Package deal - no deal?

[Sean Waters]

You used to get something for package deals, even if it was only a few points. Now? Nothing.

They are a tool for the GM but you get no advantage for taking them, saving that 'it is easier to build your character'. Great.

I'm not looking for any big giveaway here, but how about the disadvantages points from package deal do not count towards the category maximum points (i.e 50 points of psych lims would be ON TOP of any psych lims in the package deals). The package disadvantages still count towards the total disadvantage points, just not the points per category. How would that be?

[Rick]

That sounds like a very feasible option, I like that a lot actually.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd be OK with that, but I often allow the "max per category" to be exceeded anyway if appropriate for the character.

[Hawksmoor]

The Global Guardians uses a slightly different version. Packages representing various professions are made, they include skills, Perks, and in some cases powers. The packages also include disadvantages that are common with the package. The cost of the package is the total from skills/perks/talents/powers *minus* the value of the Disadvantages in the package.

It does distort the value of some characters since they can be as many as 50 or 60 points higher in total point value, but since the packages are available to any character it evens out in the wash.

Species Packages however grant none of these benefits. They are simply used to set a new foundation for that character as a member of that species (Ape, Tautiq, Xorn, Hsax). The disadvantages are simply part of the character and noted (for full value) in the disads section.

Hawksmoor

[sbarron]

I'm not looking for any big giveaway here, but how about the disadvantages points from package deal do not count towards the category maximum points (i.e 50 points of psych lims would be ON TOP of any psych lims in the package deals). The package disadvantages still count towards the total disadvantage points, just not the points per category. How would that be?Of course, you can do it however you want. The point of a point based system is to balance the PC by providing them the same amount of points, and making them spend those points in a proscribed manner. Things like "deals" reward certain character designs. If that's what you want, great. If it's not, then just be aware of the potential problems.

I don't see anything wrong with your method, except possibly that PCs who have hunted in their package deals will load up on hunted, or that have psych disads will be total nut jobs. ;)

[Sean Waters]

Of course, you can do it however you want. The point of a point based system is to balance the PC by providing them the same amount of points, and making them spend those points in a proscribed manner. Things like "deals" reward certain character designs. If that's what you want, great. If it's not, then just be aware of the potential problems.

I don't see anything wrong with your method, except possibly that PCs who have hunted in their package deals will load up on hunted, or that have psych disads will be total nut jobs. ;)

My point is though, as things stand, you get no kind of deal at all: they are a campaign tool for the GM masquerading as something useful for the player. Package deals are supposed to have limited points in them in any event, so I wouldn't think that this would be unbalancing or pandering to the munchkins. At present there seems to be very little incentive to buy package deals at all, other than keeping the GM happy: the same effect can be obtained by just requiring certain skills and disads to be bought. Either we make PDs have at least some utility or get rid of 'em. IMO. :)

[sbarron]

My point is though, as things stand, you get no kind of deal at all: they are a campaign tool for the GM masquerading as something useful for the player. Package deals are supposed to have limited points in them in any event, so I wouldn't think that this would be unbalancing or pandering to the munchkins. At present there seems to be very little incentive to buy package deals at all, other than keeping the GM happy: the same effect can be obtained by just requiring certain skills and disads to be bought. Either we make PDs have at least some utility or get rid of 'em. IMO. :)Package deals provide the player with information about the skills and abilities that a particular type of character he might want to play has. Cops have a certain package, firemen another, miner dwarves a third. The package shows the player what type of skills the character would have in the GMs game. That is utility for the player. While it's not actually a "deal" in the sense of getting or saving points, it does have value.

And since I'm not trying to de-rail your thread, Lemming, I'm bailing out. I like the balance that the new "no deal" package deals provide, because they are perfectly balanced for all characters. If you want to put the "deal" back in, more power to you. I agree it's kind of dumb to call something a "deal" when it's not, but stuff like that happens when you get to the 5th Ed. of a game system. I always hope that 6th Ed. will be perfect...;)

[Citizen Keen]

I agree. Package Deals are used to establish norms. Without them, you'd have no idea what a baseline is. Some GMs say that the minimum for a character to be a Police Officer is PS: Police Officer and a Perk. Maybe a Watched. Others have groupings of skills and perks that end up costing the character 50 points to be a cop. Package Deals let characters know what they have to buy to belong to a certain demographic. Want to be a cop? Then you have to buy Police Officer Package Deal (and if you don't get certain skills, justify them. Maybe instead of buying a certain skill, you buy a Contact defined as Uncle Police Commisioner). Want to be a Doctor? Buy the Doctor Package.

(Also, I think calling them simply Packages would simplify a great many things.)

Also, they provide simple templates for GMs, and a common set of expectations for characters. A GM needs some City Guards, he can just take the Heavy Fighter Package and voila, city guard. A character can assume certain things about City Guards and Doctors and Terran Security Specialists, because the Package is the rule. There are exceptions, but the Package is the norm.

[Captain Obvious]

There's no reason not to make the 3rd Ed Package Deal system a house rule for your game. Figure out how many skills in the package are of infrequent use (combat skills are generally considered to be frequent use, things like Gambling or Persuasion not so much). If 1/4 of the package is of infrequent use, give a point of package bonus; 1/2 gives 2 points, and 3/4 gives 3. I would suggest making these points count over and above the disads, or no one will care too much (at least those guys who insist on squeezing out every last point from disads they can get).

[Silbeg]

In my Champs game, the question came up about why they are spending all those points for bases/vehicles, etc., that are primarily just tools for the GM. So, to answer that, we recreated the package for being a member of the North Force (http://www.fpca.us/houseRules.html#packageDeals). There are several levels, some of the ideas have been stolen from the UNTIL book.

In any case, the points have been severely discounted (usually 5 points, plus some disads that gain the PC no points). In this way, the characters get a little something (including what amounts to some basic training on what it means to be a sanctioned superhero) without breaking the bank.

However, package deals (especially in a heroic level game) can go a long way towards building a character. It is the word "deals" thata probably the most of us gripe about... they are in fact just packages!

[Susano]

Ultimately the package deal should have been renamed something like Abilities Package or Character package. The name "deal" seems to be confusing to many people.

I like "Template" even better.

[yamamura]

I agree with Susano on this one, templates is a nice and simple name for them.

G

[shem_whistler]

I agree with Susano on this one, templates is a nice and simple name for them.

G

Also it is a term that I have seen in some D20 products, namely B5, and this might help breed some cross product 'ability'. I so couldn't finish that sentance right :)

Shem

[Brother Jim]

if it's not a "deal", it shouldn't be called a "deal". just call it a package, a template or something similar.





my two crowns

[Hugh Neilson]

if it's not a "deal", it shouldn't be called a "deal". just call it a package, a template or something similar.

Well, we have to call it someting, and package deal is more familiar to older Hero gamers. That said, I have no problem with "template" either.

[If it can be physical, why is it caled an energy blast?]

[Captain Obvious]

[If it can be physical, why is it caled an energy blast?]

E=mc^2, man, E=mc^2

[Brother Jim]

kinetic energy






'nuff said










fnord !

[Hugh Neilson]

kinetic energy

Oh, that exp[lains it..

[Why doesn't energy defense defend against kinetic energy?]

[Brother Jim]

because kinetic energy is physical damage.........nevermind, i dunno.... :stupid:

[Toadmaster]

I don't really have a problem with the name but template is more descriptive. If you want packages to give a few points to encourage players to take them call in a roleplaying bonus and give your players a few xp for taking a package instead of just taking the bits they want.

[Sean Waters]

Package deals provide the player with information about the skills and abilities that a particular type of character he might want to play has. Cops have a certain package, firemen another, miner dwarves a third. The package shows the player what type of skills the character would have in the GMs game. That is utility for the player. While it's not actually a "deal" in the sense of getting or saving points, it does have value.

And since I'm not trying to de-rail your thread, Lemming, I'm bailing out. I like the balance that the new "no deal" package deals provide, because they are perfectly balanced for all characters. If you want to put the "deal" back in, more power to you. I agree it's kind of dumb to call something a "deal" when it's not, but stuff like that happens when you get to the 5th Ed. of a game system. I always hope that 6th Ed. will be perfect...;)

Oh de-rail away. I love train wrecks (so long as no one gets hurt, obviously). Anyway I like to think of these things as everyone's threads no matter who starts them.

I suppose that my problem with PDs is that I often don't agree with the contents. I mean, not every elf is going to have above average DEX, although every elf bought up in elvish society will speak elven...unless they are deaf, in which case they may speak some sort of sign, or maybe are just good mimes with expressive faces. Thing is I rarely find a PD I don't want to change for the character I had in mind. They are OK for the generic fireman, cop, soldier, teacher, elf, whatever, but for actual characters I mainly find them a hinderance. If I want players to build specific things into a character then I make them campaign requirements rather than PDs.

Different strokes, I suppose... :)

BTW: I'm not sure 6th ed. is scheduled to be perfect but Nth ed. is, so let's keep honing....

[Sean Waters]

To be fair though the elf package is designed to represent the typical elf of a certain campaign world. In your dex example they're saying the average elf is slightly more agile than the average human. That doesn't mean you can't play a clumsy elf just by buying down the dex. They're character guidelines not carved in stone demands.

I'd also say that while you don't agree with the "official" packages you apparently have packages you'd create and use in your games. You just call them campaign requirements. :)

But it does kind of make it pointless, neh? I mean If you add DEX then you can take it away again by buying it down, it is working very differently from a skill in a PD, which you can't 'buy down' in hte same way.

As has been identified I think that my problems with PD are:

1. They used to be an actual deal - you got something for taking them, even if it was only onoe or two character points, you felt there was some quid pro quo.

2. The name. I know this is not something a Hero player should ever admit to, but I don't like the idea of something being called a 'deal' when it clearly is nothing of the sort. 'Campaign requirement' is a lot more honset to my mind. :)

I CAN see the point of having something like PDs to knock up rough and ready NPCs, but really, PDs don't do that: they can't just slot into a normal character template to create, say and elf or a fireman as the points don't balance and the NPC will reqire further work. if you don't care about points balance, just give the NPC what you think it needs: you don't need a PD to do that.

Unless they actually change to 'give something back' I just feel that they are an idea that has had its day and should be quietly disposed of. Maybe a small, dignified ceremony, just for close friends. No flowers. :)

[paigeoliver]

I just want to toss in my support for keeping the name "Package deal" even though it is no longer a deal. Name changes like that just serve to make compatibility problems between various versions of games (in places where there is no rules related reason for there to be a problem).

It would be like Wizards of the coast changing "hit points" to "life force". They continue to use hit points because everyone knows what hit points are and they are referenced extensively in past products.

I know one name change doesn't seem like a big deal, but stack up senseless name changes over time and it can just add up to confusion. Rename package deal to template, Comliness to attractiveness, energy blast to ranged attack, and so on and it starts making things confusing and incompatible very quickly.

My two favorite games are pre-D20 D&D and ALL Hero products. You know why? They are my favorites because the games evolved but never broken the basic compatibility of the game. You can run a 2nd edition Hero module with 5ed revised ("Julie"), and you won't even really have to change anything. The points might not add up to be the same, but you can still use it. Same thing with D&D (until D20 came along), you could take something from 1978 Era Basic D&D and use it with 1995 era AD&D 2nd edition UNMODIFIED.

[Sean Waters]

I just want to toss in my support for keeping the name "Package deal" even though it is no longer a deal. Name changes like that just serve to make compatibility problems between various versions of games (in places where there is no rules related reason for there to be a problem).

It would be like Wizards of the coast changing "hit points" to "life force". They continue to use hit points because everyone knows what hit points are and they are referenced extensively in past products.

I know one name change doesn't seem like a big deal, but stack up senseless name changes over time and it can just add up to confusion. Rename package deal to template, Comliness to attractiveness, energy blast to ranged attack, and so on and it starts making things confusing and incompatible very quickly.

My two favorite games are pre-D20 D&D and ALL Hero products. You know why? They are my favorites because the games evolved but never broken the basic compatibility of the game. You can run a 2nd edition Hero module with 5ed revised ("Julie"), and you won't even really have to change anything. The points might not add up to be the same, but you can still use it. Same thing with D&D (until D20 came along), you could take something from 1978 Era Basic D&D and use it with 1995 era AD&D 2nd edition UNMODIFIED.

A good point: I don't really mind keeping them, i just feel that there should be some minor benefit to taking them.

[sbarron]

I CAN see the point of having something like PDs to knock up rough and ready NPCs, but really, PDs don't do that: they can't just slot into a normal character template to create, say and elf or a fireman as the points don't balance and the NPC will reqire further work. if you don't care about points balance, just give the NPC what you think it needs: you don't need a PD to do that.

Unless they actually change to 'give something back' I just feel that they are an idea that has had its day and should be quietly disposed of. Maybe a small, dignified ceremony, just for close friends. No flowers. :)I think Package deals are really just coming into their own in HERO, and hope that they don't get removed anytime soon. Maybe the name could change, but the idea itself I find very, very helpful.

To me, package deals help the GM explain his setting to the PCs just as much as any "write-up" he might do on a given race or profession. They also provide the "template" (I like this one) for what abilities a particluar group are likely to have. Granted, they are not perfect representations of every member of a race, nor does every person in a given job have every skill that might be listed. But I don't think package deals are intended to be used that way. They show what the "average" member of a particular group can do. And generally, there is nothing "average" about PCs.

I find package deals help PCs make characters that would generally fit in with my (the GMs) ideas about what certain groups can do in my games. There may be some abilities that are required (locale police powers for cops?), and others that are just general recommondations (2 skills from this list...). So on average, elves buy +2 DEX. They don't all do it, of course (anymore than all humans start with a 10 DEX (or 8)). But on average, they do. Most cops have Streetwise. Maybe the rookie doesn't, but he's working on it. And that desk-jockey over in Internal Affairs doesn't either. In my game most cops have Streetwise, so it goes in the package.

Package deals provide a tool through which the GM can communicate to his PCs what average members of a particular group have likely to have. So if the PC wants to be a member of that group, they know what is the norm. Do they have to buy everything in the package? That depends...on the GM and the justification provided by the PC for not having the ability. But I'm usually pretty liberal about package deals. They are after all, only a "template."

But that's just me, YMMV. ;)

[Sean Waters]

I do get the potential utility but, frankly, I have no real difficulty in imagining the right skills for my character concepts. PDs might be somewhat useful for GMs working on the fly, but the only time you really need stats is in combat, and bystander NPCs tend not to get involved.

They are not useful to me, so if you like 'em, you can have my share too. :)

[Susano]

I do get the potential utility but, frankly, I have no real difficulty in imagining the right skills for my character concepts. PDs might be somewhat useful for GMs working on the fly, but the only time you really need stats is in combat, and bystander NPCs tend not to get involved.

See, I'm just the opposite. I find them very useful to help start-up or finish-off a character design.

[Toadmaster]

I do get the potential utility but, frankly, I have no real difficulty in imagining the right skills for my character concepts. PDs might be somewhat useful for GMs working on the fly, but the only time you really need stats is in combat, and bystander NPCs tend not to get involved.

They are not useful to me, so if you like 'em, you can have my share too. :)

I don't see how this can be true at all unless you have had alot of careers, how can you say you know what skills a Police officer, Corrections officer, NASA engineer, Automotive engineer, Defense Lawyer, Corporate Lawyer, Patent Lawyer, Rural Firefighter, Big City Firefighter, Smoke Jumper, Paramedic, General Practicianer (MD), Surgeon (MD), Dentist (DDS), Hollywood director, TV program manager etc should have. Sure you could probably wing something and if you take the time to research these you could probably do a decent job but when your players come up to you with their characters how can you really make a decent call on what skills thay have taken if you don't have a package deal to work from. In fact I'm hoping that at somepoint (maybe everyman) there will be a well researched book of packages built by people with real knowledge of the careers they make packages for.

It seems like 99% of your complaint is based on the word deal, which seems kind of silly, shall we change the name Body because it isn't actually based on size or mass but more of will to live? It's your choice to use or not use package deals but I haven't seen any reason given except the name is outdated. Sure I agree that maybe it should have been changed to Package but I'm not worried about it either, in fact I'm glad they stopped giving points for them, I always thought that was silly and kind of a hassle (the points never added up evenly anyway). I don't mean to come across rude or sarcastic but I really don't understand your problem.

[Citizen Keen]

I like Packages because it prevents players munchkining.

I, the GM, decide to run a campaign in which players will hunt down vampires in their free time. It will be set in Hudson City, and I inform the players that I want it to be very realistic. Skills you have need to be justified - no librarians with 30 points in Martial Arts.

Player A decides to be a cop - a good justification for combat skills. He buys PS: Cop and a 1 point Perk: Cop. He takes a 5 point Watched. Thus, he is a cop.

Player B also decides to be a cop - he thinks the contact will allow him to discover where the vampires are hunting. He buys PS: Cop, a 1 point Perk, and the Watched. He also buys Interrogation, KS: The Law, SS: Forensics, Bureaucracy and Combat Driving. He buys a Contact: Frankie from Homicide, and a Favor from the Police Commissioner.

Now, it feels to me that Player B made the more realistic cop.

You can make the argument that you can't force roleplaying. True. You can also make the argument that it's the GMs job to ensure that a character fits in with the game setting - also true. Which is one of the number one arguments for Packages - they force munchkin players to craft characters who have skills that aren't necessarily immediately useful.

No, you don't have to take the deal, but then, you can't be a Cop. Or a Firefighter. Or a Doctor. Or a CEO of a major company. Or a Dean of a College. Why? Because most jobs come with a built in level of expectations. There's no way you could be a CEO or a Dean without a good level of Bureaucracy. There's no way you could be a Firefighter or a Doctor without a good knowledge of Science skills (Firefighters study Thermodynamics extensively, even if only in its practical applications - or so I understand.)

$.02


I understand the irony of a GM demanding a realistic campaign about Vampire Hunters.

[shem_whistler]

I have no real difficulty in imagining the right skills for my character concepts.

You're in a very good position then, but I would imagine that some players find it hard to get a handle on all the options that are available to them.

I would imagine that this especially true to new to HERO players, as well as new to non-level system players.

I think that if it is a tool to give new players an idea of what skills, perks, talents etc that can be selected to help form the basis of a well rounded character hen they are a good thing.

I also think that as you get more experinence in the system, as you obviously are, then he milage that you get from them will drop off.

I would imagine that they are more useful as a concept for heroic level games rather than superheroic.

I think that anything that helps introduce the game to new players and reduce the learning curve has to be worth it.

And as my mate Doc always says, if you don't like it , don't use it, that's the beauty of the toolkit.

Heh, I'm almost merging this into the levelling thread that it is going on at the moment. :)

Just my 2 units of currency.

Shem

[AnotherSkip]

Ehh i discussed this a while ago (look for the Hey Bullseye thread IIRC)
try this for "deal"
Gm option : (use same thing as linguist, memory gone)
set the package and the deal level.
then make availible to characters.

[Captain Obvious]

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the GM make a Package Perk costing 3 points (like linguist, scholar, and jack-of-all-trades), and then giving a 1 point discount on all skills in that Package?

Not a bad idea, assuming that's what you meant.

[Sean Waters]

Blimey, a more emotive subject than I had suspected... :)

OK, just to set out my shop: you like PDs, fine. I'm not about to come around with a pair of scissors and remove the pages.

I simply say that they have changed over the years and are no longer accurately described as a package 'deal' AND if you want to encourage people to take PDs with lots of stuff that probably won't come up that much, but is just peachy for making them into a college professor or mad scientist, doctor or politician, some sort of points based concession should be given. I have suggested the INCREDIBLY MINOR nod in that direction that you just don't count PD disadvantages towards disadvantage category maxima. You might also consider giving a free contact or favour or perk to PDs with a reasonable number of non-combat skills. Neither way would leave you with odd points trailing about the place.

Onto specifics... :)


I don't see how this can be true at all unless you have had alot of careers, how can you say you know what skills a Police officer, Corrections officer, NASA engineer, Automotive engineer, Defense Lawyer, Corporate Lawyer, Patent Lawyer, Rural Firefighter, Big City Firefighter, Smoke Jumper, Paramedic, General Practicianer (MD), Surgeon (MD), Dentist (DDS), Hollywood director, TV program manager etc should have. Sure you could probably wing something and if you take the time to research these you could probably do a decent job but when your players come up to you with their characters how can you really make a decent call on what skills thay have taken if you don't have a package deal to work from. In fact I'm hoping that at somepoint (maybe everyman) there will be a well researched book of packages built by people with real knowledge of the careers they make packages for.

I don't know what it takes to be an MD or a NASA engineer, but I'm rootin' tootin' sure if you asked two different MDs or NASA engineers who played Hero to do a package deal they'd be different. That might be because they are different.

If you have NPC characters, I have no idea why you bother defining exact area of knowledge: I tend to just assume that a NASA engineer will know how to use computers, communication systems, a drawing board, know about all kinds of space vehicles, a little gravity science, some physics, chemistry, maybe biology, some life support sciences, navigation...I could go on down the page. I really do not feel the need to write it all out.

We have PS skills to paper over the cracks. Exactly what science skills, and so on you need is a matter of taste. Some people will list a dozen different area of medicine, some will list just SS: diagnosis and KS: treatment.

If a player comes to me with a charcter and says they are a NASA engineer, and all they have is PS: NASA engineer, fine, but I'd suggest they take a few specialist subjects, maybe SS Rocket science and a presence skill or two for convincing funding committees you should get a budget next year.

If they just want to take PS: NASA Engineer, fine, but I'll make it clear that:
1. Their engineering expertise will mainly be confined to Systems Operation (coffee machine), and
2. Whilst they might know some astronomical data about the orbit of Mercury, they'll be rolling at -3 to -5 for maybe more for anything over and above the basics.

I'm sure The Ultimate Skill will pad out the PD list considerably. More's the pity.



Player A decides to be a cop - a good justification for combat skills. He buys PS: Cop and a 1 point Perk: Cop. He takes a 5 point Watched. Thus, he is a cop.

Player B also decides to be a cop - he thinks the contact will allow him to discover where the vampires are hunting. He buys PS: Cop, a 1 point Perk, and the Watched. He also buys Interrogation, KS: The Law, SS: Forensics, Bureaucracy and Combat Driving. He buys a Contact: Frankie from Homicide, and a Favor from the Police Commissioner.

Now, it feels to me that Player B made the more realistic cop.

Neither is 'more realistic'. I know quite a few cops, a fine bunch of constables, and some fall into one category and some into the other. For some, 'cop' is a 9 to 5 (or whatever shift they are on that week). For some it is a lifetime vocation. For some it should be KS: What they think the Law is.

I just don't think PDs accurately reflect the reality: at best they reflect a mythical 'average' figure, who, like the man on the Clapham Omnibus, is really just a thought experiment.

For NPCs I don't think it matters, for characters, well, if a player wants to be a cop then perhaps they should think through what that means, and what they should buy by way of skills. The role playing starts for me long before anyone gets the dice out..... :)

[shem_whistler]

I just don't think PDs accurately reflect the reality: at best they reflect a mythical 'average' figure...

True but with 75/75 heroic points and maybe a totla 30 point PD as a base, this still gives room for customisation.

Taking your Police example further, you could take this base PD, and then decide where to spend your extra points in. For instance;

A SWAT officer, more combat skills.

A Detective, investigation skills and contacts.

A Forensic expert, science based skills.

So you have the average, but still have room to maneuver.

I would be opposed to a PD creating a whole character. Just a base point to work from.

Shem

[Hugh Neilson]

True but with 75/75 heroic points and maybe a totla 30 point PD as a base, this still gives room for customisation.

Taking your Police example further, you could take this base PD, and then decide where to spend your extra points in. For instance;

A SWAT officer, more combat skills.

A Detective, investigation skills and contacts.

A Forensic expert, science based skills.

So you have the average, but still have room to maneuver.

I would be opposed to a PD creating a whole character. Just a base point to work from.

I think this is key, and also why many package deals include "select 3 skills, or 9 points, from the following list" rather than "you must have the following items, unchanged, with no room for customization". To me, the package deal sets a bare minimum to belong to this profession. You get the "basic training" and perks that all members of this profession must have to get in the door. You get a couple of skills that reflect the focus of your involvement at the start of your career in this area. And that's it.

If you're trying to buiild a non-rookie cop, you should be buying a greater selection of the options provided and/or buying more of a few to reflect years of training and experience. To carry Shem's example further, a rookie detective might have the basic "required of all police" abilities, plus Interrogation and Deduction at their base rolls. A more experienced detective might buy up his Interrogation and Deduction, buy some base-level (or even Familiarities) in forensic skills, buy a couple of combat skill levels and spend some points on Contacts and Favours (stoolies, someone in the DA's office, maybe a higher-up on the force or even a person who was wrongfully accused before the character deduced the real criminal). He might also have a Hunted or two who holds a grudge for him putting them away in the past, or a Reputation derived from his years on the force.

The abilities provided in the package are the starting point, not the be all and end all.

[zornwil]

I don't particularly care about package deals one way or the other, but to TRL's original post in this thread, I think he has an excellent idea.

Still, and this is why I posted here, I have to say that re the base rules on number of points in a category of disads, I hate that. I just prefer to look at a character and ensure their disads are "good" and neither redundant nor silly. If they are all Psych Lims, so be it. I don't have a problem with that, if they are reasonable. Then again, I also hate "Disad Behemoths" and I temper my requested character points with Disad levels between 50 and 100, almost never above 60-75. That's just me, and just my two cents. I'm not suggesting changing the game, though I think TRL's idea would be a sound rules addition.

[Sean Waters]

I had to have a word with a player once who'd maxed out on Hunteds, all at 14-: every hunted knew and hated every other hunted. It was carnage out there. Virtually all the hunteds would turn up every time he stepped out in his tights and then they'd spend half their time attacking him and half attacking each other.

This was before common sense, obviously. :)

[Toadmaster]

Now that you mention it, that was something else I didn't like about the old PD's, the idea that some skills were not as useful as others so you should get a break when they were in a PD, ummmm hello, if the skill is not as useful as most then how about lowering the cost of the skill in general why only in a PD?

I also don't look at PD's as you have to take everything, they are a suggestion and a place to start, players should be free to add or subtract skills.

The idea of allowing the PD disads to be "free" is reasonable but I really don't see why players need to be "bribed" to take a PD, if it is a game where their job is a minor game point, like a supers game where 90+% is in super ID, then why bother with PD's at all, if it is a game where the characters job may be important then the players should want to take a PD to make sure the approriate skills are covered. If you don't see the utility of PD's that is your right, I'm not going to suggest anyone use part of the game they don't like.

I'm still not clear on where you are going with this though, are you against the idea of PDs in general, want something for taking one or is this really all about the deal in the name (which is what it seems like to me). If they changed the name to template, career package or something else without deal in the title would you still feel the need to give away free points for taking one?

[Sean Waters]

I've known players who needed to be bribed to take a breath.

This was before nerve strikes, obviously. :)

[sinanju]

Well, we have to call it someting, and package deal is more familiar to older Hero gamers. That said, I have no problem with "template" either.

[If it can be physical, why is it caled an energy blast?]

'Cause kinetic energy (getting belted across the park) is still energy, man.

[Sean Waters]

The idea of allowing the PD disads to be "free" is reasonable but I really don't see why players need to be "bribed" to take a PD, if it is a game where their job is a minor game point, like a supers game where 90+% is in super ID, then why bother with PD's at all, if it is a game where the characters job may be important then the players should want to take a PD to make sure the approriate skills are covered. If you don't see the utility of PD's that is your right, I'm not going to suggest anyone use part of the game they don't like.

I'm still not clear on where you are going with this though, are you against the idea of PDs in general, want something for taking one or is this really all about the deal in the name (which is what it seems like to me). If they changed the name to template, career package or something else without deal in the title would you still feel the need to give away free points for taking one?

I think PDs have changed over time and are not really what they used to be.
I was not suggesting the disads be free per se as that would in effect increase the points value of the character, just that they do not add to the 'by category' limit: a very minor concession that would then justify the continued use of the word 'deal', which does, I admit, bug me a little. Though it shouldn't. Obviously. :rolleyes:

I would quite like to see PDs better thought out points wise: the rules say a PD should 'cost between 3 and 10 points with a maximum of 15: this is presumably the 'net' cost, which is misleading - as the actual cost is the points spent: the disadvantages are not a balance -they are equally 'required' and you get no change in utility AND the examples in the book 'cost' (net) 2,2 8 and 14 points: so only one of the examples actually complies with the 'normal criteria'.

I would like to see PDs cost a multiple of 5 points with some effort made to balance the net cost to zero (I would do this with 'core disads' and 'suggested' disads to make up the difference). The reason for this being you could just drop the PD on a normal template and have a ready made NPC without any additional work.

I'm not saying they are a bad thing necessarily but I do not think they are anywhere near as useful as they should be if they had been polished a little more. :)

[Frenchman]

The idea of allowing the PD disads to be "free" is reasonable but I really don't see why players need to be "bribed" to take a PD

Pretty much my view on this. I recently presented my group with a set of package deals for a game we'll be starting soon. Characters are 250 points, and the package deals range from 51 to 117 points (!) and -30 to -75 points in disads, with the average being around 100 and -50. That is a huge portion of character totals, and there is no beneficial 'deal' (see below) for characters taking them. I told my players that they could take a package deal or make their character from scratch, whichever suited them. Everyone took a package deal because it suited their character, even though there were (with all but one person) a few things in it that they would never have bought if it weren't in the package deal.

My other beef is with the idea that just because they are called 'deal's, that there should be some positive (usually point-based) benefit coming out of them. A deal is not a positive thing, the word deal is neutral.


n.

The act or a round of apportioning or distributing.
Games.<LI type=a>Distribution of playing cards. <LI type=a>The cards so distributed; a hand.
The right or turn of a player to distribute the cards.
The playing of one hand.

An indefinite quantity, extent, or degree: <CITE>has a great deal of experience.</CITE>
An agreement often arranged secretly, as in business or politics.
A business transaction.


In "Package Deal" the word is used as a noun. This is the definition of deal as a noun. I think the last one most accurately describes a package deal, buying a set of abilities in exchange for some points. It does not imply that a deal is beneficial to the purchaser.
So stop claiming that it should have a benefit just because it is called a 'deal'. In my experience, Raw Deals are just as Common as Sweet Deals.

Edit: As usual, after reading my post I see that I may have come off to harshly. I apologize and please don't kill me.

[Toadmaster]

Ah, ok, so you just don't care for the particulars of the current PD's that makes sense, obviously opinions will differ and genre will change how much should be covered by a Package, sometimes the Generic nature of HERO is also a source of its problems since what is appropriate for one is inappropriate for another (this is something I don't think the rules spend enough time explaining).

As far as the disads I am pretty light on enforcing the catagory anyway (if the disads make sense I don't really care how many of one type a character has), I thought you were suggesting that the disads in a package not be counted against total disads allowed which as you say would allow the character additional points.

[Toadmaster]

I've known players who needed to be bribed to take a breath.

This was before nerve strikes, obviously. :)

:) :)

I've known a few players like that, but I've never had to strike a player, I find waving the handgun around usually gets their attention :rolleyes:

[Hugh Neilson]

'Cause kinetic energy (getting belted across the park) is still energy, man.

Then why doesn't energy defense protect you from it (he said, repeating himself)?

I'm not advocating changing the names, BTW, just pointing out (perhaps in obtuse or sarcastic fashion) that coming up with a perfect, 100% accurate label isn't all that easy.

[Sean Waters]

Then why doesn't energy defense protect you from it (he said, repeating himself)?

I'm not advocating changing the names, BTW, just pointing out (perhaps in obtuse or sarcastic fashion) that coming up with a perfect, 100% accurate label isn't all that easy.

Sounds like a challenge.

I take it you wouldn't go for:

KED: Kinetic Energy Defence
and
ATOSOEEOIDNWAD: All The Other Sorts Of Energy Except Ones It Does Not Work Against Defence

Snappy, eh? :)

[Susano]

KED: Kinetic Energy Defence
and
ATOSOEEOIDNWAD: All The Other Sorts Of Energy Except Ones It Does Not Work Against Defence


I think that's going to throw the formatting on my character sheets off.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sounds like a challenge.

I take it you wouldn't go for:

KED: Kinetic Energy Defence
and
ATOSOEEOIDNWAD: All The Other Sorts Of Energy Except Ones It Does Not Work Against Defence

Snappy, eh? :)

This from the guy who starts the thread off complaining about 2 extra characters for PowD :rolleyes:

[Dust Raven]

I'm just not the kind of GM that will reward one player for conforming to a set of templates and not reward another player who writes his own path. I like the Package Deals just as they are in 5th Edition.

[zornwil]

I'm just not the kind of GM that will reward one player for conforming to a set of templates and not reward another player who writes his own path. I like the Package Deals just as they are in 5th Edition.
I think not counting the disad points against the category restriction but counting them otherwise seems fair. Perhaps I misunderstood TRL's proposal.

[Sean Waters]

This from the guy who starts the thread off complaining about 2 extra characters for PowD :rolleyes:

Your point being....? :stupid:

[Sean Waters]

I think not counting the disad points against the category restriction but counting them otherwise seems fair. Perhaps I misunderstood TRL's proposal.

Nope, you nailed it. :)

[Black Rose]

I think not counting the disad points against the category restriction but counting them otherwise seems fair. Perhaps I misunderstood TRL's proposal.

That seems pretty reasonable. I was less than comfortable with the "disads in the Package Deal don't count except to reduce the Package Deal cost", due to "balance" issues, but this makes a lot of sense.