GC character requirements. Ok or not?

[Sletchman]

For my spycraft game, that borrows from alot of different ideas, the back story is that certain chemical mixtures awaken [allow access to] the spellcasting classes.  Now that you know that onto the actual questions:

The agency the players work for have hiring requirements, these are [all minimums]:
4 Ranks in Drive - Proficiency with Heavy Ground vehicles.
4 Ranks in Medicine
4 Ranks Resolve
Rifle Proficiency

At least one agent must have reasonable skill levels in [more can of course]:
Computers
Electronics
Mechanics
Medicine
Security
Survival
Tactics


The reasoning behind these is that the agency teaches a quick and dirty interrogation resistance class, as well as not wanting total cowards under fire.  They also utilise a SWAT like truck [hence the drive requirements] and need all agents to have a minimum proficiency with it in case of unexpected suitations.  The majority of the missions have standard gear bundles [gear is similiar to SWAT team gear].  The standard gun of the agency is the H&K G36, and they require all field operatives to pass a standard marksmanship test.  Finally they build their team's to be able to take on all challenges in the field.  Medicine is listed twice due to all field agents taking a basic first aid course, and one being required to be a qualified field Medic.

The second requirement is that if the players want to be Awakened [Spellbound classes] they require a Speciality.  That speciality in effect gives them the High Magic campaign quality, in addition to its other benefits.  The reasoning behind this ruling is mostly campaign backstory based [representing its restricted nature] and it drives home the fact that spellbound characters are basically test subjects.

Characters will start at 6th level, and I'm expecting 6 players [but usually end up with 8+].

So what I'm asking is: Are the requirements to harsh?  One of my players seems to think so - in his words "You may as well just make us all characters instead of letting us make our own."  I didn't think they were that bad, but maybe I need some perspective.

Also if anyone wants I can post the campaign world backstory so you have a bit more detail on the world setting.  Sorry if that was too long and babbling.

[MilitiaJim]

In general I don't think that requirements are a good idea.  Of course given the background of the agency this may be reasonable.

That said, starting at sixth level, I can't see why these won't be taken anyway.  Maybe offer the first four ranks of the essentials as class skills for all, or just give everyone those dozen skill points?

[Sletchman]

In general I don't think that requirements are a good idea.  Of course given the background of the agency this may be reasonable.

That said, starting at sixth level, I can't see why these won't be taken anyway.  Maybe offer the first four ranks of the essentials as class skills for all, or just give everyone those dozen skill points?

Actually thats something I didn't mention - I also said everyone could buy them at 1pt for 1pt, even if its not a class skill [just for the first 4pts].

[Psion]

For 6th level, that seems pretty reasonable. Requirements that define too much of the character can be a hassle, but I don't see that here.

[Golden Dragon]

Actually thats something I didn't mention - I also said everyone could buy them at 1pt for 1pt, even if its not a class skill [just for the first 4pts].

That solves my first objection as a player.

As for requiring a particular specialty for spellcasters, I can't help the analogy to GURPS Unusual Background, which could require sinking 60 pts into it just for access to rare abilities. I have no problem with it.

And asking them to make sure the skill list is covered strikes me as good team design.

If your player wants a pre-generated character, give him one.  As a player, I see your requirements as mild and rational.

[MugMug]

So what I'm asking is: Are the requirements to harsh?  One of my players seems to think so - in his words "You may as well just make us all characters instead of letting us make our own."  I didn't think they were that bad, but maybe I need some perspective.

Campaign requirements, in whatever form they take (e.g. skill requirements; snack rotation; whatever), are part of the social contract between you and your players. Every one of us could tell you these are reasonable, but if they prevent your players from having fun your game will not work.

If your players have a real issue with this, think about dropping the rank requirement to 1 in each of the skills on the primary list. There is a substantial difference in Spycraft between untrained and trained with 1 rank. This would reequire everyone be able to drive the bus, tie a tourniquet, and not fold at the first sign of adversity (really, just how useful is a "quick and dirty" interrogation resistance course?).

Leave Medicine on the secondary skill list, and add Drive. That way someone will still be the combat medic and someone the primary driver, though anyone could do either in a pinch.

Walter

[Desertpuma]

Given that they are going to be starting at 6th level, those are not tough requirements at all. Your player who has an issue with it may have a very strict idea of what he wants to create for the game like the sniper who never misses a shot and he feels taking some ranks in those other skills will diminish his character.

I used to run a game where I required weapon proficiency in Unarmed and Handgun with ranks in Athletics (for Swimming), Profession, Drive, Medicine (for first aid), and Resolve. As long as they had 10 ranks spread across those skills they would meet the requirements. They could be flush on a couple of skills and only have 1 rank in others but they had to have at least one rank in each. They were also starting at 3rd level.

[spinningdice]

I wouldn't have an issue with it. If I was running I'd probably change the requirements to 1 rank, but allow them to take the skills as class skills up to rank 4 (in most groups I've been in that would result in nearly everybody ranking them to 4 anyway - thinking they're getting something for free).
If you're expecting 6 characters just let them all pick 1 skill off the secondary list that they have to max. out at starting. I can't see most people having issues with that.

The Awakened speciality shouldn't be a problem, as long as that's not all it does. Probably model it somewhat off test subject.

[Sletchman]

I wouldn't have an issue with it. If I was running I'd probably change the requirements to 1 rank, but allow them to take the skills as class skills up to rank 4 (in most groups I've been in that would result in nearly everybody ranking them to 4 anyway - thinking they're getting something for free).
If you're expecting 6 characters just let them all pick 1 skill off the secondary list that they have to max. out at starting. I can't see most people having issues with that.

I'll go with this.  Personally I couldn't see why a 6th level field operative wouldn't have some drive resolve and medicine anyway, but you never know.  Like you said they might think they're getting something for nothing and take 4 ranks anyway.

The Awakened speciality shouldn't be a problem, as long as that's not all it does. Probably model it somewhat off test subject.

As for requiring a particular specialty for spellcasters, I can't help the analogy to GURPS Unusual Background, which could require sinking 60 pts into it just for access to rare abilities. I have no problem with it.

Actually the idea came from a combination of seeing Unusual Background in GURPS, and the idea that they are a test subject.  The speciality itself will be somewhat based off test subject, and offer more then just class access [I want to keep the option competitive with other options under its own merits].  I'll post it up when I'm finished so you guys can check it out.

[Gentry]

For what it's worth, you could just as easily let such requirements slide (at the outset, at least.  Read on...).

Flavor-wise, there's nothing says I can't take a quick and dirty interrogation resistance course, and then forget everything I've learned, out of laziness, arrogance, or other character flaws/affectations.  Ditto for nearly any other "requirement" the agency lays on me. 

However, should a situation arise where I, the agent, am called on to *use* a skill I'm supposed to have trained in, and I totally blow it, there's every reason I should get hit with a Reputation loss.  If I can't be counted on to know the basics required of me, what the hell good am I?

It could even be a temporary Rep loss, contingent on me "re-qualifying" (i.e. actually putting the freaking points in the skill). 

[Sletchman]

For what it's worth, you could just as easily let such requirements slide (at the outset, at least.  Read on...).

Flavor-wise, there's nothing says I can't take a quick and dirty interrogation resistance course, and then forget everything I've learned, out of laziness, arrogance, or other character flaws/affectations.  Ditto for nearly any other "requirement" the agency lays on me. 

However, should a situation arise where I, the agent, am called on to *use* a skill I'm supposed to have trained in, and I totally blow it, there's every reason I should get hit with a Reputation loss.  If I can't be counted on to know the basics required of me, what the hell good am I?

It could even be a temporary Rep loss, contingent on me "re-qualifying" (i.e. actually putting the freaking points in the skill). 

Thats an extremely good idea, I'm gonna use that actually.  I'll tell the players thats what the agency wants of them, and that if they don't take them there are associated rep penalties if its proven they can't use what they have apparently trained in.  Thanks mate, much appreciated.

[spinningdice]

As another alternative, if they don't take it give them a mission package of skill training resources.