Points or $

[mayapuppies]

Hello All,

Just reading through the threads to get caught back up (or at least seem like I have) and a question came to the forebrain that's been rolling around in my head for some time.

In a Heroic game (let's say Fantasy) weapons and equipment are paid for with money. This being the non-spellcasters bread and butter they get to pump points into skills. So they "effectively" get their full points AND "free" weapons (free as far as character points are concerned).

Now, this is not true for the spell casters, who generally end up with low-level and/or few skills and have to "pay" for their gear (again referring to character points).

Now, I got into the HERO system by way of Champions where everything costs points and this mentality has always colored my view of the game. Thus, the paying of money, rather than character points, for "powers" has never translated well with me.

I've always wanted a way to have Fantasy characters pay points for their gear, rather than money, but I've never found a way that could be explained in game.

Any thoughts on this?

[sbarron]

I've always wanted a way to have Fantasy characters pay points for their gear, rather than money, but I've never found a way that could be explained in game.

Any thoughts on this?What's to explain? Use the same rational you use for supers. The truth is, only in D&D (ok, fantasy RPG, thanks to D&D) do charcters go around stockpiling weapons, changing weapons everytime they find one that's better, buy magic items at the local store, etc. That doesn't happen in the vast majority of fantasy stories. Quite the opposite actually.

I think it makes a lot of sense to have characters pay points for equipment. Equipment Pools seem to be all the rage these days too. I say have the characters pay for their equipment and see how it goes. If you allow the PCs to design their own signiture weapons and armor to start the game, they won't be concerned about collecting or stockpiling lesser items. This way, PCs can focus on upgrading their characters, rather than their magic items.

[mayapuppies]

Now, see, this is exactly what I'm referring to. It just makes since to me. My only issue is how to explain this "functionality" in terms that make sense In-Game.

I'm essentially fishing for an elegant way to discourage a character from looting an orc for an extra-sword, or walking up to a blacksmith and comissioning a wood-axe, or...well, you get the gist.

I had a similar problem with a player in a Champions campaign, who couldn't grasp the genre trope of not picking up the bad guys guns and blowing them to smithereens. :nonp:

[Savinien]

Resource Points?

In some cases I've found money tallying a waste of time. But, without it, you run the risk of losing the Universal Motivator!

Cold. Hard. Cash.

[mayapuppies]

Well, there is that, but luckily, my gaming groups for the past 8 years or so never seem motivated by that.

[sbarron]

That's why I suggested the "signature equipment." If I were a PC, and I knew I had the exact sword that I wanted, the one that was the perfect fit for my character, both in combat and for the story, then I wouldn't worry about picking up extra weapons. I already have the perfect weapon for my character, so why would I need anything else?

While this wouldn't prevent a character from stockpiling, it would prevent them from getting any benefit from doing so. Also, since characters are paying points for their weapons, "magic" items won't work for anyone else. So while the Dread King's sword REALLY kicks ass while he's using it, it won't work like anything other than a regular sword for anyone else. You could make exceptions to this for special story purposes if you wanted. But the GM would be in control of that, not the players.

I realize this isn't perfect. Especially given that most gamers view the stockpiling of magic items to be the point of fantasy role-playing. Maybe we can figure out something better in this thread.

[Herolover]

Well under the new Fantasy Hero magic users can be given a cost multiplier on their spells that basically mean they are paying 1/3 of the cost of a spell. That is a good trade off and works fine.

Now to your real question. You seem to have decided that you are going to make players spend points on equipment for a fantasy campaign. That's cool. The question you have is how to basicly do it.

1) Take the character that is going to have the most equipment and figure out how many points they need. This way you know how many points to give out initially.

2) The way I explain it in champions is that the equipment a character purchases with points is "their standard equipment that they can pretty much alway count on having." It does not mean that they can't pick up the big bad ogre's sword and use it. It doe however, mean that after the adventure the big bad orgre's sword is given away, sold, etc unless the player wants to spend points to buy it.

You might want to look at how the RPGA does their living campaigns. It them you get equipment you buy and can use anything found in the game during the adventure, but after the adventure you go back to the equipment you have bought on your character sheet.

They explain that you always dont' get equipment because it is broke, used to pay expenses, etc.

Good luck

[mayapuppies]

Hmm, maybe a gadget pool?

[Rick]

This may not be exactly what you're talking about, but it has a great dicussion on magical weapons and whether or not they should/could cost points: http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28989

[Chiba Bob]

Why don't you just consider $ to be fractional Exp. Say 4-5 SP equals about One Character Point (figuring in the Independent Limitation weapons and stuff). Just cut way back on the number of experience points you reward each session, say something like 0-1 Pts per session. I allow the players vote on if someone should get a one bonus xp for great roleplaying or coming up with a great idea, etc. Otherwise, the bulk on ones experience comes in the form of money and the value of any acquired gear.


:cheers:

[Outsider]

Figure out about how many active points in mundane gear your non-casters will have, then allow your casters that many active points in extra spells/spell skills/magical (or mundane) equipment at the start of the campaign. Then make sure that the 'loot' that the players come across isnt all just stuff that will make the warriors tougher.

The players looting yet another goblin short sword, or commissioning yet another battle axe from the local smith doesnt bother me, unless those items actually improve the character's power.

[mayapuppies]

Ok, so how about an equipment VPP? The players can decide how many points they want in this pool. The pool can only be changed/replaced in a town and then only from items available, etc.

If they get something fancy-schmancy they can pay for it outright rather than having it in the pool.

Hmm, how many points is a backpack anyway... :stupid:

[mayapuppies]

There has got to be a way to do this. I know my players won't fixate on the $, but I'm dying for an elegant method to handle this. It would simplify my life in a big way...particularly in world design and I'd be able to focus on a more "heroic" style of game rather than the traditional, bash down door, kill monster, take loot, scenario that a lot of games end up being.

[Chiba Bob]

No Equipment VVP

A Backpack is worth 5 SP (1 Character Point) FH Page 146


:whistle:

[Markdoc]

We've had this discussion before. I started my FH campaign using the "points for everything" approach and dropped it after a while. It simply gets too wierd, when players start throwing away perfectly good stuff because they "don't have points for it" - or even wierder, don't take useful equipment with them on long trips for the same reason ("gee, if I take an extra 20 arrows, I have to leave my armour behind - hey kid, want a suit of armour?".)

And as far as I can see, the argument FOR charging points - that fighters get all of this stuff for free and poor ol' magic-users don't - doesn't hold much water when you realise the GM has step in with careful game design to stop magic users trampling all over fighters in combat: witness the current thread on "how can fighters compete with magic users?".

It is perfectly possible to run a game where the accumulation of "stuff" is not an issue - I did a 2 year FH story arc where that happened. But it's easier (and infinately more rational) to do it as a GM, not build in a hokey game mechanism.

cheers, Mark

[Barton]

In my Champions game I do this:
If you buy something with $ it can and will malfunciton/not work/break at the GM's whim. I explain it as you can buy things but they will have R**** Shack quality. If you buy with experience points they will work when you want them to. It levels the playing field quite well.
For FH (I have never GMed FH, but I have GM for many years D&D) I would say special equipement should be points, regular equipment $. Remember all $ purchased equpiment should have Real Weapon and alike disads on them. Just my two cents and some say it worth less than that... :straight:

[mayapuppies]

ok, so on another related topic...do you prefer using an items real (or active) points cost to translate into $ or a different pricing structure?

Following the difficulties inherent with a gadget pool, I would still like to have a less arbitrary method of dealing with prices.

[Krim Haneth]

I have never had a character buy their equipment with experience points. Experience points IMHO are for character development like increasing skills ane .

They usually buy their stuff with money. If they bought it with experience points and lost it they would be out points, and that would bite. With a money purchase system, your heros can loose or have their equipment destroyed and they are not out a bunch of points. Case and point, one of my characters dipped her sword in a moat to see if it was ok to cross, and a water elemental came out and broke her sword in half.

With special equipment for example "The Firey Sword of Slaying" the player would have to come up with reasonable way to have it or have aquired it in the climax of an adventure I ran.

[Shadowpup]

Hmm, how many points is a backpack anyway... :stupid:

That's what I was going to ask, but it is essentially +STR Only to Increase Carrying Capacity, OIF - Backpack.

[mayapuppies]

That's what I was going to ask, but it is essentially +STR Only to Increase Carrying Capacity, OIF - Backpack.
Ah, beautiful!

[Heroman]

Another approach is something a bit more half way.
Have characters pay points for "non standard" type type of equipment. "Non Standard" would be whatever the average joe has (maybe the average joe adventurer). That way you can ignore trivial things like backpacks, daggers, and the like. Maybe set an active point cost as a general guideline; If an item is more than 10 active points, then it must be bought with CPs. This would allow people to buy daggers, tents, etc with money, but for more impressive stuff (like great swords, etc) they would need to spend CPs.

As far as rational, when you are spending CPs for items, it requires the cooperation from the players. Their 'giving up the +2 Vorpal Bunny Slayer because no one wants to spend the points' is something they need to help with for the story.

[HewhoisMatt]

We've had this discussion before. I started my FH campaign using the "points for everything" approach and dropped it after a while. It simply gets too wierd, when players start throwing away perfectly good stuff because they "don't have points for it" - or even wierder, don't take useful equipment with them on long trips for the same reason ("gee, if I take an extra 20 arrows, I have to leave my armour behind - hey kid, want a suit of armour?".)


I really agree with this. The idea of paying points for Back packs, ropes, iron spikes, torches, arrows etc, etc, etc is just silly to me. It seems to me the best reason for heros to not pick up everything they see is ,who can carry that much crap. XP is for hero development skills, talents, attributes not buying daggers.

[Fenixcrest]

Well, how many spells does a caster honestly need? I usually handle that sort of thing with a multipower. If they want something with a bizarrely huge number of Active Points, they can just hard-buy it and throw on a Extra Time and Charges and stuff. I find that if your caster just has lots of Background skills and a few spells, they don't lose out on points too much. It just means they have more money for other things than weapons. Or they can have weapons, too. It's not as though WF is expensive.

[Rick]

Or if Mages and spell slingers are supposed to sling spells, make the spells very affordable.

My Spell system.

Every Caster in the realm of magic must have the Power skill Magic. They run their spells off of an end reserve and when that runs out they can use their personal at x2 the normal cost.

ALL magic spells require a spell skill roll, -1/10 ap to the spell roll.

All spells cost 1pt each, period, no matter how many active points in the spell. The balancing point is, if your character has managed to find and learn a 360 ap spell can he make his skill -36 and pay 36 end for it's casting.

Now suddenly mages are a lot more versital....and the warriors sword, levels and martial arts, and the mages spell book are on par.

P.S. there are other details to my system, for instance; some locals give bonuses to magic end reserves and negatives, As well as modifiers for skill rolls.

[Outsider]

Or they can have weapons, too. It's not as though WF is expensive.

No, WF isnt expensive. But having just WF and trying to melee bad guys who are designed to be in melee with people who have WF AND several levels AND a high physical stats generally doesnt get you far. Allowing your Sword Swinging Wizard (SSW) to buy spells that enhance his effectiveness with a sword is an iffy proposition too, because if his enhanced state approaches or exceeds the non-enhanced effectiveness of the warriors in melee, then the warriors are going to be unhappy.

[Fenixcrest]

No, WF isnt expensive. But having just WF and trying to melee bad guys who are designed to be in melee with people who have WF AND several levels AND a high physical stats generally doesnt get you far. Allowing your Sword Swinging Wizard (SSW) to buy spells that enhance his effectiveness with a sword is an iffy proposition too, because if his enhanced state approaches or exceeds the non-enhanced effectiveness of the warriors in melee, then the warriors are going to be unhappy.

I might submit that, in most cases, a full-time wizard, as it were, would not be caught dead adventuring. An adventuring caster would probably either be proficient in weapons-use, or would outfit himself with spells almost exclusively designed to ensure his survival; for example, he would favor Fireball over Wilderbor's Wonderous Weedkilller. Less versatility, but probably makes more sense. I'm probably drifting off-topic, though.

I dunno, let me just say that, yes, a warrior gets weapons, physical HKAs and RKAs, without paying points for them. However, the wizard who paid points for his spells gets to use Drain, Aid, various Explosive things, and the like, not to mention energy, given that ED is often lower than PD.

[Outsider]

I counter-submit that, in most cases, the wizards that players will be running as characters will be the rarer 'adventuring' sort, so those wizard's issues, while perhaps less common in the game world than a 'full-time' wizard's ones, are actually a good deal more relevant to the players and the GM.

And I completely agree that a caster who spends his points on straight Physical Killing Attacks is wasting them. Non-KA base powers and/or power advantages not available on bought weapons are what make the caster more than just a second rate warrior who had to pay character points for his weapons and armor.

PS. Characters may not buy up their ED, but their (free) armor has equal quantities of ED and PD, so, unless the norm in one's campaign is that people buy their PD up a great deal, the "ED Attack" advantage isnt that large.

[Rick]

Holy cow!!! In 4th edition didn't armor only give rPD. I just read the fantasy hero section on armor and I'm suprised. I've a hard time seeing Plate mail protecting you from Fire, cold or (HA!!!) Electricity...but hey this is why we house rule things.....

By the rules armor gives you Def not just rPD.

It does mention in the first paragragh that in more realistic campaigns armor maybe should only provide 1/2 Def verses energy, and I'm all for removing it altogether in my games, but that's my sandbox, not everyone else's.

[Black Rose]

Now, see, this is exactly what I'm referring to. It just makes since to me. My only issue is how to explain this "functionality" in terms that make sense In-Game.

I'm essentially fishing for an elegant way to discourage a character from looting an orc for an extra-sword, or walking up to a blacksmith and comissioning a wood-axe, or...well, you get the gist.

Well, as far as discouraging PCs from toting around every weapon they've come across this week, consider that they do weigh an awful lot. And, depending on how you're running things, they really aren't worth the trouble.

Ex: "Let's see, eleven used bandit's axes.... I'll give you twenty silver lances for the lot, and that's cause I like you."

"Twenty?! Thren's Teeth, each one's worth eight!"

"Perhaps new, but these are used, and I have to make sure each one will hold up under use, not to mention storage... goodness, I must really like you to go through all this trouble."

Frankly, it's a waste of time to carry too many weapons around, at least ones you're not using yourself. And if they want to commission a new weapon, let 'em. It's a good way to cut down on their excess cash (if they have any).

My way of dealing with surplus gear is to do this: have a "generic" version of whatever they are going to buy (swords, tents, shirts, etc.). They can get this for cash, and it'll hold up about as well as the real thing (it's considered OAF and Independent as far as damage and loseability). Now, if you get a particularly nice version of something, you can pay for the extras (Nifty-Wifty Broadsword has an additional +1 OCV, a finely-crafted basket hilt that gives another +1 to Blocks, Disarms and Binds, and looks damned impressive (+1d6 to PRE attacks when used). Add up the bennies, and charge them for that (the base broadsword comes "free").

[Gunrunner]

Well, as far as discouraging PCs from toting around every weapon they've come across this week, consider that they do weigh an awful lot. And, depending on how you're running things, they really aren't worth the trouble.

I agree with this point. If players are doing something that wouldn't usually happen in real life, the best this to do is ask "Why don't people do this in real life?" and create a mechanism to use in your game that represents the answer to that question. In this case, giving long-term endurance penalties for carrying so much equipment would be an example of that "reality mechanism". There's nothing wrong with your characters wanting to replace their old equipment for something better and keeping their old equipment to sell; this would happen in real life. The problem is when your characters disregard the reality of how tiring it is to carry around hundreds of pounds of equipment!

In a Heroic game (let's say Fantasy) weapons and equipment are paid for with money. This being the non-spellcasters bread and butter they get to pump points into skills. So they "effectively" get their full points AND "free" weapons (free as far as character points are concerned).

Now, this is not true for the spell casters, who generally end up with low-level and/or few skills and have to "pay" for their gear (again referring to character points).

I must disagree with you on this. First off, there's nothing stopping a wizard from buying the same exact equipment that a fighter has. Both characters have the same access to the same equipment.

Second, both a wizard and fighter start off with the same amount of money and character points, so there is no inherent inequality here.

Third, wizards have a distinct advantage that fighters do not: Where as fighters have weapons that can be lost, damaged, and require maintenance, the wizards themselves are the weapon! Their weapons cannot conventionally be lost or damaged, nor do they rust or rot. Wizards are much more dangerous to imprison than fighers because you never know what they may have up their sleeves. As far as what you were saying about non-spellcasters being able to "pump points into skills", how is this different from wizards being able to pump points into spells and powers? Fighters have their strengths and weaknesses, as wizards have their own.

The problem with D&D where player characters frequently discard their old weapons/equipment for new, better equipment is IMO not caused by the fact that equipment is payed for with cash. The real cause of the problem is oversaturation of magical equipment and weapons in a campaign. As long as you avoid this, your players will hold on to their finely-crafted weapons and armour. Magical items IMO should be rare rewards that are made more significant and mysterious by their rarety. If you constantly present your players with better weapons and equipment than what they have, then of course they're going to be constantly changing out their gear. Can you blame them?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Black rose pretty much summed up how I'm inclined to do things as well... with the addition that I'll occasionally allow player to spend XP (or even starting CP)
on a magic item if they can come up with a good reason in game for them to have it built for them (or have it in their character background). I see the point expenditure to be sufficently restrictive to allow it within reason. I have helped most of my players over the years "optimize" their magic using characters, as it can be rough for folk who mainly play Champions to wrap their heads around the degree of point manipulation needed to make straight point cost Fantasy Hero spells. With reduced campaign cost, talent based, skill based or VPP/MP based magic systems, the cost of spells drops enough that competnet combatant mages aren't really a problem. And I can find almost limitless ways to keep growing the abilities of non spell users with interesting talents and "superskill" style feats. Magic loot has never been a big part of my FH campaigns, and when magic treasure does pop up, its often quite odd. One game, for example, did revolve around gaining access to the "collection" of mystical artifacts a particular Jotun had hoarded. After a NASTY brawl with a 600 point frost giant, they deserved some good loot, so I stole a few ideas from an old AC article and included, amongst the prize, a set of items that were in effect one use artifats.... A rock that could raise a mountain, a twig that could make a bramble forest, and a flask that could pour a body of water. Very neat, uber high pointed items... and mostly worthless. Almost no combat application. Until, that is, when they were used at the climax of the campaign to allow the party mage and the elven archer type to hold of the Evil Overlords entire army by themselves. The main quest of the campaign was to seek a set of artifact level swords to beat the big bad. I made sure to write the swords up with WICKED side effects, related to their power... If the weilder wasn't divine, the swords would break down the weilders health.
How many other fantasy games have you been in where a player owns a godlike artifact sword... and leaves it hanging over the hearth in his hall when he goes "adventuring". He won't take the damn thing down unless a world threatening menance pops up. He saw what one of these swords did to his friend.

[Markdoc]

ok, so on another related topic...do you prefer using an items real (or active) points cost to translate into $ or a different pricing structure?

Following the difficulties inherent with a gadget pool, I would still like to have a less arbitrary method of dealing with prices.

Actually, points = money is the most arbitary price structure I can imagine: gosh, you can buy a feudal estate complete with servants, for the price of a long bow. What's with that?

I use a price list adapted for my game world from real life renaissance/medieval lists: there are a number of these linked off the FH boards.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Holy cow!!! In 4th edition didn't armor only give rPD. I just read the fantasy hero section on armor and I'm suprised. I've a hard time seeing Plate mail protecting you from Fire, cold or (HA!!!) Electricity.

Actually, plate armour would be just about the best protection against electrical attacks imaginable. Electricity folows the path of least (electrical) resistance - a lightning bolt which hit a character's armour is going to ground through the metal. It will heat the metal up in the process, but an armoured person will have a decent amount of padding betwen him and the heat.

On an unarmoured person, on the other hand the electricity will ground through the person. In that case all the heating is internal, plus the massive electic jolt is likely to fry neurons and (especially) depolarise your heart muscles (this is what kills most people who are electrocuted).

Plate probably should not protect vs cold any better than heavy clothing, but would be better against fire - anything hot enough to heat metal to the point where it is damaging in a few seconds would strip flesh in an an instant and cause dryish cloth and leather to burst into flame.

cheers, Mark

[mayapuppies]

Actually, points = money is the most arbitary price structure I can imagine: gosh, you can buy a feudal estate complete with servants, for the price of a long bow. What's with that?
Hmm, yeah forgot about the whole estate thing...

[AmadanNaBriona]

Actually, plate armour would be just about the best protection against electrical attacks imaginable. Electricity folows the path of least (electrical) resistance - a lightning bolt which hit a character's armour is going to ground through the metal. It will heat the metal up in the process, but an armoured person will have a decent amount of padding betwen him and the heat.

On an unarmoured person, on the other hand the electricity will ground through the person. In that case all the heating is internal, plus the massive electic jolt is likely to fry neurons and (especially) depolarise your heart muscles (this is what kills most people who are electrocuted).

Plate probably should not protect vs cold any better than heavy clothing, but would be better against fire - anything hot enough to heat metal to the point where it is damaging in a few seconds would strip flesh in an an instant and cause dryish cloth and leather to burst into flame.

cheers, Mark

Threadjacker :D
BTW...most sets of plate armor, historically, don't have any connection to ground. metal boots suck unless you're mounted.
(I just got an image of Mr. burly fighter type lying on the ground with both feet blown off at the ankle after being hit in the chest wth a lightning bolt)

[Markdoc]

Threadjacker :D
BTW...most sets of plate armor, historically, don't have any connection to ground. metal boots suck unless you're mounted.
(I just got an image of Mr. burly fighter type lying on the ground with both feet blown off at the ankle after being hit in the chest wth a lightning bolt)

Well, metal sabots - intended for use mostly by mounted troops, but still on their feet while dismounted - were certainly worn in their thousands. Some of them have wooden or leather soles, but many of the real ones have metal soles. You can check them out in any decent museum.

I agree, however, that wearing them when walking any distance would suck (but then that's true of full plate as well). In the interests of "fantasy" I've ignored that last bit, but I've always imagined fighter types as wearing boots and three-quarter armour like heavy troopers from the early age of pike and shot or halbardiers from slightly earlier.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Hmm, yeah forgot about the whole estate thing...

It's not just things like estates - a spear would cost the same as or more than a sword, while historically the exact opposite was true. Then you get into the whole debate about where do blacksmiths get the points to make things from and do you need to pay points for life support (reduced eating) if you get a meal and how many points is a pint of beer, etc, etc.

It's best simply to not go there. :D

cheers, Mark

[Phil]

Personally, I'd be inclined to use a range of the techniques espoused above.

Signature weapons are a nigh on necessity for most heroic fantasy games. How often do fictional heroes change equipment mid-story? Require every characters to buy their main weapon as a Focus, which they can build up as the campaign progresses with AP, penetrating, Ranged or other tricks. Allow them to pick up any other weapon, but after even a very short time, it wont be as effective.

VPP wealth pools are fine to reflect characters spending power without keeping track of individual GPs for fairly mundane but game-mechanical effective equipment.

And then do allow them to pick things up and use them, but consider real-world issues and fantasy economics. Would you buy a suit of used chainmail, replete with orcs guts and notched from multiple sword blows, knowing that there's not much of a market for chainmail among non-adventuring types anyway? Would you buy 3? Would you buy 20? Where would you store them - they're probably only any good as raw material. And that's assuming you dont have an issue with handling what are probably stolen goods. I've often wondered where computer RPG merchants seem to get their infinite cash-flow from - must be a very generous wizard-run bank somewhere in the Forgotten Realms!

[Markdoc]

Well, my approach is that *somebody* has to pay points to make magic or otherwise special stuff but such things are either charges (like potions - one shot items) or independant magical items.

If a player wants to make potions, he needs to pay the points. Likewise if they want to make or have a magic item of their own, he/she pays the points.

Found items are thus not a problem - for a start I give them out and for a second someone else has already provided the points.

This eliminates any problems with finding and using items, and in fact, 20 suits of used chainmail make good loot - if you can find an armourer, or a merchant who knows one. They can be refashioned/refurbished much more easily than making a suit from scratch. But no-one's going to pay full price or even close, and Bob the Chandler isn't going to buy one.

In such a situation, the players are not going to lug them any distance unless they are desperate for cash.

In general, a good deal of the loot in my game is given out in "stuff". A gang of bandits is much more likely to have a whole bunch of stuff they stole from passers-by than a chest with 200 gold pieces and two gems. It's up to the players to sort out what's valuable and what's not and find a buyer for it.

And most merchants in my game will take it for granted that anything they buy off a bunch of heavily armed, scarred strangers is stolen goods and will price it accordingly.

As a result players will actually spend points on social interaction skills and things like KS: appraise value or PS: Bargaining

Cheers, Mark

[Xiawarr]

I ran into a similar problem... Here is how I decided to solve it:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=306

It might suit your needs.

[AnotherSkip]

What about the dark champions rules for weapons?

example an AC limit on how much you can haul around IIRC.

[Markdoc]

What about the dark champions rules for weapons?

example an AC limit on how much you can haul around IIRC.

We discussed this in detail in an earlier thread, but the simple reason is that in most Fantasy games (unlike most Dark Champions games) there tends to be a number of unique items floating around. Also - unlike FH - most DC games are centered around a limited number of locales or feature an organisation that can supply gear at different places.

So it's no big deal if a player swaps out his AK47 so he has enough points to lug a rocket launcher for one adventure. He can always get aother AK from somewhere for next week's adventure. But in Fantasy, you get this kind of situation:

"Master Frodo, we've reached the Crack O' Doom, what did you do with the One ring?"

"Oh, that? Bilbo gave me a neato-keen mail shirt and a sword, so I didn't have enough points to carry it. I think I left it in his bedroom."

Basically, in DC games I can see the point of an points allowance to counter the obsessive hoarding of gadgets and equipment. It occasionally creates some odd reactions, but that's an acceptable price to pay for what can be a real problem.

In an FH game where most characters have armour and a few weapons, and magic items can't be acquired by a trip to the store, it's essentially a non-problem (how many PCs have you had who wanted to carry 12 swords? In DC, on the other hand, players want a sidearm (or two) and an assault rifle and a rocket launcher and a knife, and a flamethrower and nightvision goggles, and bugging equipment and binoculars and an armoured van and different types of special ammo and..... you get the point) and the oddness occasioned is often much greater. Basically, I can't see any reason to worry about points: it's only an issue normally with magic items, and the GM generally controls access to those or requires players to pay points for them. If you don't want your players toting around neato-keen magic swords they didn't pay points for.... then don't give them away.

cheers, Mark

[sbarron]

Basically, I can't see any reason to worry about points: it's only an issue normally with magic items, and the GM generally controls access to those or requires players to pay points for them. If you don't want your players toting around neato-keen magic swords they didn't pay points for.... then don't give them away.

cheers, MarkI suppose if you wanted you could create magic item slots for each character. So, each character can have up to 60 AP in attacking magic tems (swords, wands, darts, etc), 40 AP in magic defenses (armor, bracers, rings, etc), and 80 AP in miscellaneous magic items (rings, broaches, hats, etc).

This would allow balance and enforce some level of restraint on the players. It would be similar to the equipment pool but allow a wider range of magic per character, while still keeping the number of magic weapons/suits of armor per character down to a "normal" level. I don't know that I would go this far. It's just an idea...

[Markdoc]

I suppose if you wanted you could create magic item slots for each character. So, each character can have up to 60 AP in attacking magic tems (swords, wands, darts, etc), 40 AP in magic defenses (armor, bracers, rings, etc), and 80 AP in miscellaneous magic items (rings, broaches, hats, etc).

No, it's the same kludge in a different shirt. You knock down Lord Evil the necromancer who's been wielding his devastating vorpal sword - but then leave it lying next to him because you can't use it - although you are a master swordsman - because your "magic weapon" slot is too small. Nani?

As noted, I simply can't see the problem - or more accurately the "solution" is far, far worse than the problem.

In Dark Champions, there is a problem in that a vast array of manufactured product are available that can grant different powers. Worse, many of them are relatively small, while vehicles are easy to come by, so you can't rely on simple encumbrance to stop players humping them around. Some way of balancing that out is needed, so Van Full o' Gear Guy doesn't overshadow Lone Biker Guy.

In an FH setting, you can get imaginative and get some minor powers, but the powers available for sale are essentially HKA/RKA and Armour. Everyone can carry and use those and I have never had a problem with players wanting to carry 6 different kinds of HKA (nor would there be a game balance issue if they did...) The problem is purely in terms of magic items - which are almost always provided by the GM. So there should be no problem. As noted - if you don't want your players to have magical weapons of more than 60 AP, then don't GIVE them magical weapons of more than 60 AP.

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

I don't see it as being a problem. Spellcasters can also go to a store and put money on the barrelhead for mundane equipment. The only time a fantasy character should have to pay points for equipment is if its a signature item - meaning a focus that isn't "independent."

I inlcude item creation in that general theory. You can do a lot of things to make item creation challenging without charging points.

In my game I've been treating spells as individual skills with the caveat that spellcasters must improve them individually (no skill levels to enhance them en masse). Its not as cheap as it sounds. 15 spells at a straight INT-roll is 45 points, and poweful spells have hefty skill roll modifiers, so it pays to buy those skills up. I do allow PSLs, but they have to be purchased for each school of magical thought.

Using this system, I would simply make the technique for creating the item an individual skill, and then require the mage to come up with the cash for the materials, some of which might be exotic or dangerous to obtain.

[Curufea]

I also like the concept for magical item creation, of magical material requirements. And the materials contain the equivalent of XP, or character points - usuable for specific things. I can't remember what the original thread was where we were discussing this, but things like-
Phoenix Feather, 5 points towards fire-based magic
Diamond, 1 point towards time/duration advantages
etc..

And it's combinations that are consumed on the creation of the item.