts. Our 'super' character has a -4, so it takes him 6 counts. There is minimum speed (3) for a longsword, so even if we had a -10 initiative it would be a 3 rather than 0. At least, that's how I think it works, not having gone over combat rules.

I understand that with fair dice, nobody is going to roll all 18s, and most characters are going to have a variety of ability scores, but I think as a thought exercise it's pretty clear that there are potentially big starting differences between characters.