Mutants and Masterminds

[oracle]

I was wondering what people's opinion of Mutants and Masterminds was.

[Nato]

Oh God, not another one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:)

Actually, you can just do a search for this topic and see that it's been discussed quite a bit already.

[Tclynch]

It's awesome. Go out and buy it now! :D

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Shadow Stalker
I love Hero but it takes time and a lot of math. With math learning disorder, Hero can be a pain to do in a hurry. M&M and SAS uses basic math: + and -. Buy both...NOW!
Or just buy HERO Designer and never do math again. :)

[Nato]

Here, here!

I actually forgot how much number crunching you have to do when buying advantages and limitations. It's not hard, but takes a while. Thanks got for that program.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Shadow Stalker
I recommend it and Silver Age Sentinels Buy both...NOW!
And you have even more stuff that you can use in your Champions game. I loved roll call and have already converted 4 or 5 SAS and M&M in champions. Heh. I love all the nifty supers stuff out there now.

[Jeff T.]

Originally posted by Monolith
Or just buy HERO Designer and never do math again. :)

Hah! Good one. This is funny because I posted the same thing on the M&M boards when someone was complaining about HERO and how long it takes to make Champions characters. :cool:

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Shadow Stalker
That and Hero is not as popular as it was when Chapions 4th was around.
Not to be disagreable here, but the HERO System is currently in its hayday here. This is basically the first time in the company's 22+ year history that the company has actually been profitable. So while Champions might not be as popular where you live, the game is just as popular now as it has been in the past overall.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Monolith
Not to be disagreable here, but the HERO System is currently in its hayday here. This is basically the first time in the company's 22+ year history that the company has actually been profitable. So while Champions might not be as popular where you live, the game is just as popular now as it has been in the past overall.

Are you sure that's true, I mean re popularity, not profitability? I wonder if there's anything to back that up. A number of people have drifted out of the hobby or into other systems, while it seems there are fewer newcomers to HERO now than a long time ago. Just because the company is making money doesn't mean there's more, or even the same number, of players. Right now HERO is stabilizing back to its level in line with product offerings and its long-loyal following. People are ready to buy the books, and it is possible that the HERO base is simply more affluent than it once was. And it appears that HERO is running more efficiently.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by zornwil
Are you sure that's true, I mean re popularity, not profitability? I wonder if there's anything to back that up.
I do not believe that anyone can back that up. Not even the folks at DOJ have any clear indication of what past volumes were for the other companies who published under the Hero Games banner. Only DOJ knows how many current copies of books are sold, but they do seem to be pleased so far. And while there are fans who will drift in and out of the system, the existing fanbase was much larger than anyone at DOJ expected (which is why FREd is now into a 4th printing).

If the HERO System is "popular" enough to be profitable then ultimately that is all which matters. I believe that DOJ stands in the top 5 non-d20 RPG companies; and that is saying a lot.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Shadow Stalker
I run a M&M campaign and players treat me like a demi-god since no one else has time to run it. Would prefer to run Hero but right now no one is really into it.
Well, since no one else has time to run M&M but you, if you stop running M&M and start running Champions the players have no choice but to play, do they? :)

[tesuji]

Having played/Gmed HERO for two decades thru four editions (2nd-5th) I switched to MnM very quickly after picking it up and love it.

To each his own but in MnM I am getting much more focus on character issues including background and friends and family than I ever got in HERO where the focus seemed much more on the character points, even with the exact same people playing.

*****************************

MnM puts a larger emphasis on RUN TIME DECISIONS whereas HERO puts s much bigger emphasis on DESIGN TIME decisions.

HERo focuses much more on buying ahead of time the exact things you want your character to be able to do (as well as what you want to have done to him) and to not expect anything more or less than that. (There is the new power skill but it is little defined and weak in scope... tho it is a good beginning.)

MnM allows you to build simpler characters with many more options to expand or creatively use their abilities in combat.

The main thrust of this is simple... in MnM you build a character easily and so there is not a learning curve as steep where you have to think of everything you want to do. Then, IN PLAY, you can play simply or be more creative as you gain practical IN PLAY experience.

In HERO, the main thrust of "experienced players" vs "inexperienced players" was not on how well they used tactical options but how well they worked the system in character creation to get more bang for the buck.

I much prefer the "experience" being reflected in in combat choices than in squeezing character design processes to get effectively more points than the newer players.
*************************

Finally, MnM combat is much more dynamic. The basic presumption is not that most every character is a wall for 1-2 hits in that all they expect to happen for the first couple of hits is a bookkeeping assault on the player forcing him to mark off some stuff but otherwise not affecting the character's performance or options. In MnM you can be knocked out on the first shot, stunned or missed. In MnM a petrification attack is a real danger right away not after 3-4 cumulative hits. In MnM if you do not have any points spent on mental defenses, you SHOULD worry about the effects of a mental blast... just as if you had no energy defenses and were being shot at by a lightning bolt. By comparison, in HERo, an ego attack at your expected DC will only do about the same amount if it meets NO DEFENSES as your lightning bolt would if it met "typical standard superhero defenses" so its not necessary or even particularly worrisome to just ignore mental defense against this at all. HERO makes "bash 'em upside duh head" the most reasonable answer.

I like the diversity I get in MnM better.

In the two decades of HERO gaming, I never heard during character generation a player say "just like in the comics" but i heard that in three out of four players using MnM... the same people, mind you.

[JohnOSpencer]

Originally posted by zornwil
Are you sure that's true, I mean re popularity, not profitability? I wonder if there's anything to back that up. A number of people have drifted out of the hobby or into other systems, while it seems there are fewer newcomers to HERO now than a long time ago. Just because the company is making money doesn't mean there's more, or even the same number, of players. Right now HERO is stabilizing back to its level in line with product offerings and its long-loyal following. People are ready to buy the books, and it is possible that the HERO base is simply more affluent than it once was. And it appears that HERO is running more efficiently.

My group of seven consists of two people who played before FRED and 5 who just started 'cause I was running the game. These guys were all just looking for any roleplaying and now they love Hero. While this may not be typical it has to happen at other places too.

John Spencer

[JohnOSpencer]

Originally posted by tesuji
Having played/Gmed HERO for two decades thru four editions (2nd-5th) I switched to MnM very quickly after picking it up and love it.

To each his own but in MnM I am getting much more focus on character issues including background and friends and family than I ever got in HERO where the focus seemed much more on the character points, even with the exact same people playing.
<SNIP>
Finally, MnM combat is much more dynamic. The basic presumption is not that most every character is a wall for 1-2 hits in that all they expect to happen for the first couple of hits is a bookkeeping assault on the player forcing him to mark off some stuff but otherwise not affecting the character's performance or options. In MnM you can be knocked out on the first shot, stunned or missed.

While M&M sounds good, I have some issues. First, about character background, I find it hard to belive that just because you are playing M&M you get more background. You can make as much background as you want, it is up to the GM to use it all. Second, how often do you see comic book heroes knocked out in one hit? Almost never, except as a plot device. While I still may buy it, I would never play a game where I can be KO'd in one hit, had that happen in D&D for three sessions in a row and that is not fun.


John Spencer

[Storn]

Originally posted by JohnOSpencer
Second, how often do you see comic book heroes knocked out in one hit?
John Spencer

uh... all the time? How many group books I've I read where Gladiator sucker punches Colossus into dreamtime. Or Cyclops is brought down by the Toad. HOw many times have I seen Spidey's spider sense tingle, and a big shadow of a fist on his face in the panel. Next panel, spidey is flying into a wall, crumpling. Or the famous "ONE PUNCH!" of Batman vs. Guy Gardner! Heck, I've seen Spidey get shot by a thug with a .38!!! (disabled result). I feel that your arguement is not well thought out. Every action and situation in a comic is a plot driven device. Writers aren't rolling dice and calling up their artists and telling them what the outcome is...

Superpower RPG combat has to take that result into account as well as Superman vs. Doomsday... all day brou-ha-ha-ha. I think M&M does this brilliantly.

Champions combat reminds me of Battletech (not that this is wrong, just different). 5 on 5. Take 2 of your biggest guns and train them on one of theirs, try to make it 5 on 4... then you have a big advantage. Of course, the other side is trying to do the same to you. Being a wargamer and an avid superhero fan, Champions combat appeals to me greatly.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Storn
uh... all the time? How many group books I've I read where Gladiator sucker punches Colossus into dreamtime. Or Cyclops is brought down by the Toad. HOw many times have I seen Spidey's spider sense tingle, and a big shadow of a fist on his face in the panel. Next panel, spidey is flying into a wall, crumpling. Or the famous "ONE PUNCH!" of Batman vs. Guy Gardner! Heck, I've seen Spidey get shot by a thug with a .38!!! (disabled result). I feel that your arguement is not well thought out. Every action and situation in a comic is a plot driven device. Writers aren't rolling dice and calling up their artists and telling them what the outcome is...

Superpower RPG combat has to take that result into account as well as Superman vs. Doomsday... all day brou-ha-ha-ha. I think M&M does this brilliantly.

Champions combat reminds me of Battletech (not that this is wrong, just different). 5 on 5. Take 2 of your biggest guns and train them on one of theirs, try to make it 5 on 4... then you have a big advantage. Of course, the other side is trying to do the same to you. Being a wargamer and an avid superhero fan, Champions combat appeals to me greatly.

It may happen "all the time" quantitatively (and I would still wonder how true that is as a relative comment if you measured out all combats in mainstream comics) but qualitatively the genre experience that is thought of in super-hero battles is the big battle with many strikes and heroes (and villains) suffering many blows before going down. Much like, but shorter than, "professional wrestling".

Regardless, it's easy to get around this in M&M if that's a concern (there are suggestions even in the book on how to make damage less serious), just as depending on how you play HERO it can happen that characters go down quickly. And of course even in HERO I think we've all seen plenty of one-punch outages. I've seen them in fact "all the time" although again it isn't what comes to mind.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Storn
uh... all the time?
I do not know what four-color comic books you have been reading Storn, but I would say not 1 issue in two to three years (24-36 issues) do you see a comic book hero or villain taken out with one punch. The only exception to this would be ambush/suprise attacks where the hero has no chance to react (and those are 2x STUN in the game).

I have issues where Spidey slugs it out with the Kingpin in multi-page battles. Colossus and Gladiatior crumpled building on the moon in their battle (once again multi-panelled). I will give you Guy Gardner, but that's Guy Gardner and everyone knows he's all show, no go.

The "Marvel Style" of comic book illustration has always been to portray comic book fights as larger than life multi-page extravoganzas. Kirby made the genre with his epic battle sequences. No one would want to read a fight where every battle took up 2 panels in a 22 page comic. I know I would not.

[Nato]

How often in Mutants & Masterminds would you as a player let yourself be knocked out in one punch anyway? Do you usually use your Hero Points to be able to avoid the KO? I know I would. I wouldn't want to be KOed every session I played. When I ran a bunch of test fights between Minotaur and Protonik, only 2 of the 5 fights went beyond two exchanges. Two were one shot KOs. That was without Hero Points of course.

[tesuji]

You would spend the hero point to avoid unconscious most of the time... if you could.

You might not be able to for any number of reasons...

1. You spent a hero point earlier in the round, maybe to turn your firebolt into a fireball or maybe even on this shot to beef up your defense so you would (hopefully) get missed.

2. Your are out of hero points due to previous use in earlier combats.

3. Even when spending a hero point you still are KOed with the reroll minimum 10... a good example of this is against mental attacks where your will save isn't sufficient.

4. Where you decide being KOed and then using the hero point to wake up on your turn might be more beneficial than trying to resist the damage with a reroll.

etc...

Will players frequently take the Ko immediately.. nah. But in hero, this issue is never, or almost never, even in existence.

Like i said... i like the variety.

ymmv.

[tesuji]

As for getting more backgrounds or better backgrounds in MnM than hero... let me give you the reason I think this is happening.

In HERO... background and personality are not just a character issue, they are part of the points balance and combat issue as well. These are every bit as much a part of give and take in character generation as are your OCV, how many dice of damage does your lightning bolt do, and so on. Every character is expected and built for 150 points of disads and the final outcome of this is the emphasis on "points efficiency" creeps into this aspect as well.

Character traits including friends, family, likes, dislikes and such are all represented and gauged within the system by their value as disadvantages. I dont know about you but in all my hero time i can count the number of player defined NPCs relevent to their character that did not appear in the cost-points accounting stage of their character sheet on one hand. Look thru the hero writeups in the books and see how many sisters and brothers and loved ones are just mentioned as background and not DNPCs worth points.

Your character's personality and relationships are defined to fit these disdavnatges accoutnings and expressed as such within the game.

**********************************

When i started my DND game two and a half years ago, i got pages of character info, personal background, events that helped forge his outlook and world view from each of my seven players. Some gave more than others but none of them had fewer than four npcs of note.

I got much better writeups of them and their background and a much better understanding of the character and his motivations than any of the HERO characters even when they were the same people.

Then i started up an MnM game and three of the four players from my HERO game came over. With one exception i again got pages of information and people and places and events. (That was before i surprised them with my character quiz.)

*************************************

The reasoning and rationale is simple...

My DND players were told "make up your character and tell me about him and who he knows and so forth" and they did everything they did simply in order to make their character more interesting. It was not a matter of checking off an expense on a ledger sheet but instead was a matter of "what would be fun to do" and every one of them included various problems and classic bits and personal tragedies to flesh out their character "because it was fun" and not because it was necessary to get their Eb up to 12d6 instead of 11d6. The "sister" is not weighed in as"if she gets in trouble on 11- i can do another d6 for my multipower!."

The same thing happened when we did MnM.

*******************************************

There is a huge difference in saying "look you need 150 disads and 50 in psych max so what are his mental problems" and framing the character traits specifically in terms of frequency, severity disadvantage and cost-benefit analysis and instead saying "so what makes your guy tick? Why isn't he sitting at home with his feet propped up? What makes him interesting" and you will get thoroughly different responses in both nature and quality when you ask those questions.

By making personality, friends, family and "having a life" a part of the cost-benefit analysis HERO changes them from something done naturally and totally for the enjoyment of the play into a further extension of the accounting exercize and analysis project that is chargen.

Steve Long himself once opined that making too much out of something like weapon stat differences in game mechanics tended to impact negatively the "choice of weapon" issue which is often seen in the references as not a detail oriented thing at all but the weapon often is a personality choice, a signature of thw wielder and just a personal character statement. Too much detail will lead to players making that decision, that personal character choice based on the perception of "superior weapons" or favorable mechanics in action.

Well, by making personality, friends, family, and background all a part of the same detailed mechanic cost-benefit analysis the same "injustice" is done to these vital and important character traits. These traits are chosen and defined, even if only in part and definitely in varying degrees from player-to-player and campaign to campaign, based on the points and how they account.

Hero backgrounds get molded into sameness to varying degrees by the demands of the accounting process they are represented by. MnM (and DND) backgrounds are molded by the desires of the player and the world as presented by the GM.

Its no wonder to me that the characters i got from MnM and DND seem muchm more like interesting characters or labors of love while the HERo characters from the same people look like solutions for extra credit on a math quiz.

*******************************

An anecdote...

When HERo characters were made and system worked with in CHARGEn i heard "how can i get this in" a lot. Most of the questions given to me were about values and mechanics and prices.

When MnM characters were being built, i heard "Hey, just like in the comics" and the questions were almost all about character and background, not the build.

Same players... sans 1.

[Monolith]

Your players must be different than mine. I generally receive backgrounds from all of my players before they start making the characters. My Champions players create an idea for a hero, and then flesh that idea out with points. Apparently your players do this other other way, but only with Champions. Seems odd to me that their background design principals would be the exact opposite for two different game systems. Maybe your players are just strange. :)

[tesuji]

Indeed it may be an anomoly that the players i have encoutnered for 20 years in champions many of whom have come and gone as well as the players in my various groups i have played with over the years all treat the system which treats these issues as parts of the balance power cost benefit equation differently than they do other games.

It also may be the case that the preponderance of hero published character who follow similar trends when forced to account for hero disads like PCs seem to follow similar trends shows them to be strange too.

Its certainly possible that i and mine are the only people who have seen the system making these character traits a part of the cost benefit analysis influencing the players to actually think of them in terms of the cost benefit analysis.

It is certainly possible.

Then again, if that were the case, then i would expect to see, for published hero characters, the ones we are given as guidelines, for there to be heroes with full disads accounting who show significant definitions of these traits outside of the cost benefit analysis. You know, maybe half as many NPCs listed and personality issues list that do not appear as "for points" on the sheet as there are on the sheet. Not as much for character as for points, just half.

Stangely tho... i don't recall that being the case. Maybe i will pull my copy of champions out and count NPCs vs DNPCs and 0 point psyche lims vs points psyche lims.

*******************

Of course, the simple answer may be that Monolith's gang is the strange one.

********************

or maybe its just that its not about character thought out before pointed at all, but rather character thought out and the disads thought of as expected to be filling the hero checklist.

************************

I do howver love the notion that my criticisms were about the system and the influences it puts on the players using same players with multiple systems as an example and that monoliths answer is to question the nature of the players.

illuminating to say the least.

*************************

I seem to recall the gist of answers in other threads being if hero wasn't doing what you wanted then you weren't using hero right but at the same time if hero is doing what you want then its because of how good hero is.

One day, maybe that will make sense to me.

[Monolith]

I could be mistaken, but your point was that your player, when playing HERO, have a tendancy to design characters first and then make backgrounds second to fit all those disadvantages the character bought. Is that correct?

My players, on the other hand, have a tendancy to make backgrounds first (they tell me about their Aunt April, and how they received their powers, and why M.M. Michaelson hates them). After I have approved the backgrounds (and I do not always approve them for a number of reasons) the players and I start working out all the details of their characters. This is a "two minds are better than one" approach. Between the two of us we usually get the character exactly as the player would like to play him.

So while you can write a thesis on how the HERO System dictates that backgrounds are based on character sheets, I can show that my own years of Champions experience is the opposite. As a matter of fact if you read some of my other posts on the old message boards you will see me making comments about how I had received several 8-12 page backgrounds and was looking for a few extra ideas from people on the boards before we started to design the characters.

Not all groups are the same, and many of them take their "cue" from the GM, so if the GM asks to see a character before a background the players are of course going to focus their efforts into making the characters first. Also keep in mind that not all players are "writer." One of my best players cannot write a sentence longer than 5 words, but in a role-playing situation he blows us all away. Should those types of gamers be crilized due to their lack of writing ability and desire to make the character first?

Apparently my players are different than your and, since I live in my own world, that makes yours strange. :)

I do not want any controversy. You have a habit of trying to cause friction between the HERO and M&M players on these boards. You obviously love M&M, and great for you, but keep in mind that your opinion is no more valid or invalid than anyone elses. When you try to make "absolute" statements about any game system people are going to disagree with you, because as I said above, not everyone does things the same way.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Monolith

I could be mistaken, but your point was that your player, when playing HERO, have a tendancy to design characters first and then make backgrounds second to fit all those disadvantages the character bought. Is that correct?

I did not mention order... thats your spin.

My point was that my players as well as sample characters and my coplayers in games where i did not GM showed a markedly different production in quality and type of background info when producing backlgrounds for a system that made these issues a matter of balance (HERO) when compared to systems which left those a matter of player desire.

While i limited my examples to players i have seen in DND/MNM and HERo, having seen them also at play in various travellers and Vampire games, the experience is not unique to those initial three.
Originally posted by Monolith

Between the two of us we usually get the character exactly as the player would like to play him.

Thats just great. I am glad you have apparently escaped the issue.

Just as a curiousity, how many of those backgrounds lend the PCs to not end up with precisely enough disads to bring them to the campaign norm (350 assuming normal levels) and who actually end up with a significant difference in starting points... say significant as a 5% variance?

Do you see that a lot? Or do most of these backgrounds that are not influenced by the system "demands" just happen miraculously to have about 150 points of disads involved in their unique backgrounds?

Originally posted by Monolith

So while you can write a thesis on how the HERO System dictates that backgrounds are based on character sheets,

"Influences", "emphasis", expects, molds, "in varying degress", etc... were my words.

"dictates" is an invention of your words.

you seem to be taking my position as much mor extreme and hostile than it is presented as.

I am talking about the system differences and the varying results it seems to produce in sample cases where i have seen the same players under different systems under the same GM.

You seem to want to criticize or at least question the players.
Originally posted by Monolith

I can show that my own years of Champions experience is the opposite. As a matter of fact if you read some of my other posts on the old message boards you will see me making comments about how I had received several 8-12 page backgrounds and was looking for a few extra ideas from people on the boards before we started to design the characters.

Certainly this can be the case. heck, i could easily parlay 150 points of disads into 8-12 pages.

The question I asked earlier is fairly simple... how many of these unique and intriguing backgrounds for PCs produced characters who did not fit within the typical HERO system "fill in all the available disads precisely" mold? How often do you see PCs starting with significantly fewer points because their background did not include 50 points of personality FLAWS and 50 points of social PROBLEMS?

Or, is it just a coincidence that the preponderance of the character you say "use 200+150" all seem to come out with 150 points of background disadvantages?

Originally posted by Monolith

Not all groups are the same, and many of them take their "cue" from the GM, so if the GM asks to see a character before a background the players are of course going to focus their efforts into making the characters first.

The order of the events is unimportant. Why you keep focusing on order, as if an experienced hero play sits down and thinks about background and "forgets" that this will be expressed in terms of "hunteds"and "psyche lims" if he doesn't have the sheet in front of him to remind him, is beyond me.
Originally posted by Monolith

Also keep in mind that not all players are "writer." One of my best players cannot write a sentence longer than 5 words, but in a role-playing situation he blows us all away. Should those types of gamers be crilized due to their lack of writing ability and desire to make the character first?

Writing has nothing to do with it. It has to do with coming up with the character.

Now, as a matter of course, in MnM or DnD, if you are the type who does not want to come up with these things such as backgorund and story or wants to just say something simple like... "he was an average joe who was suddenly transformed into..." then you are NOT PENALIZED AT ALL. Background issues are NOT a part of the cost balance issue.

Its HERO that makes it an issue.

In hero if you want to be average joe... "no he is pretty vanilla normal guy... no real serious psychological hangups, no villains out to kill him, generally easy going but he can be riled as much as the next guy with normal friends and family that are not always jump[i]Originally posted by Monolith

Apparently my players are different than your and, since I live in my own world, that makes yours strange. :)
[/QUOTE]
Amazingly, i managed to make my observations about the system and respond to how i think the system encourages and influences the results without making commentary about the quality of the players at all.

I find it odd that so often system discussions that lend towards criticisms or unfavorable observations about HERO round here tend to draw out counterpoints that address the player qualities.
Originally posted by Monolith

You have a habit of trying to cause friction between the HERO and M&M players on these boards.

I express sentiments and analysis and experiences about the SYSTEMS. I would think that tending to make comments about the SYSTEMS would be less likely to cause friction between the PLAYERS than would comments aimed at the players themselves.

But then, i could be wrong.

Would it be better and less frictional if i followed your lead and focused my commentary on the qualities of the players?

Originally posted by Monolith

You obviously love M&M, and great for you, but keep in mind that your opinion is no more valid or invalid than anyone elses.

Where did i say that it wasn't?

Originally posted by Monolith

When you try to make "absolute" statements about any game system people are going to disagree with you, because as I said above, not everyone does things the same way.


Well, for me statements like "influences" et al are not by any means making "absolute" statements. Its expressing a viewpoint based on analysis or observation.

Ok and where do you get that somehow this is something i need to be told?

We both disagree on whether the HERo building in of these things into the cost-benefit-power-mechanic influences the players background decisions. Hmmm... gotta run... more later.

[tesuji]

As i promised... there is more.

Since i can spend all day discussing my views of what the system encourages the players to do while monltih responds with questions about my player's qualities and the back and forth shows little progress... i wanted to try and draw in some objective analysis.

So i went to the horse's mouth.

CHAMPIONs, and specifically, the CHAMPIONS provides 5 sample characters built as HEROes with the typical 200+150 rules in effect.

Now, i would expect to find... assuming the backgrounds are built to conform to or at least significantly influenced by the system demands for making background a part of the cost-effect balance analysis and also structures this into set figures such as 150 max and no more than 50 per... the folloiwing to be true.

1. The vast majority of "people in the life of" that are presented at all are presented in the accounting side. if they appear in the background side, they serve a role in the accounting side as well.

2. The common breakdown of disads will follow what i have seen as the safest or best bang for the buck breakdown... psych & social high with the others sum total of disads making up way less than 1/3.

3. No significant background issues beyond the 150 required points and no signifiacnt backgrounds less than the 150 either. lets define this as roughly no more than 15 points (10% of disads) in either direction variance beyond the norm.

If, instead, the backgrounds were created as a separate thing, all on their own, not influenced or significantly directed by the cost accounting side but rather mostly directed and guided by the "for the fun of it" side then i would expect...

1. A decent number of "people in the life" where they were frankly just mentioned as noteables who play a role in the life of the character but who are not represented in the cost-accounting side at all.

2. A wider variance in disad points both above the 150 max and below the 150 max representing the character's background not being "molded" to fit the points and structure.

So what do the good folks at HERO show us?
What do they by example tell us?

Put another way... would characters built to the first set of tendencies, where the background is conformed to the accounting demands or molded by the accounting be more like the provides sample characters or would they be less like the provided sample characters as compared to PC heroes designed and meeting the second set?

Which is closer to the provided examples?

**************************

Defender has 50 psyche and 100 social in disads.
The people mentioned or rather given a name in his background include hi ancestors, his parents and the housekeeper. They are all represented on the accounting side by disads including a DNPC, and a psych lim. Additionally, another named NPC, lazer, appears only on the accounting side and is not even mentioned as backgtound at all. he has precisely 150 in disads.

So far he seems closest to class 1... conformed.

Ironclad has 40 psyche, 70 social and 40 other. there are two named individuals, thone and dazeur, in his background. One of them is represented in the accounting side and 1 is not. Still, thats cool. precisely two people that even deserve names and one of them "off the reservation" so to speak. he has precisely 150 points in disads.

nighthawk has psyche 45 social 95 and 15 other for again, amazingly exactly 150 in disads. he has a whopping 0, zip nada nil people named in his background. A reporter and mechassassin are specically named in the accounting side.

Sapphire has psyceh 40 social 90 and 20 other for again a miraculous 150. She also has nobody named in her background section. She has one individual named in her accounting section.

Withccraft has 35 psyche, 85 social and 30 other for again, amazingly, 150. She has one person, pamela, named in her background and that person is indeed in her accounting side. Another named "person", her familiar, is on the accounting side only. Two special groups are mentioned and both appear on her accounting side (though one is as a positive thing.)

*(********************

So... looking at the sample characters provided...

We see no deviation from the "max your disads" and no significant "extra disads running around (the closest would be a mention of a magix disbelief in one character which would not by normal standard raise above the 15 point 10% deviance bar. )

We see a consistent pattern of disadvantage breakdown... social is the biggie, with psyche next and always over half the max for the lim, and then "everything else" coming in last when taken as a whole. (In one case for one character "everything else" and psyche tied.)

We one single character that appeared in background that did not get represented on the accounting side, five peoplw who are in the background but represented in the accounting, and 5 people who are only added into the accounting side, not referenced at all as a background element.

**************************

With all this, i think the following might be a valid comparison, not to be simply dismissed as the abberations of a group of a couple of "strange" players...

characters built whose backgrounds are molded and conformed to fit the accounting demands are going to compare reasonably closely with the same characters provided.
Or again... maybe it is just us, but i do not see evidence to support such a claim.

[Tclynch]

I'll have to say, this is becoming one interesting thread....

[tesuji]

Glad to be interesting...

Now as an interesting thought exercize...

Imagine starting up your HERo 350 game and saying "look, start with 350 base and don't worry about pointing out disadvantages. We wont be giving any points for disads this time round. So work on your characters, describe them to me, create backgrounds and so forth, you know the drill concept, envision then points..." etc...

Now, if i read monolith correctly, he and his players do all the character background personality friends family and developments that turn into the disads before they get into any of the points stuff at all. They are, as my players seem to do for non-HERo games, building it just for fun as a character and are not influenced, molded or certainly not conforming those backgrounds and character traits to HERO system's requirements at all (they just all happen to not have more than 50 in a category and not have more than 150 total and none have significantly less than 150 in disads... or so one might imahine)...

So, if this is the case then the above would not change things at all. They would still work up important people, places things and events and views that shape the character and the only difference would be that they would save time by not having to try and redescribe this already written and well thought out background into those hero points thingies.

if they already have worked thru, spun to life, and created this background and character personality then the points are really not important. All the points can do is put a number on personality, assign a cost to friends, and stamp a price on those defining moments in our beloved character's history.

It would seem that, if his description is accurate and all this development is done before and independent of the number crunching fill-in-the-blanks tax form process of "I'll take disads for 150, Alex", then the numbers are not needed.

So, the result of removing them and just saying 350 base would be producing the same character development but with less work.

Now, of course, there is the possibility that, once the character stuff is divorced in fact from the cost-balance side of things, that some of his players might not naturally envision their guys with what would in HERO terms boil out to 150 on the dot. heck, some might even not see much more than 50 points "worth." So this might be a cause for concern... but if it is that is a blatant admission that the backgrounds or characters ARE in fact being written to fit the points.

If you don't think your players are creating and conforming their backgrounds to fit the points for the required disads system, then you dont need those things in the points accounting at all. Make it all base points and let them run wild with character for character's sake.


****************************

Me? i am in a much happier boat i think.

I KNOW from experience that my players have shown me a tendency to produce MORE background and better more richly detailed characters when these things are NOT a part of the cost-benefit analysis. I know they do it for the fun and enjoyment of it.

i know that when Warlock says "we have to avoid killing anyone" and when what could be a routing swath cut thru bad guys is instead a detailed and complex series of feints and cunning misdirection so that they don't kill anyone, i know that that was done because the guy Bob wanted to play and the persona he is in when playing him cares about people's lives... not because he needed 20 points of code vs killing, not because it was that or *shudder* a vulnerability and not because bob had to but rather because that is what bob wanted to play. That is not a character trait chosen from a checklist to fill in a mandatory blank but something bob actually said "I want this ADDED to my character."

i like that feeling.

Try 350+0. See if its for you.

[tesuji]

Wow, it has gotten quiet.

Has anyone tried 0 disads with HERo, where all the character points were from base points and character backgrounds, histories, family, friends, intrigues and such were done for the fun of it and not for the points of it?

If so how did that work? Did you get better more intersting write ups, the same level and quality of write ups, or worse level and quality of write up? Did you have a chance to experience the same players under both a points for and no points for HERO?

I haven't tried it with HERO myself, but i have seen the same players do characters for me in both HERo and non-points-for-it systems including traveller, DND, MNM, Vampire and the like... as i stated earlier and I have noticed a general trend towards very different levels in quality and type depending on whether it was a points-back or just-for-fun system.

Still curious.

[Captain Obvious]

Can't say I've done this, but using observations similar to yours (ie characters from other games), I'd have to say that only one or two guys I've ever gamed with would come up with that much background without points as an impetus.

I suppose you could say I'm guilty too, given the trouble I have coming up with ways to spend my last few points in any WoD game I've ever played. On the other hand, I don't always take the full allotment of Disads in Hero either....

Overall, I like the Disads system, because some people will get points for background they would have created anyway and others will go the extra mile to develop a decent background for points. Those who churn out crap just to have 10 pounds of points to squeeze into their five-pound-capacity character are easy to spot, and easy to send back to the drawing board....

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by tesuji
Wow, it has gotten quiet.

I haven't tried it with HERO myself, but i have seen the same players do characters for me in both HERo and non-points-for-it systems including traveller, DND, MNM, Vampire and the like... as i stated earlier and I have noticed a general trend towards very different levels in quality and type depending on whether it was a points-back or just-for-fun system.

Still curious.

The quiet is probably due to discussion of a game that is not the game these boards are devoted towards. People say thier piece and get out.

In responce to your last inquiry, in my 25 or so years of gaming, HERO has universally engendered more detailed backgrounds, character concepts, story hooks, nifty bits and such than any other game system (even with the same group of players). One of the reasons I make mine HERO, in my experience, it always draws out the best in gamers. - note I know this is not true everywhere, but in my experience, it is.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by tesuji
Wow, it has gotten quiet.

Has anyone tried 0 disads with HERo, where all the character points were from base points and character backgrounds, histories, family, friends, intrigues and such were done for the fun of it and not for the points of it?

If so how did that work? Did you get better more intersting write ups, the same level and quality of write ups, or worse level and quality of write up? Did you have a chance to experience the same players under both a points for and no points for HERO?

I haven't tried it with HERO myself, but i have seen the same players do characters for me in both HERo and non-points-for-it systems including traveller, DND, MNM, Vampire and the like... as i stated earlier and I have noticed a general trend towards very different levels in quality and type depending on whether it was a points-back or just-for-fun system.

Still curious.

A few years back I always used to run as 250 points, and any disads provided points beyond that, with no requirement to take them although there was some points incentive. It worked fine. I don't think it worked better or worse than saying "take <x> points in disads" which is what I did in the campaign I started a couple years ago. Different region, different set of players, but no real visible difference. Some disads selected in each case that didn't work out as planned, others that were dead on.

[Killer Shrike]

If you like M&M better....well, go play M&M. May many years of good gaming ensue for you.


HEROs is points based. Some players are going to fixate on it and buffet line the Disads for more points. Mix a little PsyLim with a side of SocialLim, flavor to taste. Some players arent.

The sample 'iconics' focus on tight character concepts. If you want an extended family of 90 cousins in your bg, ok, but there is a line between useful-to-the-game flavor and needless minutae. HEROs differentiates this by pointing such hooks and difficulties which may have an impact on the game because thats the kind of system it is -- very definitive. In a more abstracted/arbitrary world does it really truly matter if a character hands in a 10 page background if after distilling usable elements out of it and actually weaving them into to play only 1 or 2 pages get used? All the classic supers can have thier basic origin 'capsulized' in a few lines of text. Theres more history there than that, but the important details are easily identified. For example, Peter Parker used to get picked on by Flash Thompson which was relevant at one point, but isnt much of an issue any more. Spidey fans know, but theres no point to making a big fuss over such details.

Economy of detail is a useful tool in both the GM and the players box. Id rather have a crystalized and well-envisioned character concept than some Homeric backstory. Once you've hit "good" more is not better, its just more. IMO YMMV etc.

Im king of the fat background in our own group when I do get to play (Im usually the GM), but I tend to focus more on character definition, drawing to a close with unresolved issues which will be brought forward into play. The more distant or extraneous bg elements are not relevant to play, they are merely threads woven into a bigger picture. Now, if a campaign goes long enough and all the initial story arcs are resolved, then some of the more peripheral elements of the bg can be mined for some interesting (if not overdone) revitalization and versimilitude. Ive always liked the way the HERO System encourages this with the Disadvantages System. It basically says make a character with a fairly well rounded backdrop that will spice up game play but not overrun everyone elses fun or put to many strains on the GM. Personally, I usually ran with fewer than the normal recommended Disadvantages by 25-50 pts, because I usually wanted to focus more on a strong story line than spend the initial few sessions making sure everyones relevant Disadvantages saw play and were established as parts of the character before the game progresses beyond it and 10 sessions later a player mentions in passing, 'Oh yeah, I bought that Hunted down from 11- to an 8-' and you're like 'Hunted? What Hunted....DOH! Im such an EEEEEEDI-ot' (insert Ren impression)


Ultimately however, the wisdom of the Ancients applies: Whatever.

Play whatever makes you and your group happy and who cares what you call it. Im not sure why someone preferring a different system to HEROs would come over to these boards and climb up on a soapbox. Its like a 'Religious Discusion' -- theres no such thing, there are only Religious Debates. Some are just more polite than others. ;)

Have fun with M&M. Im sticking with HEROs. They can have my FREd when they pry it from my Sleep Deprived and malnurished caffeine-palsied hands. If you dont have any more need for your copy, I could always use another loaner copy ;)

[tesuji]

"Im sticking with HEROs. They can have my FREd when they pry it from my Sleep Deprived and malnurished caffeine-palsied hands."

One should not get the impression that I am trying to take anything from you. I am not.

I am trying to put my own experiences in context. I have always experienced having disads as a point system in hero affecting the backgrounds presented and when i was basically told this was strange i thought that odd. I am somewhat relieved to see that it seems a wider case is made for "yes, the points do affect the backgrounds" in terms of quality and type.

[tesuji]

Economy of background... I have never had a problem with too much background. If a player submits more info than I can use, it simply doesn't get used. Since the player generated this "for fun" and thus he got enjkoyment out of it, there was still a positive result. He was happy and i have a wider pallette of "nouns" to add personal flavor to his stories.

I try and make most, not all, but most of the stories details personal to the PCs. The major arcs and the majority of the minor scenes are, IMX, much better if they have personal tie ins, not being just "you stop another bank robbery" but rather "your bank branch is being robbed and Hillary, your sister-in-law works there" and so on. "Nouns" important to the PC make for a more interesting story, IMO, more than the "generic hero stuff."

So, the more nouns i have and the more i use them the better my stories seem to run. One of the single most memorable gaming moments I was involved in was a session where the players were literally brought to tears by the death of an NPC. It shaped the campaign for months to come. (I wasn't the GM, I was a player.)

So i do not really think i have ever gotten too much or reached a point where I had reached good enough.

****************************

[tesuji]

Another issue which was raised along these same lines is the transitional nature of some of this background. That of course, is dead on. Some NPCs you interact with will move on, die, be turned into villains or maybe even heroes, and your own character change may well be part of that.

In a "just for fun" system, this happens normally and fluidly, as the story develops it happens, based on the interactions and reactions appropriate.

In a "for points" system like HERO, where these elements are a direct element in the points balance cost-benefit accounting... I gotta abbreviate that PBCBA? nah... PBA... then when they do change as a direct and reasonable part of the story, then the PBA also has to be adjusted.

Normally this would entail one of two methods of handling it.

One option is to force the character to buy off the disad with experience, slowing his "power progression" or other development to "pay for" the evolution. "Flash has gotten a job and is moving away so he will no longer be a rival for Mary Jane. So Peter will not be getting that skill in chemistry improvement you were working on as quickly." In my experience, this is rarely done. Is it common in your games for players to actually buy off these background areas, just lowering their total disads as they advance?

Another option is handle the accounting issues by giving the player the chance to trade-in, kind of like a used car, the old background issue for a new one. "Flash is leaving town for a new job and you start noticing that with him gone you and Mary Jane are hitting it off well. Unfortunately, you are now growing some extra limbs which may complicate some dating issues." In my experience, this is more common than buy-offs. Typically the character is adjusted with some new problem, which may or may not have come from play (even though, normally, you do not get to take points for "in play" .)

In a "just for fun" (JFF) system, it is my experience that character development and transition of background and general social evolution or even personality evolution is more frequent, more fluid and more just a result of what happens. When a PC loses an NPC and spawns a personal change (which might well be an improvement, not a new hinderance) it just happens.

By contrast when these elements occur in a PBA system, they require additional treatment as part of the PBA resulting in either the loss of advancement (buy off with experience or the acquisition of new problems to replace the old.)

Just a simple example, say from a VAMPIRE game i ran years ago, where a PC has a character with some drug issues, mild addicition, frequently stoned, and a junkie best friend who is some trouble for him. During the game, the junkie friend died in somewhat tragic manner as a result of some drug issues and the PC was unablke to save her. This led the PC to mourn and do a rock-bottom rebound... swearing off drugs, going to some counselling, and turning around the downwars spiral.

A pretty typical story. It flowed well and smoothly as a subplot for that character as the overall storylines progressed.

In PBA systems, like HERo, and using HERo specifically, these would have amounted to some 30-40 points worth of various disadvantages which now have to be, literally in fact, "accounted" for.

I find a lot more freedom of character evolution in JFF games where these things are solely the province of storytelling and character and not part of point balance. Characters in my JFF games have tended to evolve a lot more, go throu more personality and issues changes and, in fact, in many cases the story hinged on them overoming issues which were indeed hinderances. By contrast the majority of the characters for whom these issues were PBA, a matter of cost benefit and character power, tended to leave those issues alone, not really move to resolving them. heck, i even remember players who described disadvantages as "better" if they were of the sort that would come into play but never be resolved... like say prefering a group hunted to a solo villain hunted because you can beat up the group frquently but still leave the disad intact.

It seems like the accounting stage complicates the flow and stories associated with overcoming personal issues or facing one's own demons... redemption costs points.

Have you encountered these issues? Do you see, for those of you who play multiple systems, a difference in character evolution and change in the background and personal issues category? How many times do you see PCs overcoming their demons in truth (buy offs) as opposed to just trading in those demon's? How would you have handled in HERO the "Jess" story, the drug issue mentioned above, where she rebounds from rock bottom but that means a large chunk of disads goes away, like say 30-50 points in a 150 disad set?

Still curious.

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by tesuji

Still curious.

I confess I find this whole thread curious.

Awarding points for disadvantages is simply a tool for encouraging the player to come up with some background material, nothing more, nothing less. Hero system (not HEROs, what the heck is that?) isn't the only game on the market that uses such a system, though I believe it to be one of the first, if not the first.

So, what's the disconnect, here? Is it that it's such a huge chunk of points? That's easily solved, but 350 + 0 doesn't solve it. If you have 350 + 0 characters, you never have characters with any vulnerabilities or suceptabilities or other serious problems. Even Mutants and Masterminds allows for additional points for a Weakness. That's just part of the genre with supers.

Now, I do agree that coming up with 150 pts in disads can be a bit of a pain for some character concepts. For others, it's tough to stop at 150.

Of course, you could always lower the disadvantages side of the character by a certain amount, and then only allow disads such as vulnerabilities, succeptabilities, unluck, and whichever others aren't strictly background related. Many disads are just as necessary to build a certain character concept as powers and abilities are. Dropping Social, Psychological, DNPC, and Hunteds might be a worthwile streamlining effort. You might just award points for handing in a decent background, as many other games do. Probably best to award the points based on an objective measure, though, so you run into the problem of quantity over quality, depending on your group.

The system is plenty flexible enough to accomidate this style of play, so I fail to see why it's a problem at all. The problem lies with the GM not taking the initiative to change what he doesn't like. Each has to GM set the ground rules for his or her campaign, and tailor them to his and his group's style. The same holds true for any other RPG.

I think the 350 + 0 suggestion was just a bit of hyperbole to make a point, though I think it failed in that regard as it's too simplistic of an answer.

[Killer Shrike]

(not HEROs, what the heck is that?)

"What is a "contraction" Alex?"

{bing bing}

"That is correct, Shrike; your selection"

"I'm on a roll Alex, Ill take Grammatical Constructs again for $200!"

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
"What is a "contraction" Alex?"

{bing bing}

"That is correct, Shrike; your selection"

"I'm on a roll Alex, Ill take Grammatical Constructs again for $200!"

I've been seeing this usage all over the board, so I'm not picking on you... OK, now I am, but it's not in malice.

For example:

"Have fun with M&M. Im sticking with HEROs. "

What's that a contraction of?

Hero System?

And don't contractions have an apostrophe?

Or is the beast part acronym?

Like maybe a contrapostrophe?

:D

[Monolith]

I think it is DOJ's policy to always use HERO, when not referring to Hero Games, in capitals. For example you will see HERO System exclusively used as opposed to Hero System. I think they just like it that way. :)

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, that is what the cover says! I'll start saying it too, then. =)

I was just pulling KS's leg...hope the Killer part isn't too literal...

[Killer Shrike]

I wouldnt stand too near any thorn bushes if I were you.....:D

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

I confess I find this whole thread curious.

great! in the notion of curious = thought provoking, then that is wonderful to hear.
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Awarding points for disadvantages is simply a tool for encouraging the player to come up with some background material, nothing more, nothing less.

That may well be its goal, but not necessarily its result in practice. As I observed early on, from my experience, looking at the same players under the same GMs in both JFF and PBA background game systems, i tend to get more and better quality from those individuals in JFF games. What i tend to get from PBA systems limke HERo is bacgrounds built "for the points" as opposed to backgrounds built for the fun or for the character. For example, it seems like the character gets a defined girlfriend as a DNPC costing 15 points and not as "the woman who helps keep his head on straight and all these super powers from going to his head." Most of the people i see for PVA systems like HERo are in fact DISADVANTAGES and are rarely just "normal everyday people who are important to him."

Looking at the sample characters, the trend to have almost everyone significant represented as a disadvantage seems to not be out of line with the designers intent.
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

So, what's the disconnect, here? Is it that it's such a huge chunk of points?

While that may be an issue for some, not for me.. SOme characters will easily have backgrounds which lend themselves to more than that, some will have less. However, when less means "lower strength attacks" i find they all tend to have the exact same level of disads... the max allowed, no more no less. The sample characters CHAMPIONS support this notion as well.

By making it a part of PBA, by making it a balance issue, it moves the focus away from "what is the character" and into "what are the points" when it comes to something like background and development.


Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

That's easily solved, but 350 + 0 doesn't solve it. If you have 350 + 0 characters, you never have characters with any vulnerabilities or suceptabilities or other serious problems.

So, in your experience, the characters generated in HERO with vulnerabilities and susxeptabilities then their players did it for the points? They don't build a serious flaw or weakness into their character because "this makes sense for the character" or "it would be cool if..." but rather they have to to fill the points disads and get all the 350 they can?

If so, we are in agreement. That is part and parcel to my whole point. when making background and disads a part of the power balance, the selection of these things moves away from"about the character" and into 'about the points!"

of course, this brings in the very specific point... is it a GOOD IDEA to "force" or "coerce" or even "encourage" a player to write significant elements into his character that are not things he would want in his player character? Why is it wrong to not allow him to decide for himself whether he wants kryptonite as an achilles heel to his character without the force of "character points." Is Joey going to have MORE FUN when the kryptonite her was "coerced" into taking takes HEROMAN out of action?

As someone else mentioned earlier, why should the player be penalized? If i want my character to be "normal guy" without tons of emotional baggage and crippling pasts who just happens to also have superpowers, who is likeable , affable, and not even really hated by most supervillains... why should i be told "so you have fewer points to build your super with"?

If i manage to work thru my problem with FireWing and even convince him to go straight, why should i suddenly need to find another problem or start suffering bad luck?



Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Even Mutants and Masterminds allows for additional points for a Weakness. That's just part of the genre with supers.

In MNM certainly there are weaknesses. However, as opposed to HERO, they are not functionally required and they are SERIOUS problems, not personality and relationship issues. They are there for those guys like say superman who have an achilles heel that really bites them and plays a major role.

The vast majority of the heroes presented in MNM have no such weaknesses. They have tons of background and character issues, including friends, family and past villains but these are simply not a part of their POWER BALANCE. They are just part of making an interesting character. They are "just for fun."

This contrasts with HERO dramatically. It is IMO one of the most telling differences between the two.
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Now, I do agree that coming up with 150 pts in disads can be a bit of a pain for some character concepts. For others, it's tough to stop at 150.

But in the vast majority of the time, they all seem to manage to have the exact same amount of problems. Doesn't that seem a little homogenized to you?

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Of course, you could always lower the disadvantages side of the character by a certain amount, and then only allow disads such as vulnerabilities, succeptabilities, unluck, and whichever others aren't strictly background related.

While addressing the social and background issues, this leads to a smaller subset of available choices that every hero "would have to take" to remain shall we say competitive.
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Many disads are just as necessary to build a certain character concept as powers and abilities are.

You seem back to the presumption that platyers wont take the disad that is "necessary to build a certain character concept " unless they are paid to do so. Would any of your players select this "necessary" disad for the sake of "character concept" without being given extra points for it? Would any of your players do it "just for fun"?

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Dropping Social, Psychological, DNPC, and Hunteds might be a worthwile streamlining effort. You might just award points for handing in a decent background, as many other games do. Probably best to award the points based on an objective measure, though, so you run into the problem of quantity over quality, depending on your group.

It should be obvious that I feel it should not be points related at all. Whether you character has a good love ligfe, or a broken marriage should be a character decision made for its own sake, not for strengthening the EB.

I am very glad to see someone considering significant changes to how the disads are handled tho... i was starting to get the idea that considering such was heresy. :-)
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

The system is plenty flexible enough to accomidate this style of play, so I fail to see why it's a problem at all.

Me neither, i see the system as widely flexible, and able to handle or maybe even improve, if only in certain styles of game, radical changes to how disads are assigned, basic game values and the like. All it takes are GMs willing to decide the defaulted norms are not necessarily "the right way" to play and willing to consider "thought exercises" like the 350+0 i suggested or even looking towards the "300+50 with social and psyche off the table" (you did not assign the values, just an example shorthand) as potentially valid for supers and other genres.

Good show!
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

The problem lies with the GM not taking the initiative to change what he doesn't like. Each has to GM set the ground rules for his or her campaign, and tailor them to his and his group's style. The same holds true for any other RPG.

Agreed completely. its an unfortunate GM who just does things by the book because he never really questions it.
Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

I think the 350 + 0 suggestion was just a bit of hyperbole to make a point, though I think it failed in that regard as it's too simplistic of an answer.

Well, in truth, in MNM, in DND, in Traveller and so forth, the notion of "character disads just for fun" seems to work fine for many people. Matter of fact, it seems to me to work better. I know the items listed in their backgrounds and the traits of the character in those writeups are there because thats what the player wants to play, and not because he needed 30 more points.

I also know that as the character plays throiugh my game these will change. Friends and family and jobs and wants and desires will change and when they do it will simply be a matter of story and character and we will never have to sit down and wonder how "jess" is going to make up those 50 cp worth of drug related and junkie friend related disads when she turns her life around. For "jess" an emotional decisions to turn away from her long time friend who keeps coming for drug money because she knows she cannot help is nothing more than a touching and tragic scene... not something that will require a reallocation of points or loss of future xp.

Thanks for getting into the spirit of this and considering the options.

great post.

[Pattern Ghost]

Yeah, you're right, your apples are much better than my oranges. Man, who'd have thunk it?

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Yeah, you're right, your apples are much better than my oranges. Man, who'd have thunk it?

What an odd response for a pair of posts where we agreed so much?

perplexing.?

[Pattern Ghost]

Just my way of saying I think it's pretty clear you're not going to budge from your opinion of the system, so no point in carrying on. I do agree with you to an extent, but having stated that already, there's no point in further discussion.

[tesuji]

ahhh ok.

Well thanks for the insightful comments.

enjoy your games.