Idle Scalability Notion

[zornwil]

Although HERO scales better at higher levels than most games, it still can be a bit hard to handle, particularly because XP are generally awarded in a lineaer fashion but character growth, if invested into any power or characteristic, is really exponential.

Aside from limiting XP awards, one notion is to make "stuff" more expensive beyond a certain point, much as how NCM works. Perhaps each time a characteristic or power is x128 the bar for points gets reset and costs doubled. So for characteristics, that means after every 35 points increase, costs might double, so that each characteristic is doubled in price above 45. You could do the same for powers, each points > 45 costs x2. The next break point, keeping with this theme, is at 80, then at 115, and so on. Or something like that. You could as easily pick x256 and go with break points at 50, 90, 130, and so on. Or whatever value.

And you could also tweak so that this is not imposed where it fits a character's core schtick or such.

It would be more complicated, surely, and imposes a much slower growth pattern. Obviously it would be simpler, basically, just to slow the rate of XPs given, or base XPs awarded both on how it's normally done plus how many CPs the character has if one is working with various points levels.

As stated in the topic heading, it's just an idle thought.

[Sean Waters]

Generally I find that XP doesn't get piled on to a single power or narrow group, but spread around to cover the stuff you couldn't quite afford at creation - those extra skills, a few more PD, or some mental defence, whatever.The other thing to think about is that whilst +5 points of STR may be doubling your strength as far as raw power goes, having 60 STR rather than 55 doesn't suddenly make the character twice as dangerous.

I know it is not a popular tool, but the active point campaign cap can, in effect, require that points are spread around, and as points-rich characters tend to have more things to spend points on, this can often deal with the linear/exponential growth problem. I suppose you could combine the AP cap and your idea so that you have a rolling limit: you (say) define the AP cap at 60 points and you can buy points over that but they cost double (so a 70 AP power would cost 80 points). When you feel everyone is butting against the limit you can up it to (say) 95 points - those characters who have invested in double cost points suddenly get a big leap forward. Could add an interesting dynamic to the game...

[Mentor]

You reptiles are so obsessed with scales. :D

Seriously, what are the problems being created in your campaign at the high end.

Getting to the scene of the crime too quickly?

Too powerful an effect on the campaign universe?

Insufficient challenges without worrying about logic? (In other words, why doesn't Menton already rule the world? Who could prevent him?)

[Silbeg]

I haven't really seen an issue in a superheroic game in regards to xp spending... in fact, there always seems to be stuff that characters can buy that doesn't dramatically increase their power level... versatility, yes, but not necessarily power level.

It is heroic games that I have seen an issue.

With a heroic character that starts with a 14 DEX, spending a mere 12 xp (say, 4-6 sessions) would dramatically increase their combat efficiency. Of course, 6 levels with a specific weapon or manuever would increase it even more!

So, like everything, communication between the GM and players are essential for determining what is valid for character improvement.

[Ki-rin]

I've found it to be a reasonable House Rule or hack to give every character "Normal Concept Maximum" on everything: Chars, Ads, Dis Ads, skills, powers- the whole character concept.

This reduces "out of concept" XP spending enormously. Spot Defense and other alien "feedback" XP spending happens much less.

[Dust Raven]

I've occasionally told players that they can't increase a certain Characteristc or Power, by buy a particular Power becuase it's out of concept, but never told anyone they have to pay extra after a certiain amount. To me, that would increase out of concept purchases. Once the brick reached that limit for STR & DEF, things like DEX and SPD, Mental Powers and EBs start looking like good bys. And they are good buys because they'll only cost half as much as something that's more in concept.

[Ki-rin]

You either hand out more XP than I do, or have lower NCM than I do, or both.

[Dust Raven]

You either hand out more XP than I do, or have lower NCM than I do, or both.

I don't have an NCM of any kind. Points are either spent on something or they aren't. The XP I hand out is irrevelant.

I suppose having a "concept maxima" that varies from character to character would be better than a flat maxima that applied equally to all characters, but it would be hard to rule what is limited and what is not and at what values for each concept. On top of that, it would restrict certain character growth, especially if someone wanted to play a Mentalist with Martial Arts or a Martial Artist with Mental Powers or something that crosses several archtypes and concepts.

[zornwil]

You reptiles are so obsessed with scales. :D

Seriously, what are the problems being created in your campaign at the high end.

Getting to the scene of the crime too quickly?

Too powerful an effect on the campaign universe?

Insufficient challenges without worrying about logic? (In other words, why doesn't Menton already rule the world? Who could prevent him?)
It was idle thought. No real issue in my campaign per se, though I "create" an issue for myself because I enjoy rapid XP growth. But that's reasonably handled as the game power increases as well, and the players change their characters into interesting new ways as they develop. The only thing I would like to see is more uses and examples for "uber-skills", skills with base rolls above 25, since I do have those going on and feel I don't do enough to spice up the flavor they should provide. That's a whole other thread, but I've noted very few other GMs allow this sort of "abuse" and besides I'm looking forward to The Ultimate Skill to see what it says on the topic.

[Trebuchet]

I disagree with the central premise, which is that XP becomes exponential. In fact it's exactly the opposite. 5 XP is 1.4% of 350 points, but only 1.2% of 400. So the value of each XP in proportion to the character continually declines throughout the character's entire career.

As for a large number of points distorting the character or making him too powerful, we prevent that in our campaign by requiring all XP expenditures be approved by two or more GMs (besides the player if he's also a GM). So far I don't think any player has asked for any abilities that we as GMs considered a problem.

[zornwil]

I disagree with the central premise, which is that XP becomes exponential. In fact it's exactly the opposite. 5 XP is 1.4% of 350 points, but only 1.2% of 400. So the value of each XP in proportion to the character continually declines throughout the character's entire career.

As for a large number of points distorting the character or making him too powerful, we prevent that in our campaign by requiring all XP expenditures be approved by two or more GMs (besides the player if he's also a GM). So far I don't think any player has asked for any abilities that we as GMs considered a problem.
Yeah, but you're all a bunch of wusses. :D

Seriously, though, I don't know if you're right in regard to what you mention. I mean, in one sense you're correct it's not exponential simply in that of course the progression technically isn't that, but I was referring to that old canard about +5 = x2. Regardless of that, though, I think there is a valid issue that the more you rise above a minimum point, the more quickly damaging/effective an ability/power becomes. Once you're above the point of most Defense coverage, you are glomming on straight STUN damage. With dice rolls, the leap up each +1 on the 3d6 is more and more important (yields less directly effective results on the top end of the curve, yes, but becomes crushing by comparison in keeping well above any margin of probable failure).

Still, as I said, it was also an idle musing and it may not be an issue at all to anyone.

[Trebuchet]

Yeah, but you're all a bunch of wusses. :D

Seriously, though, I don't know if you're right in regard to what you mention. I mean, in one sense you're correct it's not exponential simply in that of course the progression technically isn't that, but I was referring to that old canard about +5 = x2. Regardless of that, though, I think there is a valid issue that the more you rise above a minimum point, the more quickly damaging/effective an ability/power becomes. Once you're above the point of most Defense coverage, you are glomming on straight STUN damage. With dice rolls, the leap up each +1 on the 3d6 is more and more important (yields less directly effective results on the top end of the curve, yes, but becomes crushing by comparison in keeping well above any margin of probable failure).

Still, as I said, it was also an idle musing and it may not be an issue at all to anyone.I see where you're coming from, Zorn, but permit me two observations:

1) The same "+5 = x2" factor applies to defenses as well. And defenses, as we all know, are markedly cheaper than attacks.

2) XP are accruing to all characters, so the opportunities for these factors should be reasonably well distributed among the campaign's members. (In our campaign we generally upscale villains somewhat as the campaign progresses to represent "XP" by the bad guys; although not to the same extent.)

[zornwil]

I see where you're coming from, Zorn, but permit me two observations:

1) The same "+5 = x2" factor applies to defenses as well. And defenses, as we all know, are markedly cheaper than attacks.

2) XP are accruing to all characters, so the opportunities for these factors should be reasonably well distributed among the campaign's members. (In our campaign we generally upscale villains somewhat as the campaign progresses to represent "XP" by the bad guys; although not to the same extent.)
Entirely understood. I think the issue (to the extent there is one) is more about the scale from weak to great characters, not a balance issue per se. Compressing growth on the top end (for all characters) theoretically keeps them all in a sort of general band rather than flat continued increases.

[Trebuchet]

Entirely understood. I think the issue (to the extent there is one) is more about the scale from weak to great characters, not a balance issue per se. Compressing growth on the top end (for all characters) theoretically keeps them all in a sort of general band rather than flat continued increases.Mentor, Blackjack, and I have had a few conversations about that potential problem in our campaign. At what point does a 350 point character concept become unrecognizable due to XP? Mentor's PC mentalist Prodigy or Blackjack's brick Silhouette scale up pretty well, but Zl'f is already approaching a point where I can see problems developing in the not-too-distant future. I defuse the problem somewhat by buying her "fluff" skills, but I just can't see her adding 5 CON, 5 PD, or 5d6 more to her attacks. At what point does Zl'f cease to be Zl'f as I envisioned her and want to play her? My gut tells me that's going to be around 450-460 points; and as she's currently at 404 points 450 isn't all that far off even if I start buying down Disads. Two or three years at most and I'll either have to retire her or find another direction to take her.

Maybe a trip to Wudan Mountain...

[prestidigitator]

Entirely understood. I think the issue (to the extent there is one) is more about the scale from weak to great characters, not a balance issue per se. Compressing growth on the top end (for all characters) theoretically keeps them all in a sort of general band rather than flat continued increases.
That does remind me of the classic problem of a new player/character in the game. Do you start them toward the lower end of the existing party, way back where all the characters started in the beginning, or what? It's not quite like D&D, where you can argue that a lower level character will advance faster because (s)he will be gaining mountains of XP compared to a similar character in a low-level party.

I'm going to have to admit that I haven't had any campaigns in Hero that ran long enough that I had to deal with this issue. I know in WoD games it is manageable to have vastly different power levels because, well, power levels don't tend to be so vast. :)

[zornwil]

Mentor, Blackjack, and I have had a few conversations about that potential problem in our campaign. At what point does a 350 point character concept become unrecognizable due to XP? Mentor's PC mentalist Prodigy or Blackjack's brick Silhouette scale up pretty well, but Zl'f is already approaching a point where I can see problems developing in the not-too-distant future. I defuse the problem somewhat by buying her "fluff" skills, but I just can't see her adding 5 CON, 5 PD, or 5d6 more to her attacks. At what point does Zl'f cease to be Zl'f as I envisioned her and want to play her? My gut tells me that's going to be around 450-460 points; and as she's currently at 404 points 450 isn't all that far off even if I start buying down Disads. Two or three years at most and I'll either have to retire her or find another direction to take her.

Maybe a trip to Wudan Mountain...
That's an interesting question, how to develop/evolve PCs and when to retire them. As you allude to, it depends a lot on the character. Some definitely don't withstand too much evolution beyond a core concept, others are more open-ended/malleable.

One option might be to allow XPs to go more towards influencing die rolls and the like. That increases the character efficiency and such, but not in a manner which compels change, and it allows one to benefit from XPs same as all others.

PS/EDIT - of course naturally there's also a point where a PC just isn't as much fun to play, eiither because they're played out or they simply weren't designed, conceptually, to be as effective as higher levels of play would dictate

[zornwil]

That does remind me of the classic problem of a new player/character in the game. Do you start them toward the lower end of the existing party, way back where all the characters started in the beginning, or what? It's not quite like D&D, where you can argue that a lower level character will advance faster because (s)he will be gaining mountains of XP compared to a similar character in a low-level party.

I'm going to have to admit that I haven't had any campaigns in Hero that ran long enough that I had to deal with this issue. I know in WoD games it is manageable to have vastly different power levels because, well, power levels don't tend to be so vast. :)
I've dealt with that and am of two minds.

So far, in my longer-running campaigns, I've usually started new PCs at the bottom. However, I award XPs (and Reputation Points, I have a separate but related award system to increase perks and evolve characters sort of like in the comic books) for these PCs at double the rate until they get within 50 XPs of the pack. That's reasonably okay.

However, as PCs go further up, that does seem to be more/too imbalanced for players. I probably need to revise it upward. Certainly there's room for fun with lower-powered characters in a high-powered group, but I think there can be issues for players.

[Dust Raven]

At what point does a 350 point character concept become unrecognizable due to XP?

It's funny you should mention this. I've rarely run a game long enough where the characters earned enough XP for this to be a problem. It's come close though. I believe Descant's character in my older campaign was reaching her limit about the time the group broke up. She had earned just over 200 XP over the course of the campaign and didn't see her powers getting any more powerful and has learned just about all of the Sonic Powers tricks we could think of. About all she could do was by Skill and Combat Skill Levels or else have some sort of "accident" and start developing those latent psionic powers.

I do know there are limits though. Same player, Descant, and I joined a group that played starting characters around 650 points, and her concept just wouldn't fit with that many points. All she wanted was effectivley a skilled normal with some super sensory powers and ended up with an ubernormal with extremely powerful psionic powers. Not at all what she had in mind for her concept... but she just had too many points to spend and had to spend them to keep up with the group.

[Dust Raven]

That does remind me of the classic problem of a new player/character in the game. Do you start them toward the lower end of the existing party, way back where all the characters started in the beginning, or what? It's not quite like D&D, where you can argue that a lower level character will advance faster because (s)he will be gaining mountains of XP compared to a similar character in a low-level party.

I'm going to have to admit that I haven't had any campaigns in Hero that ran long enough that I had to deal with this issue. I know in WoD games it is manageable to have vastly different power levels because, well, power levels don't tend to be so vast. :)

This has happened every so often in my group. Either an old player can't play any more so we bring in somebody new, or else a player that has taken some time off is able to rejoin the group but is now way behind in XP.

What I generally do is start off new players with enough XP to the nearest 50 point below the group, and award them extra XP for a while as they catch up. For an exisitng character, I'll put them half way between what they were and where the group is, saying their character probably hasn't been idle the whole time and has developed a little (half XP is what I tend to award NPC and the like which is how I determined this value).

[zornwil]

It's funny you should mention this. I've rarely run a game long enough where the characters earned enough XP for this to be a problem. It's come close though. I believe Descant's character in my older campaign was reaching her limit about the time the group broke up. She had earned just over 200 XP over the course of the campaign and didn't see her powers getting any more powerful and has learned just about all of the Sonic Powers tricks we could think of. About all she could do was by Skill and Combat Skill Levels or else have some sort of "accident" and start developing those latent psionic powers.

I do know there are limits though. Same player, Descant, and I joined a group that played starting characters around 650 points, and her concept just wouldn't fit with that many points. All she wanted was effectivley a skilled normal with some super sensory powers and ended up with an ubernormal with extremely powerful psionic powers. Not at all what she had in mind for her concept... but she just had too many points to spend and had to spend them to keep up with the group.
The whole "keep up with the group" thing is an interesting conundrum. On one hand, as roleplayers (especially if one is of the school where they so love to disdain "rollplayers"), we really shouldn't mind/care much about this unless the character concept itself makes that important (which, to be fair, some concepts do indeed). On the other hand, as roleplayers again, we want to be just as important in the story as everyone else.

How much of this issue is our own issue as players and how much is something the GM "should" do something about by balancing combat? I'm going to make an assumption that at the least the balance is occurring out of combat just for the sake of this question/discussion, otherwise it does all land squarely on the GM's feet for creating a total imbalance. Otherwise even a lower-powered character should have plenty to do out of combat and plenty of limelight opportunity.

[Dust Raven]

How much of this issue is our own issue as players and how much is something the GM "should" do something about by balancing combat? I'm going to make an assumption that at the least the balance is occurring out of combat just for the sake of this question/discussion, otherwise it does all land squarely on the GM's feet for creating a total imbalance. Otherwise even a lower-powered character should have plenty to do out of combat and plenty of limelight opportunity.

I see what you're getting at (I think). I suppose for games where there isn't much combat (or combat doesn't take long or is just something to be done while getting through the door), being able to take part in the combat isn't that important. It's interacting with the other characters, the NPCs and the world in general. Those 23 points in Contacts and Favors become just as powerful as the other character's 194 point Multipower with 43 slots.

For a combat oriented game, or a game that features "meaningful combat experiences," being able to take part and have an affect in such encounters is very important. It just so happens that the default design for the game is for this type of campaign, hence how things are balanced (DEX costs more than INT, EB costs more than Contacts, etc.). I suppose it's better that way too. Not just because the Hero System is supposed to simulate heroic action, but it's easier for a GM to turn an action rules game into a drama oriented game than it is to turn a drama oriented game into an action game. Most of that drama stuff is just natural to the players that want to play it and it happens regardless of what the rules for combat are.

[CourtFool]

I was thankful that Hero did not scale advancement. That always irritated me about other systems and I often houseruled it away.

All you are really doing is trading one problem for another. Instead of depth of ability you get breadth of ability. Characters start stomping on each other's schticts because there is no where else to go.

[zornwil]

I see what you're getting at (I think). I suppose ...

Just to confirm, yes, you did get it. :)

[Trebuchet]

All you are really doing is trading one problem for another. Instead of depth of ability you get breadth of ability. Characters start stomping on each other's schticts because there is no where else to go.That was a very insightful comment. Are you trying to get repped or something? :D

[CourtFool]

That was a very insightful comment. Are you trying to get repped or something?

Insightful?! How dare you, sir! If I had opposable thumbs I would slap you with a glove.

[zornwil]

That was a very insightful comment. Are you trying to get repped or something? :D
He keeps saying rep-worthy things, he won't shut up!

I had to rep him finally, sorry to pick at those red dots but between RDU Neil's exhortations and CourtFool's own regular good posts, it had to happen!

[Trebuchet]

He keeps saying rep-worthy things, he won't shut up!

I had to rep him finally, sorry to pick at those red dots but between RDU Neil's exhortations and CourtFool's own regular good posts, it had to happen!I finally repped him too. Enough is enough!

He only got what he deserved.

[zornwil]

I finally repped him too. Enough is enough!

He only got what he deserved.
That'll teach him about being so insightful!

[Dust Raven]

He keeps saying rep-worthy things, he won't shut up!

I had to rep him finally, sorry to pick at those red dots but between RDU Neil's exhortations and CourtFool's own regular good posts, it had to happen!

Costantly. Maybe he has a new favorite color?

Did you notice he only has three bright red tiles now instead of 5? He had four yesterday... I'm sure your rep had nothing to do that that sudden change, zornwil ;).

[zornwil]

Costantly. Maybe he has a new favorite color?

Did you notice he only has three bright red tiles now instead of 5? He had four yesterday... I'm sure your rep had nothing to do that that sudden change, zornwil ;).
I can't imagine I had anything to do with it! :angel:

[CourtFool]

Damn you all! I will have to have Ben set it back.

[zornwil]

Damn you all! I will have to have Ben set it back.
Aw. come on, take it like a llama!

[PhilFleischmann]

Although HERO scales better at higher levels than most games, it still can be a bit hard to handle, particularly because XP are generally awarded in a lineaer fashion but character growth, if invested into any power or characteristic, is really exponential.
I don't see how it's exponential at all. If I build a character with a 10d6 EB, I've paid 50 points. When I save up 5 xp, I go to 11d6. I save up another 5 xp and go up to 12d6. 5 more xp, 13d6. Sure looks linear to me.

[BNakagawa]

I don't see how it's exponential at all. If I build a character with a 10d6 EB, I've paid 50 points. When I save up 5 xp, I go to 11d6. I save up another 5 xp and go up to 12d6. 5 more xp, 13d6. Sure looks linear to me.

It's not quite linear in that adding 5 points to a useless character rarely results in much improvement, but adding 5 points to a combat effective character can be very valuable.

Think of it in these terms - if you had an adjustment power where you could add 10 power points of any power to any character, where would it have the most value? A 0 point normal, or a pushing-all-the-limits combat monster?

[prestidigitator]

I don't see how it's exponential at all. If I build a character with a 10d6 EB, I've paid 50 points. When I save up 5 xp, I go to 11d6. I save up another 5 xp and go up to 12d6. 5 more xp, 13d6. Sure looks linear to me.
I believe he was referring to the fact that +5 to Characteristic, +1 to a roll, +1 DC, etc., is supposed to roughly represent being, "twice as effective."

[zornwil]

I believe he was referring to the fact that +5 to Characteristic, +1 to a roll, +1 DC, etc., is supposed to roughly represent being, "twice as effective."
Yes, correct, thanks.

And while that is not truly exponential in game mechanic, I should have said earlier, it begs a lot of implications - someone with 60 INT is 2048 times as quick-minded as the average person! Can you even conceive of that? Not really, I can't. And we have 2 characters in an INT war ranging into 150 territory. Now, I don't mind that, in fact I am enjoying it. But if one gets into the "true roleplaying" of these things and wants to deal with the in-character in-world ramifications of these exponential power meanings, it's really troublesome.

That being said, it doesn't trouble me, nor do I see a real need from my own perspective here. I never much valued that underlying "times two" thing in terms of trying to think it out realistically and look at it more as representing the physical and re the none-physical we are challenged to even think this way, so it's very abstract, I don't think we have to look at it in such a straightforward way, nor is the scalability in HERO really dependent on interpreting each +5 necessarily that way for all things, just really in terms of their relative impact and that this scaling makes sense in and of its effects and simulation desirability.

[Dust Raven]

I believe he was referring to the fact that +5 to Characteristic, +1 to a roll, +1 DC, etc., is supposed to roughly represent being, "twice as effective."

I've never quite understood the assuption that +5 points equals x2 effectiveness/power. Does a 3d6 punch really do twice as much damage as a 2d6 punch? Versus a PD of 2 (human normal) it seems to get just under twice the STUN through, but infinate more BODY on average (1 to 0). Which part are we measuring? When we step up to 4d6, it only does a third more STUN than 3d6, but twice the BODY... doesn't seem linear or exponential to me. About the only times you get twice the effectiveness is in lifting for STR (but not damage or anything else), non-combat movement and extra followers.

[Vondy]

I'm still shocked people give out experience.

[DangerousDan]

I'm still shocked people give out experience.

Not all GMs do. But its part of their Job. If they don't do it, the players just might.

Some of the GMs I game with had their earliest experiences as players with GMs who were quite fond of killing off characters. Those GMs didn't give a whole lot of experience. What would be the point? Why bother allowing the player to improve a character who's only purpose is to die in an interesting manner? :tsk:

The GMs I know who learned gaming under such twisted GMs are usually quite good about making the game interesting, and fortunately not so obsessed with killing off PCs, but they tend to forget to think about XP, although they are typically willing to think about (and give out) XP if the players nudge them.

I and some of the other GMs in the groups that I play in came from origins where the GM's focus was on having a fun, interactive fantasy, and having the characters develop over time was a fundamental part of that process. A rare, but not unknown phenomena is for a character to become less fun to play after experience.

I've only been playing with the Hero System for a few years now, and all of the experience accumulated by all of my characters combined would barely serve to fill the gap between the 250 cp starting point and the points needed to implement the starting concept of my third Hero character.

Why the third and not the first or second?

#1 didn't survive to his DEX rank in phase 12, which was something of a shock to everyone. Strangely enough, I never did play in that campaign again, but I do play in a (different) campaign with that GM. We both learned from the experience.
#2 survived and developed, but the campaign was a casualty of real-world events.
#3 started as a backup character in case the GM did a #1 on #2 :winkgrin:

[Vondy]

It was intended as a wry jest.

As a long-time hero gm I've evolved my own method of dealing with character advancement (and character design). I don't set how many characters are based on, instead, I ask players to give me a detailed character description, and I build the character (which we tweak together). Its not uncommon for a heroic character I build to weigh in around 200 points. They get a solid character out of the starting gate. Then, as the game progresses, I hand out changes to the character sheet (perks they've earned, contacts they've made, things they've learned, skills they've used in game and improved). Its experience, but its not random spend it on anything experience. If the player wants to develop their character in a specific direction I keep it clearly in mind, and can often use it as the basis for a subplot, or occassionally, a major adventure.

I've found this creates organic advancement that keeps the characters recognizable, forces the players to actually consider development in a serious way, slows linear advancement that would otherwise blow game balance out of the water (most players wouldn't think to pick up a point in a language or an area knowledge when there are more and more and more combat skill levels to be had), and avoids "weird buys" (i.e., those things that make no sense outside the context of player whim: "Bob, why does Conan the mundane loving barbarian have a magic skill roll of 13- and a shortlist of spells? He didn't the last time I saw him." "Well, Dave, you see, I had some XPs saved up and I really felt a fireball would come in handy...").

My players have never complained.

[Trebuchet]

My players have never complained.Oh really? Then why the persistant rumors you actually fled to Israel to avoid being tarred and feathered by your gaming group? :eg:

[DangerousDan]

It was intended as a wry jest.

As a long-time hero gm I've evolved my own method of dealing with character advancement (and character design). I don't set how many characters are based on, instead, I ask players to give me a detailed character description, and I build the character (which we tweak together). Its not uncommon for a heroic character I build to weigh in around 200 points. They get a solid character out of the starting gate. Then, as the game progresses, I hand out changes to the character sheet (perks they've earned, contacts they've made, things they've learned, skills they've used in game and improved). Its experience, but its not random spend it on anything experience. If the player wants to develop their character in a specific direction I keep it clearly in mind, and can often use it as the basis for a subplot, or occassionally, a major adventure.

I've found this creates organic advancement that keeps the characters recognizable, forces the players to actually consider development in a serious way, slows linear advancement that would otherwise blow game balance out of the water (most players wouldn't think to pick up a point in a language or an area knowledge when there are more and more and more combat skill levels to be had), and avoids "weird buys" (i.e., those things that make no sense outside the context of player whim: "Bob, why does Conan the mundane loving barbarian have a magic skill roll of 13- and a shortlist of spells? He didn't the last time I saw him." "Well, Dave, you see, I had some XPs saved up and I really felt a fireball would come in handy...").

My players have never complained.

In one of the gaming groups I play in, there is a quote in a similar vein: "Can anyone explain why does Leopard-Girl have wings?" Since everyone is aware of the weird buy problem, it rarely happens. Almost all of the weird buying occurs when a character is first created. It may be simply that I've been lucky, but In the groups I play in, acquisition of language skills, background skills, professional skills and the like is quite common, for characters in 150 cp fantasy, 150 cp science-fiction, 250 cp superhero and even 350 cp superhero campaigns. And in any of these groups, if the GM said, "I'll make your characters for you..."

Well, we've got plenty of other GMs, so that just isn't going to happen.:snicker: Assigned experience is fine and well, and no one objects to it, but if it were the sole method of character development, I and most of the other players I know would consider it insulting. They might complain, and if the GM disregarded their complaints, he could very easily find himself watching someone else GMing a game when he was scheduled to.

A GM has the power to control what happens in the game, but the players have the power to control whether the GM gets to run a game at all. It is a nicely self-balancing system if everyone understands this.

[atlascott]

I have players routinely complain that the XP awards and character progression is TOO SLOW--and compared to d20, it is. I think HERO has a MUCH easier to manage character advancement system. I dont think it is really appropriate to use the characteristic/power cost doubling in superheroic. I like it (the cost doubling past a certain point) for heroic campaigns to keep some semblance of realism, but tend to use it only on characteristics. It might be appropriate to have heroic characters develop fantastic skills.

After all, 50 character points, while really able to make a massive difference in character power level, would still take, on average, about 20 or more scenarios (most probably spanning 2 gaming sessions) to accomplish. It takes my group over 2 years to meet and game that much. Sure, "Lord of Bricks" could double his STR to 100 from 50 with those XP, but he is going to be a frustrated puppy unless he rather spends some of those XP on speed, and better defenses, or he will be a real-life one hit wonder. When all the other characters are taking 4 actions, and he is taking 2, and even the martial artist now has PD that rivals his, it doesnt take players long to figure out that it doesnt pay to spend everything in one charactertistic, ability, or power.

Campaign caps AT CHARACTER CREATION are fine. I dont enforce them on XP spent. If a PC wants to develop the strongest man on the planet, I dont stop him. Its a slow progression that hobbles him in other ways.

On the other hand, no campaign caps at character creation means SOMEONE in your group is going to design "Big Long Claw Man" with a 6d6 killing attack, some CSL's and lots of defenses. Good luck balancing that with "Commander USA" and "Shadow Mistress"--the more standard characters of the genre.

[RDU Neil]

My players have never complained.

I have players who want a lot more control than that. They want to build and tweak and constantly shift their points around between every adventure. This is their "fun" part of the game away from the table. While I certainly have influence as the GM... only with the newest of players who hasn't had time yet to really get to know Hero in depth, do I make their character... otherwise, I'm very hands off compared to other GMs, because players resent my tweakings as interference.

Well, I should say, half the players resent it. The half that don't, are also "less into the game" in general. I pay for intense, focused player involvement with a constant test of wills over detail and theory, player builds and group play styles, etc. Those more laid back about all that are also not as vested or passionate about the game. It is give and take.

EXP for me is flat... 3 per game (with Giant Sized Issue being 6 EXP) until you hit 450 points total... then it drops to 2 per game. In 18 years I've hand three massive blow out ULTIMATE FINALE! episodes... and those... for the charcters that survived... gave 10 EXP. I've had little or no problem with character growth being too fast... more with character CHANGES happening at the whim of a player who got up at 3:00 in the morning to edit his character because he had an idea.

[PhilFleischmann]

It's not quite linear in that adding 5 points to a useless character rarely results in much improvement, but adding 5 points to a combat effective character can be very valuable.
And how many useless characters have you created? Just because it's a better tactical decision, doesn't mean it isn't linear.


Think of it in these terms - if you had an adjustment power where you could add 10 power points of any power to any character, where would it have the most value? A 0 point normal, or a pushing-all-the-limits combat monster?
Depends on the situation. If an innocent bystander normal gets wounded in the battle, Aiding his BODY is much more useful than Aiding the BODY of the team brick who already has 30 BODY and defenses high enough that he probably won't take any BODY damage anyway. In any event, it's still linear: #d6 x Cost per die = Total Price.


I believe he was referring to the fact that +5 to Characteristic, +1 to a roll, +1 DC, etc., is supposed to roughly represent being, "twice as effective."
What does that mean? 12- Stealth is twice as effective as 11- Stealth? No. 13d6 does twice as much damage as 12d6? No. If it means anything at all, it's only as an abstract concept that has nothing to do with any game result or effect. The only things in the entire HERO system that are exponential are STR lifting capacity only (not HtH damage, leaping, figured chars, or any other aspect of STR), non-combat multiples for movement, MegaScale, Extended Area Effect, number of Charges, and number of Autofire Shots. Everything else in the game is linear.

[prestidigitator]

As Zornwil stated, the doubling is a bit abstract, but as far as doing damage is concerned, Body is supposed to go up with exponentially increasing mass (+1 Body per x2 mass), so in a sense you can correlate +1 DC to being twice as effective.

As for a +1 on a roll being twice as effective, I tend to think of it in two ways: 1.) A character who is, "twice as strong/dexterous/intelligent/impressive/etc," has +5 in their Characteristic and thus gets a +1 to an appropriate skill roll; 2.) if you consider the bell-shaped distribution 3d6 gives, a +1 actually comes pretty close to doubling your chances of success for the 3-8 range, and halving your chances of failure for the 13-18 range, which gives me a nice warm fuzzy. :)

[PhilFleischmann]

As Zornwil stated, the doubling is a bit abstract but as far as doing damage is concerned, Body is supposed to go up with exponentially increasing mass (+1 Body per x2 mass), so in a sense you can correlate +1 DC to being twice as effective.
Except that "mass" isn't really relevant to anything in the game except in how much you can lift with STR (or TK). You don't do damage against someones mass, you do damage to STUN and BODY - linearly.


As for a +1 on a roll being twice as effective, I tend to think of it in two ways: 1.) A character who is, "twice as strong/dexterous/intelligent/impressive/etc," has +5 in their Characteristic and thus gets a +1 to an appropriate skill roll;
Why? Is this in the rules anywhere? If it works for adding verisimilitude to your games, fine. Some people say this a lot, but apart from STR lifting and the other examples I mentioned, very little in the game is exponential. Most of it is linear. Of course, in order to create characters, monsters, equipment, etc., that reach into the "cosmic" level of power, you need some things to be exponentially increased, if you want to represent hand-held blasters and death stars in the same game, etc. However, in a heroic level game, there isn't necessarily a need for even STR lifting to be exponential, and if you house-rule it that way, the game still works just fine, and may even be more realistic and allow for finer granularity.

[Vondy]

I have players who want a lot more control than that.

My players helped evolve the system; I don't know the cause, but one day I started the game and the long-term core of four had gone from a bunch of number crunching power gamers to a troupe of dyed in the wool role-players. Onle of them remained a total pro from dover type, but he too was suddenly into the game more than the mechanics. And the players have a lot more control than would first appear. If they want something, they pretty much get it; and sometimes things that would generally take a long-time come much faster because they come when the story dictates they should, and not the numbers.

[Mentor]

I have players routinely complain that the XP awards and character progression is TOO SLOW--and compared to d20, it is. I think HERO has a MUCH easier to manage character advancement system. I dont think it is really appropriate to use the characteristic/power cost doubling in superheroic. I like it (the cost doubling past a certain point) for heroic campaigns to keep some semblance of realism, but tend to use it only on characteristics. It might be appropriate to have heroic characters develop fantastic skills.


Another thing for players to consider is that a Fantasy Hero or Star Hero character with 150 character points and even more so, a Champions Superhero with 250 or 350 starting points should not be considered in any way "1st Level". I have found that to be the hardest concept change for most players with a purely D&D gaming background.

In Hero, one can start the game off as Indiana Jones or Spiderman, albeit perhaps fairly early in their careers, and not necessarily a 15 year old punk with a cast off saex aspiring to be a Berserker or some sackcloth clad rookie priest with a stick and a couple of chunks of hard boiled leather over the tender bits.

[prestidigitator]

Except that "mass" isn't really relevant to anything in the game except in how much you can lift with STR (or TK). You don't do damage against someones mass, you do damage to STUN and BODY - linearly.
You are right: it only increases, "exponentially," in the way it affects the environment in a dramatic sense (even when you consider movement that increases exponentially with increased cost, for how does that exponentially increase your effectiveness against an opponent?). Then again, a game in which damage, defenses, etc., truly increased exponentially would be completely unplayable; a character who bought up damage would just destroy targets unless those targets also increased their defenses by the same amount. So I submit that the, "exponentiality," of the Hero System is really the only useful kind of exponential scale in a gaming system.

[PhilFleischmann]

Fair enough.

[BNakagawa]

Depends on the situation. If an innocent bystander normal gets wounded in the battle, Aiding his BODY is much more useful than Aiding the BODY of the team brick who already has 30 BODY and defenses high enough that he probably won't take any BODY damage anyway. In any event, it's still linear: #d6 x Cost per die = Total Price.


You didn't read the quote thoroughly. I said any power to any character, not the same power that would help a wounded normal and be of little value to an unstoppable brick.

In this case, the comparison is aid the body of the wounded normal compared to aiding the SPD of the unstoppable brick.

In one case, the value is nominal - in that the useless character continues to exist, albeit in a even less use than normal fashion. and the other case, is that a max STR, max Def, Max CV brick gets to max his SPD, too.

which do you think has a larger impact?

EXP works a lot like the bell curve. A +1 at the 3- level quadruples your chance to succeed, but it's only a 1.5% improvement or so. A +1 at the 17- level helps even less than that. (assuming that you get any improvement at all) However, a +1 if your roll was 10- adds 12.5% to your chances of success. That's 9 times the impact of the same +1 at the 3- level. (3/216 vs 27/216)

Similarly, if you add 5 points to a 0 point thug, it does very little at all to improve their odds of defeating an average superhero. Also, if you add 5 points to Dr Destroyer, the odds change very little if at all. However, if you add 5 points to a villain scaled to have a 50/50 chance against the hero, then the impact could be very large indeed. (assuming you don't spend the 5 points on something entirely stupid)

[Trebuchet]

In this case, the comparison is aid the body of the wounded normal compared to aiding the SPD of the unstoppable brick.

In one case, the value is nominal - in that the useless character continues to exist, albeit in a even less use than normal fashion. and the other case, is that a max STR, max Def, Max CV brick gets to max his SPD, too.

which do you think has a larger impact?Um, saving a life, obviously. :think:

I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but I would dispute that saving the life of a "useless character," even a normal, is inconsequential. Sure, if your goal is to win all your team's fights at any cost then giving more SPD to the team's brick is a good thing; a wonderful thing. But if your ultimate goal is to protect the lives of normals, despite the fact it often places your own character or teammates at risk, then the ability to patch up a mortally wounded normal is an ability without equal. This is an area where roleplaying should trump mere mechanics and tactics.

IMO being at risk of serious injury or even death, knowing it, and still doing the job is what makes a superhero a hero; not the flashy multicolored bolts he can fire from his hands or the fact he can fly and bounce bullets off his chest.

[PhilFleischmann]

You didn't read the quote thoroughly.
Yes, I did. If you meant something other than what you wrote, feel free to try again.


In one case, the value is nominal - in that the useless character continues to exist, albeit in a even less use than normal fashion. and the other case, is that a max STR, max Def, Max CV brick gets to max his SPD, too.

which do you think has a larger impact?
Hmmm... :think: Saving a life, versus ending a fight a few segments faster...
I don't think the innocent bystander considers his life to be of "nominal" value, nor does he think of himself as "useless."


EXP works a lot like the bell curve.
In other words, it's not exponential. Thank you.


A +1 at the 3- level quadruples your chance to succeed, but it's only a 1.5% improvement or so. A +1 at the 17- level helps even less than that. (assuming that you get any improvement at all) However, a +1 if your roll was 10- adds 12.5% to your chances of success. That's 9 times the impact of the same +1 at the 3- level. (3/216 vs 27/216)
I have never, in 20+ years of playing HERO, even seen a character with a base 3- roll in anything. And I seriously doubt anyone else has either. You have also made the assumption that there aren't ever any situational modifiers or other bonuses or penatlies to the roll. A guy who buys up his 17- to an 18-, and then has to take a -5 penalty on the roll due to difficulty modifiers, is definitely getting use out of his xp. The guy who goes from 11- to 12- and then gets a "routine task" bonus of +5 isn't being helped that much, by his improved roll in that case.


Similarly, if you add 5 points to a 0 point thug, it does very little at all to improve their odds of defeating an average superhero. Also, if you add 5 points to Dr Destroyer, the odds change very little if at all. However, if you add 5 points to a villain scaled to have a 50/50 chance against the hero, then the impact could be very large indeed. (assuming you don't spend the 5 points on something entirely stupid)
Do 0 point thugs in your campaign think they could defeat a superhero if they only had 5 more points? They don't in mine. However, 5 points worth of Life Support may make them immune to the superhero's power, or 5 points worth of Teleportation might allow them to escape from the superhero. Even when the points are equal between two combattants, there is still enough luck in the game that 355 points is not significantly more likely to win in a fight against 350 points (1.4% difference). That's one of the great strengths of the system: little differences can have a great impact in the right circumstances, just like in real life.

[prestidigitator]

EXP works a lot like the bell curve.In other words, it's not exponential. Thank you.
Actually, I must play devil's advocate a tiny bit here. The bell curve does look exponential at the end points. In fact the shape of the perfect normal distribution of e^(-x^2) that the 3d6 roll begins to approach approximates a*b^[x - (-n)] for some constants a and b when sufficiently close to -n, and a*b^-(x - n) when sufficiently close to +n. It is only close to zero (the mid-point, or mean) that the bell curve does not appear to be either exponentially increasing or exponentially decreasing.

[BNakagawa]

at what point does injured = dying? saving a life is great and spending xp to add body to an injured character is never an option in most games.

you're comparing apples to electron microscopes, this is going nowhere.

[zornwil]

at what point does injured = dying? saving a life is great and spending xp to add body to an injured character is never an option in most games.

you're comparing apples to electron microscopes, this is going nowhere.
Saving a life is a common option in games. I'm not sure what the issue is with spending up to add body to an injured character, but that's a basic sort of Aid, I can't see where a GM would disallow it.

[Trebuchet]

Saving a life is a common option in games. I'm not sure what the issue is with spending up to add body to an injured character, but that's a basic sort of Aid, I can't see where a GM would disallow it.It certainly doesn't require Aid or Healing to save lives. Our team's most powerful EB, Thunderbird, is also a trauma surgeon and Paramedic, and it would not be at all out of character for T'bird to stop fighting a villain to render first aid to a fallen comrade or innocent bystander. Indeed, as a doctor he would be obligated to render aid by his Hippocratic Oath.

[RDU Neil]

Actually, I must play devil's advocate a tiny bit here. The bell curve does look exponential at the end points. In fact the shape of the perfect normal distribution of e^(-x^2) that the 3d6 roll begins to approach approximates a*b^[x - (-n)] for some constants a and b when sufficiently close to -n, and a*b^-(x - n) when sufficiently close to +n. It is only close to zero (the mid-point, or mean) that the bell curve does not appear to be either exponentially increasing or exponentially decreasing.

Ok... no offense to you math-heads out there... but does anyone else see how a paragraph like this claiming to be about a ROLE PLAYING GAME would send most gamers running for the safety of d20.

The fact that Hero generates these kind of conversations at all, really scares me.

YMMV

[zornwil]

It certainly doesn't require Aid or Healing to save lives. Our team's most powerful EB, Thunderbird, is also a trauma surgeon and Paramedic, and it would not be at all out of character for T'bird to stop fighting a villain to render first aid to a fallen comrade or innocent bystander. Indeed, as a doctor he would be obligated to render aid by his Hippocratic Oath.
Definitely, agreed, I was just responding to that note on adding BOD and don't understand the purported issue with that.

I have seen many permutations on abilities that were built for life-saving or just used for that purpose.

[zornwil]

Ok... no offense to you math-heads out there... but does anyone else see how a paragraph like this claiming to be about a ROLE PLAYING GAME would send most gamers running for the safety of d20.

The fact that Hero generates these kind of conversations at all, really scares me.

YMMV
To be fair, this level of argument is really not necessary at all to players and games in general. But I understand your point.

Interestingly, perhaps part of HERO's enemy is 3d6 itself. Maybe we should go percentile - it definitely destroys all such complexities in odds determination.

As an interesting aside, damage could be based on percentile of potential damage and target's actual STUN and BOD. Could be an interesting way to avoid abusive damage...but now we're on a total tangent...

But to your point, RDU Neil, I really think that any true toolkit devolves to such conversations. It is the weakness and strength - if we want to influence the tookit, we do end up in such minutiae. I think that a d20 conversation could go well the same, considering you could and would discuss things such as the probabilities of a hit actually getting through after the attack roll AND the saving throw AND mitigating skills and the probabilities they are in play and all that. The difference is that the d20 audience is in many ways a different one and less likely to even be interested to do this. The HERO audience, conversely, is directly interested in this.

IOW, I think this is a result of the tookit versus "complete game" mentality.

On this point, derived HERO games could be very successful in abstracting to the point where such conversations don't occur. Of course those are no longer toolkits, but that's okay.

[Trebuchet]

Ok... no offense to you math-heads out there... but does anyone else see how a paragraph like this claiming to be about a ROLE PLAYING GAME would send most gamers running for the safety of d20.

The fact that Hero generates these kind of conversations at all, really scares me.Well, it's only because Hero is so flexible and unlike any other game I am familiar with actually provides guideline for changing the rules.

Nobody has these kinds of discussions about some (most?) other game systems because those systems don't encourage experimentation. For myself, while I always enjoy these theoretical threads because I enjoy thinking about new approaches, but I play in a campaign that is almost totally straight as written. It's just easier to do it that way when you've got 5+ GM's.

[lemming]

Ok... no offense to you math-heads out there... but does anyone else see how a paragraph like this claiming to be about a ROLE PLAYING GAME would send most gamers running for the safety of d20.

The fact that Hero generates these kind of conversations at all, really scares me.
Not everyone who drives cars gets into long conversations about all the different tires, fuel, etc... that one can use to enhance performance.

Some people use Hero as is, others like tinkering and discussing the system. I don't see why it has to be a black box.

[prestidigitator]

Ok... no offense to you math-heads out there... but does anyone else see how a paragraph like this claiming to be about a ROLE PLAYING GAME would send most gamers running for the safety of d20.

The fact that Hero generates these kind of conversations at all, really scares me.

YMMV
While I love tinkering with the system, the roll, probabilities, physical models, etc., I agree with everyone else that it isn't necessary to play the game. One of the things I like about the Hero system is that it does a lot of this for you, so that instead of arguing for three gaming sessions about whether you can break a sword or what level spell that should be, you can just get on with roleplaying. So these boards are for us geeks that want to mess with the system, and the gaming table is for everyone who is ready to get out the dice and play!


Interestingly, perhaps part of HERO's enemy is 3d6 itself. Maybe we should go percentile - it definitely destroys all such complexities in odds determination.
Noooooooo!!!! Go away! I love my 3d6 curve! You are going to force me to hide under the table--clutching my d6s for dear life--aren't you?

[zornwil]

Noooooooo!!!! Go away! I love my 3d6 curve! You are going to force me to hide under the table--clutching my d6s for dear life--aren't you?

Yes, but only because I like the visual! :D

[Trebuchet]

Interestingly, perhaps part of HERO's enemy is 3d6 itself. Maybe we should go percentile - it definitely destroys all such complexities in odds determination.Actually I consider the 3d6 system to be one of Hero's greatest strengths. No other system so perfectly represents how people get really good at a skill. As you get progressively better, each improvement gets harder and harder until at the very top of the skill practitioners the increases are incremental and tiny. Target shooters and Olympic swimmers struggle to gain a .01% improvement in order to beat their opponent, because the difference between first place and second place might be less than 1/100th of a second or 1 millimeter. The 10 ring of the Olympic 10 meter air rifle target is only 0.5 millimeter across. Think about the kind of precision and steadiness it takes to hit a target smaller than a pinhead at 32 feet. Being off your game by 1% at this level means you probably won't even take third place. And that's the kind of skill you're looking at with a 17- or 18-.

[Old Man]

I AM LOSING MY MIND!!!

I thought this thread said:

"Scantily Clad Nobility"

[zornwil]

Actually I consider the 3d6 system to be one of Hero's greatest strengths. No other system so perfectly represents how people get really good at a skill. As you get progressively better, each improvement gets harder and harder until at the very top of the skill practitioners the increases are incremental and tiny. Target shooters and Olympic swimmers struggle to gain a .01% improvement in order to beat their opponent, because the difference between first place and second place might be less than 1/100th of a second or 1 millimeter. The 10 ring of the Olympic 10 meter air rifle target is only 0.5 millimeter across. Think about the kind of precision and steadiness it takes to hit a target smaller than a pinhead at 32 feet. Being off your game by 1% at this level means you probably won't even take third place. And that's the kind of skill you're looking at with a 17- or 18-.
Sure, but you could do it with percentile dice, though I think it would be a bit more of a pain in terms of the rules, you'd need a chart. But gamers love charts!

I'm not personally advocating the change so much as raising the potential.

There's an interesting side point here - people grow to love certain dice types and constructs in games. I love the many-sided dice use in Deadlands. I like the 3d6 and many d6 damage idea in HERO. I would hate to change either, but really just out of the tactile familiarity/feel I now associate.

[zornwil]

I AM LOSING MY MIND!!!

I thought this thread said:

"Scantily Clad Nobility"
Heh, you've spending too much time with your pics! You're not going blind but your eyes are definitely affected! :D

[Vondy]

I AM LOSING MY MIND!!!

I thought this thread said:

"Scantily Clad Nobility"

I want in on this game!

[PhilFleischmann]

I've been thinking about trying 3d12 instead of 3d6. :fear: Just thinking! :angel: I don't actually own any d12s. The idea is to allow for finer granularity while keeping the bell curve. The shape of the bell curve is exactly the same regardless of the type of dice used, as long as you use three of them and their all the same.

Every once in a while, I get annoyed that 10- is 50% and 11- is 62.5%, which is a 12.5% difference for a +1! That's a 1/8 difference.

With 3d12, 19- is 50%, and 20- is about 56.2%, not quite so big a leap.

Just a thought, I probably won't ever bother actually doing this in a game, but it does make the curve smoother, without changing its shape.

[Trebuchet]

I've been thinking about trying 3d12 instead of 3d6. :fear: Just thinking! :angel: I don't actually own any d12s. The idea is to allow for finer granularity while keeping the bell curve. The shape of the bell curve is exactly the same regardless of the type of dice used, as long as you use three of them and their all the same.

Every once in a while, I get annoyed that 10- is 50% and 11- is 62.5%, which is a 12.5% difference for a +1! That's a 1/8 difference.

With 3d12, 19- is 50%, and 20- is about 56.2%, not quite so big a leap.

Just a thought, I probably won't ever bother actually doing this in a game, but it does make the curve smoother, without changing its shape.You will burn in Heck for your apostasy, you heretic. :straight:

Seriously, have you worked out all the probabilities for each step of the 3-36 3d12 curve? I'd be curious to see how it compared to the 3d6.

[Vondy]

You will burn in Heck for your apostasy, you heretic. :straight:

Seriously, have you worked out all the probabilities for each step of the 3-36 3d12 curve? I'd be curious to see how it compared to the 3d6.

It would be cool, but reworking and recosting the skill system would be a female dog in extreme heat.

[lemming]

You will burn in Heck for your apostasy, you heretic. :straight:

Seriously, have you worked out all the probabilities for each step of the 3-36 3d12 curve? I'd be curious to see how it compared to the 3d6.
Here's the list:
Roll, freq, running total, percentage

 3   1    1  0.06
 4   3    4  0.23
 5   6   10  0.58
 6  10   20  1.16
 7  15   35  2.03
 8  21   56  3.24
 9  28   84  4.86
10  36  120  6.94
11  45  165  9.55
12  55  220 12.73
13  66  286 16.55
14  78  364 21.06
15  88  452 26.16
16  96  548 31.71
17 102  650 37.62
18 106  756 43.75
19 108  864 50.00
20 108  972 56.25
21 106 1078 62.38
22 102 1180 68.29
23  96 1276 73.84
24  88 1364 78.94
25  78 1442 83.45
26  66 1508 87.27
27  55 1563 90.45
28  45 1608 93.06
29  36 1644 95.14
30  28 1672 96.76
31  21 1693 97.97
32  15 1708 98.84
33  10 1718 99.42
34   6 1724 99.77
35   3 1727 99.94
36   1 1728 100.00

And would redoing skills be a simple matter of saying skills have a base of 18+(Char/5)?
edit:Getting the percentages was easy, formating the chart, yech.

[Trebuchet]

And would redoing skills be a simple matter of saying skills have a base of 18+(Char/5)?Interesting. To make such a system work you'd really have to rework the entire system, including combat. So a roll of 3, 4, or 5 on 3d12 would be an automatic hit or success, and a roll of 34,35, or 36 would be a miss/failure.

I don't think it would be worth the trouble, especially since you'd basically have to rewrite every skill and character in the books. And if 3d12 is less granular, why not use 3d20 to be even smoother? 3d100? :eg:

[zornwil]

I was assuming Phil wanted the probabilities reduced, so just shifting the center to this new curve is the only required change. I could see that. It would be interesting for a game where everyone has uber-skills so you want to slow down the high end of the curve. I could see it for the game I'm developing, all skills (like in Savage Worlds or even 1st/2nd ed. Champions) are fairly broad, so something like this would still allow for a certain omnicompetence with less radical probability gains for each +1.

[Trebuchet]

I was assuming Phil wanted the probabilities reduced, so just shifting the center to this new curve is the only required change. I could see that. It would be interesting for a game where everyone has uber-skills so you want to slow down the high end of the curve. I could see it for the game I'm developing, all skills (like in Savage Worlds or even 1st/2nd ed. Champions) are fairly broad, so something like this would still allow for a certain omnicompetence with less radical probability gains for each +1.I've always considered Hero to represent omnicompetence best by how it applies penalties to a situation. 17- is seems pretty good until you apply a -6 for trying to do it two steps down the Time Chart or because the task is inherently extremely difficult and you're suddenly trying to accomplish something critical with only a 11- (62% chance of success). So IMO true omnicompetence comes only with rolls in the 20's. That's why my PC Zl'f has a 22- Acrobatics roll: The extremely difficult becomes almost routine even with a -5 to the roll. "OK, I'm going to jump out, catch the falling baby, somersault and bounce off the side of the 20 story building, bounce again off that handy flagpole, and finally land on an awning over the hotel entrance and Breakfall at 18-. That's a total of -5 to my Acrobatics roll for 'Sheer Folly'? No problem." (And being a heroine, she'd have to try even with a 11-.)

[Chromatic]

In games where my characters have rolls over 20-, I've joked many times that I'd like to take my skill rolls on 4d6 instead of 3d6 as long as a failure was only considered absolute on a roll of 24.

rolling a 14 instead of 11 still lets the "world's greatest detective" succeed by +30 on his forensics, and if he rolls poorly and gets a 21 or 22? No matter, its still by half.....

So far no GM has agreed that this is a good idea.

Maybe, the right way to go about this is to make it an advantage to bump up from d6's to d8's or d10's. For the obscenely compentent it makes sense.

Lets see, Ubermench has all his sciences on a 27-, he pays 3 points for Scientist, has a 53 Int, and +10 to Science skill rolls, all his sciences are now 2 points for an Int based roll.

He opts for +1/2 to make his science rolls on a 3d8, 23 & 24 are the critical fail, to do this he paid 5 points for Scientist, 45 points for the 10 science levels, and 3 points for his sciences at Int base. Kind of pricey to just avoid the 18 on 3d6 (which although considered a critical fail, is actually making his roll by 9). Maybe make it a +1/4......

. . . .

When you only play in games where 16- or 17- is the peak skill capability, I don't see how this would ever come up and be an issue. But when you spent 1/3 of your hero's points on skills and end up rolling an 18 which fails in that important scenario which would have made the needed skill roll on by loads, its a bit annoying. Humorous to be sure, but annoying.

[Trebuchet]

When you only play in games where 16- or 17- is the peak skill capability, I don't see how this would ever come up and be an issue. But when you spent 1/3 of your hero's points on skills and end up rolling an 18 which fails in that important scenario which would have made the needed skill roll on by loads, its a bit annoying. Humorous to be sure, but annoying.If a character in our game had that level of expertise and failed only because of an 18 roll and not because they did something downright stupid or unheroic, I don't think any of our GMs would make it a catastrophic failure. They might not succeed, but we'd probably permit a second attempt or simply have the results of the failure be somewhat less dire. We view dice as our tools, not as masters. I just can't see the planet being destroyed because Wonder Dude blew his 17- Security Systems roll.

FTR, in our campaign only my PC has any Skills in the 20+ range, but 16- or 17- are not uncommon.

[lemming]

If a character in our game had that level of expertise and failed only because of an 18 roll and not because they did something downright stupid or unheroic, I don't think any of our GMs would make it a catastrophic failure. They might not succeed, but we'd probably permit a second attempt or simply have the results of the failure be somewhat less dire. We view dice as our tools, not as masters. I just can't see the planet being destroyed because Wonder Dude blew his 17- Security Systems roll.

FTR, in our campaign only my PC has any Skills in the 20+ range, but 16- or 17- are not uncommon.
Chromatic is still mentally scarred by the GM that made him make three+ acrobatics rolls to get over a fence. :D

[Trebuchet]

Chromatic is still mentally scarred by the GM that made him make three+ acrobatics rolls to get over a fence. :DJudging from what I've heard of the campaign his namesake runs in, I doubt it was climbing the fence that bothered him so much as the 153 BODY he took for blowing the first two rolls and getting caught on the concertina wire. :eek: :D

[zornwil]

I've always considered Hero to represent omnicompetence best by how it applies penalties to a situation. 17- is seems pretty good until you apply a -6 for trying to do it two steps down the Time Chart or because the task is inherently extremely difficult and you're suddenly trying to accomplish something critical with only a 11- (62% chance of success). So IMO true omnicompetence comes only with rolls in the 20's. That's why my PC Zl'f has a 22- Acrobatics roll: The extremely difficult becomes almost routine even with a -5 to the roll. "OK, I'm going to jump out, catch the falling baby, somersault and bounce off the side of the 20 story building, bounce again off that handy flagpole, and finally land on an awning over the hotel entrance and Breakfall at 18-. That's a total of -5 to my Acrobatics roll for 'Sheer Folly'? No problem." (And being a heroine, she'd have to try even with a 11-.)
I'm speaking, though, of omnicompetence as in across very many skills and having them without paying so much as well, but wanting more granularity as to the increase in odds. Not speaking for how HERO is now, but rather for a game based on it, specific to a setting/genre.

[zornwil]

In games where my characters have rolls over 20-, I've joked many times that I'd like to take my skill rolls on 4d6 instead of 3d6 as long as a failure was only considered absolute on a roll of 24.

rolling a 14 instead of 11 still lets the "world's greatest detective" succeed by +30 on his forensics, and if he rolls poorly and gets a 21 or 22? No matter, its still by half.....

So far no GM has agreed that this is a good idea.

Maybe, the right way to go about this is to make it an advantage to bump up from d6's to d8's or d10's. For the obscenely compentent it makes sense.

Lets see, Ubermench has all his sciences on a 27-, he pays 3 points for Scientist, has a 53 Int, and +10 to Science skill rolls, all his sciences are now 2 points for an Int based roll.

He opts for +1/2 to make his science rolls on a 3d8, 23 & 24 are the critical fail, to do this he paid 5 points for Scientist, 45 points for the 10 science levels, and 3 points for his sciences at Int base. Kind of pricey to just avoid the 18 on 3d6 (which although considered a critical fail, is actually making his roll by 9). Maybe make it a +1/4......

. . . .

When you only play in games where 16- or 17- is the peak skill capability, I don't see how this would ever come up and be an issue. But when you spent 1/3 of your hero's points on skills and end up rolling an 18 which fails in that important scenario which would have made the needed skill roll on by loads, its a bit annoying. Humorous to be sure, but annoying.
I think there is an interesting germ of an idea here for uber-skills and dealing with the scale, possibly. Only would apply to skills, specifically, which puts skill levels for combat out of whack potentially (not necessarily) as that presumably remains the same.

Have to think more, but need to focus on Cyber Ninja Pirates in Space first.

[Trebuchet]

I'm speaking, though, of omnicompetence as in across very many skills and having them without paying so much as well, but wanting more granularity as to the increase in odds. Not speaking for how HERO is now, but rather for a game based on it, specific to a setting/genre.Our buddy DangerousDan wants to run a "jack of all trades; master of none" character in another campaign and we were discussing the difficulties of doing this within Hero after our Champions run Saturday. His original design of the character (for a 350 point game, mind you) was 600 points in Skills alone bought at 11-.

We decided the only rational way was some sort of VPP: Skills; but to prevent it from making him omnicompetent Mentor suggested he should still have to buy 70 - 80 points of more commonly used Skills "the hard way." The rationale for that (which I agree with) is that if you're going to have a schtick, then it should be relatively costly. And any Skill would still have to have a rationale for how he had it and he'd have to have the Characteristics to make it fly (Nobody is going to have Acrobatics with a 10 DEX or Nuclear Physics with an 8 INT.) A Skill VPP with a 5 point Control Cost and a 10 Point Pool Cost just didn't fit that criteria when you consider how useful having any Skill at 11- would be in most campaigns. "KS:Obscure Alien Hyperspace Drive Engines? Of course I've got that. We'll have it fixed in a jiffy." :)

[lemming]

Our buddy DangerousDan wants to run a "jack of all trades; master of none" character in another campaign and we were discussing the difficulties of doing this within Hero after our Champions run Saturday. His original design of the character (for a 350 point game, mind you) was 600 points in Skills alone bought at 11-.

We decided the only rational way was some sort of VPP: Skills; but to prevent it from making him omnicompetent Mentor suggested he should still have to buy 70 - 80 points of more commonly used Skills "the hard way." The rationale for that (which I agree with) is that if you're going to have a schtick, then it should be relatively costly. And any Skill would still have to have a rationale for how he had it and he'd have to have the Characteristics to make it fly (Nobody is going to have Acrobatics with a 10 DEX or Nuclear Physics with an 8 INT.) A Skill VPP with a 5 point Control Cost and a 10 Point Pool Cost just didn't fit that criteria when you consider how useful having any Skill at 11- would be in most campaigns. "KS:Obscure Alien Hyperspace Drive Engines? Of course I've got that. We'll have it fixed in a jiffy." :)

He should probably borrow the skill "SCIENCE!" from GURPS: Atomic Horror. Or at least the idea. You buy a skill that can pertain to many other areas at very high levels and take minuses the more off the beaten path it is.
SCIENCE might be -15 to be able to fix an Obscure Alien Hyperspace Drive Engine.
Just takes a little handwaving from the GM. And of course if a character actually has that KS, they should still be more useful with it.

[zornwil]

Our buddy DangerousDan wants to run a "jack of all trades; master of none" character in another campaign and we were discussing the difficulties of doing this within Hero after our Champions run Saturday. His original design of the character (for a 350 point game, mind you) was 600 points in Skills alone bought at 11-.

We decided the only rational way was some sort of VPP: Skills; but to prevent it from making him omnicompetent Mentor suggested he should still have to buy 70 - 80 points of more commonly used Skills "the hard way." The rationale for that (which I agree with) is that if you're going to have a schtick, then it should be relatively costly. And any Skill would still have to have a rationale for how he had it and he'd have to have the Characteristics to make it fly (Nobody is going to have Acrobatics with a 10 DEX or Nuclear Physics with an 8 INT.) A Skill VPP with a 5 point Control Cost and a 10 Point Pool Cost just didn't fit that criteria when you consider how useful having any Skill at 11- would be in most campaigns. "KS:Obscure Alien Hyperspace Drive Engines? Of course I've got that. We'll have it fixed in a jiffy." :)
I think buying generalized skills and allowing (downward) modifiers for more niche knowledge could also work. There was a comment in Fantasy HERO about some modifier such as -5 or similar per "level" above or below one's knowledge - so, for example, if you have "Area Knowledge: United States" on 14/less, Texas Knowledge roll would be -5, and San Antonio (two levels down) would be -10. You could apply a similar logic to non-Knowledge skills (within reason).

[prestidigitator]

I think buying generalized skills and allowing (downward) modifiers for more niche knowledge could also work. There was a comment in Fantasy HERO about some modifier such as -5 or similar per "level" above or below one's knowledge - so, for example, if you have "Area Knowledge: United States" on 14/less, Texas Knowledge roll would be -5, and San Antonio (two levels down) would be -10. You could apply a similar logic to non-Knowledge skills (within reason).
Yeah. Agreed. I think this is also explained in the core rules, actually, although with less specific mechanics. I'd let a character buy, "KS: Everything," and, "PS: Jack of all Trades," and, "SS: Science," but they would suffer pretty monumental penalties for just about anything (and I'm not sure whether I'd let them serve as Complimentary Skills, at least in the normal fashion; they don't exactly represent specialties or flavor at this point). So buy a ton of normal skills and a couple really huge Background Skills (I don't know, 40-?). That sounds a lot better to me than buying 200-300 Skills for 600 points!

The other idea, of course, is to go the Universal Translator route of using Detects and what have you, at least for the KS aspect of it. Then you can apply a RSR with Power: Universal Knowledge an be done with it. :D

[PhilFleischmann]

I knew that would get a rise out of people! And yes, I really did work out all the probabilities (it was easy: I used an Excel spreadsheet). Lemming saved me the trouble of having to post them here.


Interesting. To make such a system work you'd really have to rework the entire system, including combat. So a roll of 3, 4, or 5 on 3d12 would be an automatic hit or success, and a roll of 34,35, or 36 would be a miss/failure.
What's to rework? All you have to do is change the base of how rolls are determined: 11- becomes 20- (or 21- if you prefer); 9+(CHA/5)- becomes 18+(CHA/5)- (or 19+CHA/5- if you prefer); 8- familiarity becomes 16- (or 15- or 17-, adjust to taste). For combat, instead of hitting on 11+OCV-DCV or less, you hit on 20+OCV-DCV or less.

Those are the only changes you need to make. Sure, if you like, you can reduce the cost of extra plusses of skills +1/1 point for regular skills, +2/1 point for background skills. Is that so tough?

Also, if you want, you can change the rolls for Activation and Disads, etc., but those changes are all fairly obvious when you look at the chart Lemming posted (or at my speadsheet).


I don't think it would be worth the trouble, especially since you'd basically have to rewrite every skill and character in the books. And if 3d12 is less granular, why not use 3d20 to be even smoother? 3d100? :eg:
If all you do is "multiply everything by 2," then no, it isn't worth it. The main reason why I came up with this is for combat to hit rolls, not as much for skills.

And yes, 3d20 would be even more granular. I actually worked out the odds for 3d4, 3d8, 3d10, 3d12, and 3d20. I just liked 3d12 best - it was easiest to convert from 3d6 since the bell curve is "spead out" exactly by a factor of 2. 3d10 or 3d20 both work out nicely with all probabilities being multiples of 1/1000 and 1/8000 exactly. I didn't bother with 3d100, since you'd have to roll 6d10 and know which are "tens dice" and which are "ones dice." At that point the "ones dice" make little difference, so you might as well go back to using 3d10.

The problem, as I see it, is that using the current 3d6 system, a small disparity in CV makes a huge difference in combat. A difference of one means that the high-CV guy (say 9) hits the low-CV guy (8) 50% more often than vice-versa. For the 6 points worth of DEX that the low-CV guy saved, can he really make his attacks do 50% more damage to compensate?

A difference of a mere 3 CV between opponents, say 10 CV vs 7 CV, results in the higher CV hitting 3.5 times as often as he gets hit. To be balanced, the lower-CV guy needs to be able to get 3.5 times the effect out of each his less frequent hits.

And when OCV penalties (such as Range Modifiers) are added in (or subtracted out, rather), the problem gets even worse.

This problem leads to CV "arms races." I wouldn't ever want to have a character that was more than 1 CV below the average opponent, or more than 2 or 3 below the highest CV opponent. The 3d12 system lessens this disparity.

[Storn]

Our buddy DangerousDan wants to run a "jack of all trades; master of none" character in another campaign and we were discussing the difficulties of doing this within Hero after our Champions run Saturday. His original design of the character (for a 350 point game, mind you) was 600 points in Skills alone bought at 11-.

We decided the only rational way was some sort of VPP: Skills; but to prevent it from making him omnicompetent Mentor suggested he should still have to buy 70 - 80 points of more commonly used Skills "the hard way." The rationale for that (which I agree with) is that if you're going to have a schtick, then it should be relatively costly. And any Skill would still have to have a rationale for how he had it and he'd have to have the Characteristics to make it fly (Nobody is going to have Acrobatics with a 10 DEX or Nuclear Physics with an 8 INT.) A Skill VPP with a 5 point Control Cost and a 10 Point Pool Cost just didn't fit that criteria when you consider how useful having any Skill at 11- would be in most campaigns. "KS:Obscure Alien Hyperspace Drive Engines? Of course I've got that. We'll have it fixed in a jiffy." :)

Nah, such an easier way. But 30 pts of +3 with all levels. Then buy a bunch of 1 pt KS at 8-.

[prestidigitator]

Nah, such an easier way. But 30 pts of +3 with all levels. Then buy a bunch of 1 pt KS at 8-.
What's, "a bunch." The character obviously already had hundreds of Skills.... Besides, you can't apply Skill Levels to a Skill with which you are only Familiar. If you could, it would be WAAAAYYYY too cheap!

EDIT: You could, however, buy some Skill Enhancers and get some of them to 11- for only one CP.... :rolleyes:

[zornwil]

(snip)

The other idea, of course, is to go the Universal Translator route of using Detects and what have you, at least for the KS aspect of it. Then you can apply a RSR with Power: Universal Knowledge an be done with it. :D

That just hurts...

:lol:

[zornwil]

I knew that would get a rise out of people! And yes, I really did work out all the probabilities (it was easy: I used an Excel spreadsheet). Lemming saved me the trouble of having to post them here.


What's to rework? All you have to do is change the base of how rolls are determined: 11- becomes 20- (or 21- if you prefer); 9+(CHA/5)- becomes 18+(CHA/5)- (or 19+CHA/5- if you prefer); 8- familiarity becomes 16- (or 15- or 17-, adjust to taste). For combat, instead of hitting on 11+OCV-DCV or less, you hit on 20+OCV-DCV or less.

Those are the only changes you need to make. Sure, if you like, you can reduce the cost of extra plusses of skills +1/1 point for regular skills, +2/1 point for background skills. Is that so tough?

Also, if you want, you can change the rolls for Activation and Disads, etc., but those changes are all fairly obvious when you look at the chart Lemming posted (or at my speadsheet).


If all you do is "multiply everything by 2," then no, it isn't worth it. The main reason why I came up with this is for combat to hit rolls, not as much for skills.

And yes, 3d20 would be even more granular. I actually worked out the odds for 3d4, 3d8, 3d10, 3d12, and 3d20. I just liked 3d12 best - it was easiest to convert from 3d6 since the bell curve is "spead out" exactly by a factor of 2. 3d10 or 3d20 both work out nicely with all probabilities being multiples of 1/1000 and 1/8000 exactly. I didn't bother with 3d100, since you'd have to roll 6d10 and know which are "tens dice" and which are "ones dice." At that point the "ones dice" make little difference, so you might as well go back to using 3d10.

The problem, as I see it, is that using the current 3d6 system, a small disparity in CV makes a huge difference in combat. A difference of one means that the high-CV guy (say 9) hits the low-CV guy (8) 50% more often than vice-versa. For the 6 points worth of DEX that the low-CV guy saved, can he really make his attacks do 50% more damage to compensate?

A difference of a mere 3 CV between opponents, say 10 CV vs 7 CV, results in the higher CV hitting 3.5 times as often as he gets hit. To be balanced, the lower-CV guy needs to be able to get 3.5 times the effect out of each his less frequent hits.

And when OCV penalties (such as Range Modifiers) are added in (or subtracted out, rather), the problem gets even worse.

This problem leads to CV "arms races." I wouldn't ever want to have a character that was more than 1 CV below the average opponent, or more than 2 or 3 below the highest CV opponent. The 3d12 system lessens this disparity.
Are you using or have you used this? How have the results been? How have the players felt?

[DangerousDan]

I've been thinking about trying 3d12 instead of 3d6. :fear: Just thinking! :angel: I don't actually own any d12s. The idea is to allow for finer granularity while keeping the bell curve. The shape of the bell curve is exactly the same regardless of the type of dice used, as long as you use three of them and their all the same.

Every once in a while, I get annoyed that 10- is 50% and 11- is 62.5%, which is a 12.5% difference for a +1! That's a 1/8 difference.

With 3d12, 19- is 50%, and 20- is about 56.2%, not quite so big a leap.

Just a thought, I probably won't ever bother actually doing this in a game, but it does make the curve smoother, without changing its shape.

I once ran a game (not Hero, and only very distantly related to D&D) where the typical die rolls were 3D20. The curve was smoother, but totaling the dice took longer. If I'd realized it would make that much difference, I'd have limited myself to 3D10 or 4D10. And then, there is the sage comment by the Von D-Man:
It would be cool, but reworking and recosting the skill system would be a female dog in extreme heat.


<chart omitted>And would redoing skills be a simple matter of saying skills have a base of 18+(Char/5)?
edit:Getting the percentages was easy, formatting the chart, yech.
No, It would be much worse than that, because with one single change, you've made increasing the roll on skills more expensive relative to everything else, and now you have to recost Perks, Talents, Powers. How much is a 14- activation roll worth now? Or Requires a Skill Roll? You've just changed the active point penalty on RSR: 10 Active points makes a smaller difference in the RSR die roll. Becha hadn't expected that. This is why I must agree with Von D-Man's comment.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that you get a bell curve if you have at least three dice, and they don't even have to be the same size: 1D4 +1D6 + 1D8 + 1D10 + 1D12 + 1D20 gives you a decent curve, and possibly headaches too. :sick: 6D6 also gives you a bell curve. One billion D6 still gives you a bell curve, but it takes months to count up the total, and a really big dump-truck to roll the dice.

What you could do (but I'd bet that you won't) is make skill rolls (6d6)/2 (without rounding which makes the bell curve finer grained, without changing its shape) and figuring out a way to charge for half-points of skill.

[zornwil]

No, It would be much worse than that, because with one single change, you've made increasing the roll on skills more expensive relative to everything else, and now you have to recost Perks, Talents, Powers. How much is a 14- activation roll worth now? Or Requires a Skill Roll? You've just changed the active point penalty on RSR: 10 Active points makes a smaller difference in the RSR die roll. Becha hadn't expected that. This is why I must agree with Von D-Man's comment.

Actually I'm pretty sure he expected that and wouldn't recost the activation rolll, as doing the 3d12 thing is basically an immediate contention that skill granularity is too poor and additional skill points are under-costed.

I think this holds a lot of water in a skills-based game, where skills are really important and even primary, as opposed to powers, and where skills basically are powers, they are rather broad and/or powerful. I'm considering it heavily for my Cyber Ninja Pirates in Space Game which features broad skills and the ability to specialize in certain uber-skills.

[Phil]

In games where my characters have rolls over 20-, I've joked many times that I'd like to take my skill rolls on 4d6 instead of 3d6 as long as a failure was only considered absolute on a roll of 24.

Now that *is* an interesting idea. Then again, the automatica failure rate of 1/216 is far less than most games, which go for a 1/20, 1/36 or 1/100, so I wouldnt entertain it either.

[Phil]

One billion D6 still gives you a bell curve, but it takes months to count up the total, and a really big dump-truck to roll the dice.

Hate to be a pedant, but... aww, ok then. I love being a pedant. If you count 10 dice every second, it'll take you around 190 years to count them all. Maybe that's how the Gods keep themselves entertained for those countless millenia.

[Chromatic]

Hate to be a pedant, but... aww, ok then. I love being a pedant. If you count 10 dice every second, it'll take you around 190 years to count them all. Maybe that's how the Gods keep themselves entertained for those countless millenia.

Bzzzzt. thank you for playing please try again.


1,000,000,000 dice /10 /second == 100,000,000 seconds
100,000,000 / 60 seconds / minute == 1,666,666.66 minutes
1,666,666.66 minutes / 60 minutes / hour == 27,777.77 hours
27,777.77 hours / 24 hours / day == 1157.40 days

Just a bit over 3 years.

Even if you did 1 a second, its only 31.7 years.

Now if you were really slow, and did 1 die / 6 seconds, THEN you would take like 190 years. :snicker:

and you think _you're_ being pendantic? :eg:

[Phil]

DOH! It's those crazy minutes and seconds that got me confused. We, er, dont have those in the UK (yeah, good excuse....). :stupid:

[paigeoliver]

A billion d6 would TECHNICALLY be a bell curve, but in reality every single roll you ever did would end up in between 3,499,999,950 and 3,500,000,050. The more dice you use the smaller and smaller the standard deviation becomes.

In the past I have actually experimented with replacing the standard 3d6 roll with a single D20 roll. If you play that way you don't have to worry nearly as much about balancing the OCV and DCV levels between various characters and baddies.

Earlier some people were commenting about not knowing what to spend XP on without breaking their character concept. That one is easy, general skill levels, just keep buying them. Whenever I am making a character and the character is "done" with points to spare I just start piling on the general skill levels.

[PhilFleischmann]

No, It would be much worse than that, because with one single change, you've made increasing the roll on skills more expensive relative to everything else, and now you have to recost Perks, Talents, Powers. How much is a 14- activation roll worth now? Or Requires a Skill Roll? You've just changed the active point penalty on RSR: 10 Active points makes a smaller difference in the RSR die roll. Becha hadn't expected that. This is why I must agree with Von D-Man's comment.
No, that's not the idea. You don't change the cost, you just change the roll required. A 14- Activation for instance, is worth the same thing as always, it's just a 27- now instead of 14- (or whatever it should be).


Actually, I'm fairly sure that you get a bell curve if you have at least three dice, and they don't even have to be the same size: 1D4 +1D6 + 1D8 + 1D10 + 1D12 + 1D20 gives you a decent curve, and possibly headaches too. :sick: 6D6 also gives you a bell curve. One billion D6 still gives you a bell curve, but it takes months to count up the total, and a really big dump-truck to roll the dice.
Sure, but all those different bell curves have different shapes. The more dice, the steeper the bell curve. For example, you could generate the familiar 3-18 range with 5d4-2, which creates a bell curve no smoother and no finer than 3d6, but it's much steeper. The standard deviation is much lower, which means you're much more likely to get average rolls and much less likely to get high and low rolls. About 1/200 to get an 18 on 3d6, about 1/1000 to get an 18 on 5d4-2.

The size of the dice changes the size of the bell curve proportionally, i.e., without changing its shape. The number of dice changes the shape as well as the size. And when you mix different size dice together, you also change the shape in more complicated ways - you get "plateaus" in the bell curve - arguably becoming no longer a true "bell curve" (but that's not necesarily a bad thing if that's what you want for your game). I have also calculated the odds curve for d4+d6+d8 and some other variations which also give a 3-18 range. They all give slightly wider, shallower curves with higher standard deviations (fewer average rolls).


What you could do (but I'd bet that you won't) is make skill rolls (6d6)/2 (without rounding which makes the bell curve finer grained, without changing its shape) and figuring out a way to charge for half-points of skill.
This actually changes the shape of the bell curve dramatically! I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine the odds of rolling an 18 with 6d6/2 as opposed to 3d6. Advanced students can work out the standard deviations of 6d6/2 and 3d6 to see how different they are.


The more dice you use the smaller and smaller the standard deviation becomes.
Well, relative to the range of possible rolls, that is. IIRC, the standard deviation increases with the square root of the number of dice. So as the number of dice goes up 4x (max roll 18 --> max roll 72; average 10.5 --> average 42), the standard deviation goes up only 2x (stddev ~2.5 --> stddev --> 5). So while most rolls on 3d6 will be between 8 and 13 (covering 3/8 of the range), the same portion of rolls on 12d6 will be between 37 and 47 (covering only about 1/6 of the range).

[prestidigitator]

Oh, dash it all! Let's just roll 2d(8.5)+1 and be done with it!

[PhilFleischmann]

Yes. I realize that my last post marks me as not merely a gaming nerd, but as a math nerd. It's my problem and I'm dealing with it the best I can. :o

And before any bigger math nerd than myself points it out, I was going from memory. The actual standard deviation on 3d6 is just a little less than 3. The Greek letter sigma is usually used as a symbol for standard deviation.

----- sigma
3d6 ~2.95
3d8 ~3.9
3d10 ~4.9
3d12 ~5.9
3d20 ~9.9

1d6 ~1.73
2d6 ~2.42
3d6 ~2.95
4d6 ~3.46
5d6 ~3.84
6d6 ~4.22
7d6 ~4.46
8d6 ~4.84

More information than you needed, I know.

[prestidigitator]

Yes. I realize that my last post marks me as not merely a gaming nerd, but as a math nerd. It's my problem and I'm dealing with it the best I can. :o
We're getting math-nerdy? Cool! Well, standard deviation (sigma) is actually defined as the square root of the variance (written sigma^2). The variance is the mean of the square of the difference from the mean. For a distribution which is the sum of two other distributions, the variance is also the sum of their variances (thus the standard deviation is the square root of the sum of the squares of the standard deviations).

For a dn, the mean is (n+1)/2. The variance is (n^2-1)/12. Thus, for the sum of N dice dn(1) + dn(2) + ..., the mean is:


avg = [n(1) + n(2) + ... + N]/2
and the standard deviation is:


sigma = sqrt( [n(1)^2 + n(2)^2 + ... - N]/12 )
Waaay more than you wanted to know?

[DangerousDan]

No, that's not the idea. You don't change the cost, you just change the roll required. A 14- Activation for instance, is worth the same thing as always, it's just a 27- now instead of 14- (or whatever it should be).


This actually changes the shape of the bell curve dramatically! I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine the odds of rolling an 18 with 6d6/2 as opposed to 3d6. Advanced students can work out the standard deviations of 6d6/2 and 3d6 to see how different they are.

You woke up a few brain cells that have been asleep for a few years. I thought that I'd check this out. I took the standard 3d6 distribution and a 6d6/2, with adjacent 'bins' added together (p(3) + p(3.5)) and graphed that. You are right, and I'm wrong. 6d6/2 does narrow the graph. See attached graph (if I actually manage to attach the graph)

[Trebuchet]

You woke up a few brain cells that have been asleep for a few years. I thought that I'd check this out. I took the standard 3d6 distribution and a 6d6/2, with adjacent 'bins' added together (p(3) + p(3.5)) and graphed that. You are right, and I'm wrong. 6d6/2 does narrow the graph.[/I]I'm no math whiz (Now there's a generous 1000% understatement), but it looks to me like 6d6/2 markedly increases the probability of getting a midrange result and a corresponding decrease in results at the upper and lower ends of the curve. What would be the percent chance of rolling an 11- on 6d6/2 as compared to on 3d6? (My rough estimate based on your graph is about 73%) And how much lower would be the probabilities of rolling a 3 or 18 to produce an automatic success or failure?

This does not look like a good idea. Is the graph for 3d8 as distorted?

[prestidigitator]

I'm no math whiz (Now there's a generous 1000% understatement), but it looks to me like 6d6/2 markedly increases the probability of getting a midrange result and a corresponding decrease in results at the upper and lower ends of the curve. What would be the percent chance of rolling an 11- on 6d6/2 as compared to on 3d6? (My rough estimate based on your graph is about 73%) And how much lower would be the probabilities of rolling a 3 or 18 to produce an automatic success or failure?

This does not look like a good idea. Is the graph for 3d8 as distorted?
Well, given that the dice you are rolling at any given time are of the same kind (all d6s, all d8s, etc.), the mean is proportional to the product of the number and type of dice. So if the number of dice is N and each die has n sides, the mean is (approximately) proportional to:

avg ~ N*n
The standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of dice and roughly the number of sides on each die:

sigma ~ sqrt(N)*n
So the standard deviation relative to the mean (and also relative to the maximum possible roll) is approximately proportional to the reciprocal of the square root of the number of dice:

sigma/avg ~ sqrt(N)*n/(N*n) = 1/sqrt(N)
This is independent of the type of die, so the general shape of the distribution will not change in character if you go from d6s to d8s but leave the number of dice constant. You must realize that there will be slight differences because the distributions are integral (you can roll a 1, 2, etc., but not a 1.5 or a 1.324987342).

Also, while the probability of rolling within a certain, "distance," of the mean (relative to the size of a die) remains constant when you change die type, the probability of rolling any one number will go down. So for 3d8 (standard deviation of just under 4), the probability that you roll within 4 of the mean of 13.5 is about the same as the probability on 3d6 (standard deviation of just under 3) of rolling within 3 of the mean of 10.5. However, the probability of rolling 13 or 14 on 3d8 will be less than the probability of rolling a 10 or 11 on 3d6.

[Trebuchet]

Well, given that the dice you are rolling at any given time are of the same kind (all d6s, all d8s, etc.), the mean is proportional to the product of the number and type of dice. So if the number of dice is N and each die has n sides, the mean is (approximately) proportional to:

avg ~ N*n
The standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of dice and roughly the number of sides on each die:

sigma ~ sqrt(N)*n
So the standard deviation relative to the mean (and also relative to the maximum possible roll) is approximately proportional to the reciprocal of the square root of the number of dice:

sigma/avg ~ sqrt(N)*n/(N*n) = 1/sqrt(N)
This is independent of the type of die, so the general shape of the distribution will not change in character if you go from d6s to d8s but leave the number of dice constant. You must realize that there will be slight differences because the distributions are integral (you can roll a 1, 2, etc., but not a 1.5 or a 1.324987342).

Also, while the probability of rolling within a certain, "distance," of the mean (relative to the size of a die) remains constant when you change die type, the probability of rolling any one number will go down. So for 3d8 (standard deviation of just under 4), the probability that you roll within 4 of the mean of 13.5 is about the same as the probability on 3d6 (standard deviation of just under 3) of rolling within 3 of the mean of 10.5. However, the probability of rolling 13 or 14 on 3d8 will be less than the probability of rolling a 10 or 11 on 3d6.I only understood the last two paragraphs of this dissertation, prestidigitator. The rest of it might as well have been in Klingon. :(

[prestidigitator]

I only understood the last two paragraphs of this dissertation, prestidigitator. The rest of it might as well have been in Klingon. :(
Sorry. I have a hard time presenting conclusions without their explanations. :(

[DangerousDan]

I'm no math whiz (Now there's a generous 1000% understatement), but it looks to me like 6d6/2 markedly increases the probability of getting a midrange result and a corresponding decrease in results at the upper and lower ends of the curve. What would be the percent chance of rolling an 11- on 6d6/2 as compared to on 3d6? (My rough estimate based on your graph is about 73%) And how much lower would be the probabilities of rolling a 3 or 18 to produce an automatic success or failure?

This does not look like a good idea. Is the graph for 3d8 as distorted?

on 3D6, you roll a three 0.463% of the time. On 6D6/2, a 3 comes up only 0.002% of the time, and even a 5 or less (5, 4.5, 4, 3.5 or 3) comes up only 0.45% of the time. Near the middle of the rolls, things are not quite so wonky.

3D6 3d6/2
Roll prob cumulative cumulative
3 0.463 0.463 0.002
4 1.389 1.852 0.06
5 2.778 4.63 0.45
6 4.63 9.259 1.968
7 6.944 16.204 6.076
8 9.722 25.926 14.463
9 11.574 37.5 27.939
10 12.5 50 45.358
11 12.5 62.5 63.69
12 11.574 74.074 79.415
13 9.722 83.796 90.353
14 6.944 90.741 96.412
15 4.63 95.37 99.01
16 2.778 98.148 99.82
17 1.389 99.537 99.985
18 0.463 100 100

As for 3d8, 3d10 and even 3d100, the attached charts may shed further darkness on the topic. One chart simply shows the frequency of die rolls for various sets of dice. The second shows the same graphs with their scales all set to have the same width and height.

[atlascott]

I like the multiple-dice mechanic ('bell curve") because I think it is appropriate to the game. In a d20 game I run, there is neve a game session where several players fail to make several crits. Thats because they expect to do so ona regular basis. Obscene success ought to be as odd as obscene failure. It means more and is more 'fair' and sensical. See? no math!