racial package with increased char maxima

[OberonGX]

ok, i already asked steve about this here:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3788
and i didnt quite get the answer i was looking for... so ill aks everyone this time:
ok, this is proabably a stupid question and might be more rellevant for the fantasy forum but i was having an arguement and it quickly began to become heated over this.
If you buy a package deal which contains a rise in your char maxima does this also mean your base value has increased and hence you dont have to pay points for it?
example: lets say the GM permits a race of super strong orc/dwarf half breed which contains a CHAR maxima of +10 STR. this would mean that one could pay 1 point for strength all the way up to 30, yes yes? ok. so where does he start at? what STR doe he get for paying for the package and spending no points at all on str? i thought it was 10 (same as usual), meaning the package really only affect the maxiam not the base. the GM thinks other wise and you START out at half your maxima; 15 STR for free! (the point being its really NOT free since you have to buy the package).
Then i brought up the point in the 4th Ed. fantasy hero book that the sample character seem to pay for ther CHAR based all on startting out at values of 10... then i seemed to have won the arguement but then something on page 13 of the book (right before dwarves) seemed to contradict how the sample char are made: it breifly seems to say that the average person of the race starts out 10 below the maxima... so in this example a orc/dwarf half race would start out at 20 STR! they'd have to buy the package containing 10 points to raise the maxima but then start at 20? but if thats tru why are the sample chars in this book paying points? like the dwarf sample char. has a raised char max, but pays 3 points for a 13 STR...

Mr. Long then responded with:
"No. There are no provisions in the 5E rules for raising Characteristic Maxima breakpoints via Package Deals, since there's no equitable way to handle that in terms of cost and application. The GM could certainly change Characteristic Maxima around if he feels like it, but that's a campaign ground rules thing, not a Package Deal thing.
Thus, if you had an Orc Package Deal with +10 STR, that just means all PCs who buy that Package Deal start the game with 20 STR. If such a character wants to buy any more STR, he has to pay double for it, since he's already at the Maximum of 20."

no, I wasn't saying that the package gave you a +10 STR but gave you a +10 to the MAXIMA so you wouldnt have to pay double until you were at 30 (instead of 20). but i guess the 5E has changed all of this...
what I AM asking is what the BASE char value starts out at (i.e. what do you get in that CHAR if you pay for NO points into it)... does it start at 10?, does it start at half your maxima?, or 10 below your maxima, or is your BASE increased by how however much you increased the maxima? or what?

[Derek Hiemforth]

In 5E, you don't increase the maxima. The maxima always stay at 20. (In the standard rules, that is... you could always apply house rules if you like.) In 5E, you build racial packages by increasing the base value. So, for example, if you want Half-Giant as a race, you need to decide what you want their average STR to be and (if necessary) add or subtract that much STR from the package deal. Let's say you want the average Half-Giant to have a STR of 18. You put "+8 STR" in the package deal for 8 points, and all Half-Giants now start with 18 STR instead of 10 STR, and raise it or sell it back from that point.

However, they still start paying double cost for STR once it reaches 20. Yes, this would mean that a Half-Giant could only buy two points of STR before bumping into the double-cost rule.

The reason this changed in 5E is that the old 4th Ed. way was unfair. It charged you points for being able to exceed a certain value, even if you were actually nowhere near that value. If you read the 4th Ed. rules on this, you'll see that a 30 STR character with increased char maxima that allow a 30 STR with no cost doubling, and character with no such change that had to pay double points for their STR from 20 to 30, actually end up spending exactly the same amount of points for STR! And if the Half-Giant (or whatever) didn't buy his STR up to 30, then he ended up spending points for something he didn't have! And this whole system didn't make the average Half-Giant any stronger than the average human.

The 5th Ed. way is much better. :)

[OberonGX]

yes yes! thats exaclty what i thought when i read it all! i saw that in the package deal you spent points to raise you maxima and thought to myself, how is this helping any? im glad to see that others figured this out... it seemed really dumb to me...

hey, the person who responded first is that guy who debugged the zodiac characters in a campaign im currently running... cool... so on an off note, thanks for helping out there as well... ;)

[PhilFleischmann]

Even in 4th ed., the base was always 10. If the max for Dwarves is 23, that just means the average Drawf is 13. If you want to be average for a Dwarf, you still have to pay the 3 points to raise your STR from the base of 10, to the average for your race of 13.

It has been suggested elsewhere, that if char maxima are to be changed for different FH races, that the total increases should equal the total decreases (total in terms of character points). For example, if Dwarves have max 23 STR (+3 cp), they should also have -3 cp from some other maxima, say -1" max running, (-2) and -2 max COM (-1). This sort of maintains balance to a certain extent, but still has some problems.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by OberonGX
hey, the person who responded first is that guy who debugged the zodiac characters in a campaign im currently running... cool... so on an off note, thanks for helping out there as well... ;) No problemo. :) I always thought The Zodiac Conspiracy had a great concept that was shot in the foot by so many errors in the execution. Maybe at some point, I'll ping the PTB and see if I can get permission to completely rework the characters for H5E and post 'em on my web site or something...

[Old Man]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann


It has been suggested elsewhere, that if char maxima are to be changed for different FH races, that the total increases should equal the total decreases (total in terms of character points). For example, if Dwarves have max 23 STR (+3 cp), they should also have -3 cp from some other maxima, say -1" max running, (-2) and -2 max COM (-1). This sort of maintains balance to a certain extent, but still has some problems.

That's the route I took in my campaign and I haven't had any complaints at all. Only one race isn't represented in the group. But that might be because nobody wants to play a 3 foot tall character.

[Lucius]

Yes, under the New Regime, if Characteristic Maximum is used at all, it is the same for everyone. The Giant and the Pixie both have Max STR of 20. Oddly enough, this is in spite of the fact that a 40 yr old man has a STR Max of 15. Age makes a difference, but not species.

Makes as much sense as global warming in CIV II (for those who don't know, in the computer game Civilization II, if your planet suffers global warming, it never changes the Glacier or Tundra terrains. No matter how much your globe warms, ice caps never melt and permafrost never thaws.)

Now, there is one easy way around this. Characteristics as Powers don't count against the maximum. What makes a characteristic a power? Good question, but it makes sense to me to say that a characteristic bought as part of a racial package deal is a "Power" and does not count against the Max - effectively raising the Max by the same amount. A characteristic bought DOWN is a "Negative Power" just like selling back some Running, and would effectively reduce the Max in the same way (since if the package is -5 pts for STR for example and you have a STR 15, you are actually at STR 20, minus 5 for the "power," and are already at Max.)

I have seen the whole concept of Normal Characteristic Maxima generate so much controversy however, that I am of the opinion that it is an idea the game can do without. It simply does not do what it was designed to do, and merely adds needless complication to the game. It should be a guideline only, and up to each Game Operations Director to set limits on the characteristics of characters. Not "it costs double past this point," a mechanic used nowhere else in the game to restrict skills, powers, or anything else, but a hard limit - "no, you cannot play a 'normal Human' with a STR of 24!"


Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary observes that we have opened this brand of canned worms before....

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Lucius
Yes, under the New Regime, if Characteristic Maximum is used at all, it is the same for everyone. The Giant and the Pixie both have Max STR of 20. Oddly enough, this is in spite of the fact that a 40 yr old man has a STR Max of 15. Age makes a difference, but not species.

...clip...

I have seen the whole concept of Normal Characteristic Maxima generate so much controversy however, that I am of the opinion that it is an idea the game can do without. It simply does not do what it was designed to do, and merely adds needless complication to the game. It should be a guideline only, and up to each Game Operations Director to set limits on the characteristics of characters. Not "it costs double past this point," a mechanic used nowhere else in the game to restrict skills, powers, or anything else, but a hard limit - "no, you cannot play a 'normal Human' with a STR of 24!"


I think that Fred's way of handling this is easily the best of any of the options I've seen. It is the same for all characters, and therefore both fair and balanced. If you want to be a giant, you have to pay for being strong. You want to play an agile elf, you have to pay for Dex. What's wrong with that?

It's already up to every Games Operations Director to set limits for his game. And NCM is designed to reinforce genre conventions in Heroic games, buy limiting the number of character that have characteristics above the "heroic" range (more than 20). By charging double for anything above 20, it does that effectively.

If a GM wants giants to be able to buy up their STR more cheaply than any of the other characters, he has several ways available for him to do that (upping their NCM, providing a higher starting point, etc). But any method you use is going to make playing a giant more cost effective than other types of characters (which I think we agree is bad). Of course, he could then penalize giant characters in other ways, or find ways to provide points to other races, but what would be the point? He could just as easily let the double costs for stats above NCM do that for him.

Age is a disadvantage. There has to be a penalty for taking it. Lowering your NCM is that penalty. You can play a 80 year old man without taking Age 80+, and buy the stats that you feel are apropriate without penalty. Again, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Lucius]

Originally posted by sbarron
I think that Fred's way of handling this is easily the best of any of the options I've seen. It is the same for all characters, and therefore both fair and balanced. If you want to be a giant, you have to pay for being strong. You want to play an agile elf, you have to pay for Dex. What's wrong with that?


Nothing wrong with it. Pay 26 pts for a DEX of 23, or 30 pts for a STR of 40, and you have your Elf or Giant. It's the same for all characters, and fair and balanced.


Originally posted by sbarron

It's already up to every Games Operations Director to set limits for his game. And NCM is designed to reinforce genre conventions in Heroic games, by limiting the number of characters that have characteristics above the "heroic" range (more than 20). By charging double for anything above 20, it does that effectively.


Not really. What it does is create yet another artificial breakpoint in a game that already has too many of them, and
results in every warrior taking a STR of 20.

It does not, in and of itself, prevent anyone from taking an unreasonable or unrealistic characteristic.

Say I am creating a pair of flower-selling monks in a heroic game with 75 base points and up to 75 disadvantages. Brother Rose has a Dex of 20 (costs 30) and spends 50 pts on SPD (10 pts ups it to 4, the "Max," and another 40 ups it to 6.) That costs 80 pts, and if he sells off 3" Running for -6 pts he still has a ground speed half again a normal Human's, and has all his points from Disads to pay for botany, flower arranging, and what the heck, he'll study some canon law too. His sidekick Brother Orchid has a STR of 40 costing 50 pts, and uses some disad points to buy his flowery skills, and still comes in as a "weaker than character" DNPC.

Now, is any sane G.O.D. going to permit this pair? No, they will probably change their names to Brother Ragweed and Brother Crabgrass and tell the player to toss them on the compost pile. But that is exactly what they would have had to do if there WERE no "Normal Characteristic Maxima," except that the outrageous characteristics would have been an 8 SPD and a 60 STR.

The message to G.O.D.'s is - You, and only you, can prevent florist friars. The Characteristic Maxima rule can't do it for you. And if it doesn't, what good is it?


Originally posted by sbarron

If a GM wants giants to be able to buy up their STR more cheaply than any of the other characters, he has several ways available for him to do that (upping their NCM, providing a higher starting point, etc). But any method you use is going to make playing a giant more cost effective than other types of characters (which I think we agree is bad).


How about this method - abolish Characteristic Maxima? It does not make a giant more cost effective (unless you think STR is incorrectly costed in the game to begin with, and many people do, but that is a seperate issue.) Then even a Pixie can have Giant's STR. Except of course that if you want a STR 40 you probably don't want a Pixie, and if you DO want a Pixie with super strength you better have a darn good reason if I'm the one running the game.


Originally posted by sbarron

Of course, he could then penalize giant characters in other ways, or find ways to provide points to other races, but what would be the point? He could just as easily let the double costs for stats above NCM do that for him.


I believe I've already made the point that "the double cost for stats above NCM" doesn't do a darn thing for him except needlessly complicate the game.


Originally posted by sbarron

Age is a disadvantage. There has to be a penalty for taking it. Lowering your NCM is that penalty. You can play a 80 year old man without taking Age 80+, and buy the stats that you feel are apropriate without penalty. Again, I see nothing wrong with it.

Hm. you see nothing wrong with this, and consider it a "penalty" if I want to play an aged mage with INT, EGO, and PRE at superhuman levels, heavy on EGO dependent mental powers (ECV 10 VS normal ECV 3) and without any STR dependent weapons or other combat options) and STR, CON, etc at about 10 - normal for a healthy 20 yr old? Isn't this making my mage "more cost effective?"

Yet you do see something wrong with creating yet another different cost schedule for characters of a different species or nature than the "norm?" It's okay in one case, but not in the other?

For any one who cares, by the way, based on the Age disadvantage, reducing Characteristic Maxima is worth about 1 pt for 7 pts reduced. So with Age as a precedent, you can pay 1 pt to increase the Maxima by 7 pts, or -1 pt to decrease them by that amount.

Now, what age SHOULD be is a Physical Limitation ("Waddaya mean, I have to make a CON roll to take a RECovery?" "You're not as young as you used to be, geezer, it's harder to catch your breath!") like "Lame," perhaps a Limitation you only permit to people with lower STR and CON than normal for the campaign. Just as you wouldn't give "Lame" to someone who bought up SPD and Running, or "Distinctive Features: Ugly" to someone with a COM of 18. Similarly, there should be a Physical Limit "Merely Mortal" in superheroic campaigns, for martial artists or gadgeteers who can hurt their fists if they hit brick walls, sometimes catch colds, and otherwise can't or don't take advantage of the assumption that playercharacters are all "superhuman."

Finally, I will suggest that if NCM were really such a great idea, it would have been adopted through the rest of the system. It is a complete anomaly in Hero. The New Dispensation emphasizes (Probably as the result of the collective experience of numerous players) setting "campaign limits" for things like Active Points, Damage Classes, Defense, etc. These are all only "suggested guidelines" - only Characteristic Maxima is a "rule" and only Characteristic Maxima is arbitrarily set at a certain point for all campaigns it applies to, rather than being flexible depending on style of campaign and subject to change at G.O.D. discretion. Further, nowhere else is it said "you can exceed the campaign limits if you pay double cost." It is always either a hard limit, or a limit that can be exceeded under some circumstances or with the right justification, not one you can break just by paying double. If the campaign rule is "No Mental Powers" you can't take an Ego Attack by paying 20 pts per die, or 40 pts even.

Hero is inherently a very complex system - in fact, I would judge it at just about the upper limit of practical complexity for a roleplaying game. NCM is a needless complication that adds nothing of value to the game. Putting characteristics among the things there should be "campaign limits" for would simplify the game and cost nothing.

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary Enterprises

[AnotherSkip]

I think part of the problem with NCM is it is a suggested guideline for building a normal in a Supers World. Then it became the default and now it is waaaaaaaay wacked.

But heaven knows we definately need a base/guide line in this game, otherwise we would need a string of code just to let everyone know what the hell we were talking about.

NCM is justifiable as a concept, but not necessarily defendable as a genre convention or a real world concept.

Age is a limitation for some but an advantage for others.
For Conan (or Cohen) it is a limitation, for Gandalf it is an advantage.
(heck I built a Dwarven mentalist with the Age 40+ limitation so he could have an EGO of 26 to get that ECV of 9, runty gimpy freak that he was)

And no not all fighters have 20 STR.

in The last group I was in Str ranged from 13 to 37 even in the same character!!!! (13 Str plus 24 point VPP) only one person in the group had consistiently 20 Str and that was the Dwarven priest w/o his Str from his Magics (otherwise it was 37 also). The dual blade weilding fighter had 13, the eagle warrior had 15 the Axe fighters had either 18 or 23

[Markdoc]

In my games, NCM has performed valuable service, so I am keeping it, even though it is a bit of a blotch from the metarules point of view.

Actually, I would be happier, thinking about it, if ALL limits worked like NCM - you can exceed the campaign caps, but you have to pay double cost.

Simply put, I have no objection in my FH game to a fighter with a STR of 23 or a thief with a SPD of 6 (I have had neither, FWIW). But I do not want either to be common. Thus NCM serves as barrier, but not an absolute one. No figher is going to pay the extra points to get to STR 23, unless being really strong is an important part of character concept to the player. And NCM ensures he WILL be "really strong" because few other people will make the same choice.

If a player wants to go over the limit bad enough to cough up the extra points, who am I as GM to say no? It's THEIR character after all.

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

I agree with Markdoc: What's the problem with NCM? If you don't want to use it, you don't have to.

But what if you want to *discourage* characters from having 25+ STR without *forbidding* it completely? I.e., you want it to be *rare*, but not *impossible*? It seems to me the best way to do that is by increasing the cost. Of course, any GM can change the level of rarification if he wants. You could make the double-cost threshhold 30 instead of 20, for example. You could even set a triple- or quadruple-cost threshhold at higher levels (say, 40 and 60).

It seems to me that one of the central ideas in HERO is that you can do anything you want if you pay the points, that nothing should be absolutely forbidden. That's the way I like to run (and play) my games. If certain powers/power levels/CHAR levels need to be rarified due to genre conventions or other considerations, then you simply adjust the cost.

In 4th ed., there was a book called "Mystic Masters" in which mental powers were intended to be more common than normal, so the cost was halved for that particular genre.

It's similar to government putting taxes on things it wants to discourage, or subidies on things it wants to encourage.

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
(heck I built a Dwarven mentalist with the Age 40+ limitation so he could have an EGO of 26 to get that ECV of 9, runty gimpy freak that he was)



You realize of course that if this character were ever convicted of a crime, but managed to evade the authorities, he would thn be a small medium at large.:D Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was an inside joke from a Role Master campaign I was once involved in.

[Talon]

Originally posted by Lucius
The message to G.O.D.'s is - You, and only you, can prevent florist friars.

*smack*


Originally posted by Briguy123
You realize of course that if this character were ever convicted of a crime, but managed to evade the authorities, he would thn be a small medium at large.:D

*smack*

My work here is done.

[Killer Shrike]

Ahem....to get back to the original post, AIUI, under the current rules Characteristics bought thru Packages are Powers and therefore do not affect Maxima.

Thus if your Dwarf racial package has +3 STR in the package, then Dwarves have thier STR from Characteristic + STR from Power 3. If they have a STR of 20, then with thier package they have a STR 23 without paying the NCM penalty. Similarly if the same package had -1 DEX then a Dwarf that has paid 30 cp has a DEX 19 (20-1). To get a DEX 20 requires the Dwarf to spend 36 cp for (21-1) = 20.

So in effect, the altered Maxima is in place AND a given character doesnt pay for a potential that they dont necessarily use.

Of course, I dont have my book with me, so I could be wrong.

[Old Man]

That's the cleanest way to do it, but it still doesn't fix problems with altering the range of acceptable stats for a package. For example, if I wanted halflings to average STR 5, with the max at 10, then what?

[Briguy123]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
*smack*


Why did you smack me? I was only pointing out the obvious. I shouldn't be PUNished for that!:p

[AnotherSkip]

that seems to me to be a subject worth of Good old Steve's Fantasy Hero supplement(though possibly it should have made it into SH).

definately should be considered for an anywhere so long as we can find it.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Old Man
That's the cleanest way to do it, but it still doesn't fix problems with altering the range of acceptable stats for a package. For example, if I wanted halflings to average STR 5, with the max at 10, then what?
Make all Halflings old.


Actually, I dont know. Ive asked for clarification on that sort of non-linear Avg vs Maxima before and havent gotten an answer. Im hoping that it will be addressed in FH.


Really, I dont see the problem with defining new Maxima for various races so long as some objective method is used to keep them fair, such as the buy back some maxima to buy up others method.

In the meantime the official method does in a pinch.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Make all Halflings old.

No no no...you make them YOUNG. Look at the stats for a 10 year old. Just ignore the max DEX and you're set.

[Lucius]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
But what if you want to *discourage* characters from having 25+ STR without *forbidding* it completely? I.e., you want it to be *rare*, but not *impossible*? It seems to me the best way to do that is by increasing the cost. Of course, any GM can change the level of rarification if he wants. You could make the double-cost threshhold 30 instead of 20, for example. You could even set a triple- or quadruple-cost threshhold at higher levels (say, 40 and 60).

It's similar to government putting taxes on things it wants to discourage, or subidies on things it wants to encourage.

There are other ways to "set policy" by encouraging or discouraging things.

Instead of taxation, try regulation. "If you want a primary characteristic above 15, you must have a disadvantage appropriate to that characteristic, such as Distinctive Features: Muscular, or Reputation: Very Agile. If you want any characteristic over the normal "Maximum" (however that is set for the campaign, character type, etc.) you must have disadvantages relating to the characteristic totalling the amount of points you spent on the characteristic." If you are enforcing disadvantage maxima, that should be a deterrent, and of course it is "tweakable" (if everyone still has a STR of 20, try requiring twice the points in disads - if even the Elven acrobat has a Dex of 14, try redefining it as based on points of characteristic, not real points spent, so that a Dex of 20 requires a 10 pt disad, not 30 pts of disads. ) It also has the advantage of being entirely reasonable and realistic.

Another possibility is to link over-the-top characteristics to "packages" of some sort. A rogue can't have a STR of 25 just because he has the points, but a gladiator or wrestler can.

To the person who asked about changing the acceptable range of characteristics, such as saying Hobbits have STR 5 and Max 10 - if you want to use the characteristic max rules at all, I have already pointed out that based on the precedent set by the Age disad, 1 real pt is worth about 7 pts of changed maximums. So for a 1 pt disad, the Hobbit's Str Max can come down by 5. If you can bring another characteristic max up by, say, 2 pts, I would say it's a "wash" and evens out, as a 3 pt difference in maxima is worth less than 1 pt.

But of course, the simplest and best solution is to toss out the whole mess and say "No Hobs over STR 10!" or "No Hobs over STR 10 unless you give me a REAL GOOD REASON"


Lucius Alexander

(-: :-)

[Old Man]

Anybody ever limit the max according to starting values?

Assuming that your character creation rules are working, what happens when your PCs gain a dozen exp? Is it ok for the STR 8 wizard to spend it all in STR?

I've been tossing around the idea that I should limit my players to a full increase of 25-50% of starting value. This seems pretty reasonable, but I'm not sure how they'll take it. I'm sure some would feel betrayed in that I didn't tell them from the start, but if I had, I think a lot of characters would have 13s "just in case". Either that or a blanket 5 stat points over starting value cap.

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Shadowpup
Anybody ever limit the max according to starting values?

I tried it once. I just told the PCs that their starting values (150 pt char) were as good as they could get without magical enhancments. I figured that would prevent the eventual Str Dex and Spd race that invariably happens. It seemed like a reasonable idea to me at the time. I thought it would force the purchase of levels rather than characteristics, which I like. The game didn't go long enough to see the result, though.

[Lucius]

Shadowpup - believe it or not, I have had the same idea about putting a cap at 5 pts over starting value. Yes, it does seem odd that an aged mage, even if his lifestyle has suddenly gotten more strenuous, can go from STR 5 to STR 15 in less than a year.

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary Enterprises

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Shadowpup
Anybody ever limit the max according to starting values?

...
I've been tossing around the idea that I should limit my players to a full increase of 25-50% of starting value. This seems pretty reasonable, but I'm not sure how they'll take it.

It's perfectly reasonable, but any new characters will have most of their points spent on stats as a hedge. That's what I'd do if I were playing in your campaign.

[Old Man]

Well if it were an official known policy I would expect most characters to start with 13+ accross the board - isn't that ironic (the 13 thing).

But it's not. The thing is, I don't want the rules to artificially alter conception. If a player wants to play a meak and weak character fine. But when the day comes that he wants to be STR 15 instead of 5 I'll tell him "OK, here's what you have to do...first, take this cup and find a dragon..." Well, not really, but you get the idea.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Lucius
Instead of taxation, try regulation. "If you want a primary characteristic above 15, you must have a disadvantage appropriate to that characteristic, such as Distinctive Features: Muscular, or Reputation: Very Agile. If you want any characteristic over the normal "Maximum" (however that is set for the campaign, character type, etc.) you must have disadvantages relating to the characteristic totalling the amount of points you spent on the characteristic." If you are enforcing disadvantage maxima, that should be a deterrent, and of course it is "tweakable" (if everyone still has a STR of 20, try requiring twice the points in disads - if even the Elven acrobat has a Dex of 14, try redefining it as based on points of characteristic, not real points spent, so that a Dex of 20 requires a 10 pt disad, not 30 pts of disads. ) It also has the advantage of being entirely reasonable and realistic.
Yes, that is another valid method. It strikes me as more complicated and less flexible than simply altering costs. I don't see why every exeptional ability must always have some disadvantage associated with it. I don't see that as reasonable and realistic.


Another possibility is to link over-the-top characteristics to "packages" of some sort. A rogue can't have a STR of 25 just because he has the points, but a gladiator or wrestler can.
Yes, that's another possibility, even more complicated and inflexible. I realize this is a matter of personal taste in GMing style, but I like to give my players as much freedom as possible within my genre conventions and game world, especially when it means less work for me as the GM. I'm busy creating the world - monsters, NPCs, etc. The last thing I need is to create a huge collection of packages for every type of character a player might want. I don't see any reason why a rogue can't have a 25 STR, nor why every character should have to have a "package" and a one-word summary of who he is and what his abilities are, like "rogue" or "gladiator." It's too B&D for me.


But of course, the simplest and best solution is to toss out the whole mess and say "No Hobs over STR 10!" or "No Hobs over STR 10 unless you give me a REAL GOOD REASON"
That may be the simplest, but I disagree that it's the best solution. The "taxation" or "regulation" is to establish the various genre conventions (for the genre, the setting, or individual cultures and races), no to force to PC's to be the typical examples of their kind. After all, the typical Hobbit stays at home and doesn't go adventuring at all! But then again, they don't get books written about them.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Shadowpup
But when the day comes that he wants to be STR 15 instead of 5 I'll tell him "OK, here's what you have to do...first, take this cup and find a dragon..." Well, not really, but you get the idea.

I just have to point out that the way figured stats work, you'll almost never see anyone buy their STR down below 10. You just don't get enough points back for the damage it does to your character.

To go back on topic, I have known FH campaigns to set limits on points spent on stats vs. skills--the usual restriction is that no more than 50% of points may be spent on stats during character creation. I imagine you'd have to do something like this to make your stat increase guideline have less of an effect on new character creation.

I'm inclined to say that part of the problem is that certain stats are just too cheap. If you had three XP to spend, would you increase your STR by 3, or buy Seduction skill? The other half of the problem is that Hero has no system for spending XP. It's all just generic points, with all the pros and cons that implies.

[Markdoc]

I agree with the above posts: saying "No 25 STR thieves" immediately rules out someone who wants to play a Fafhrd- or Conan-inspired character.

Arbitrarily setting limits is for sure the easiest route - in my opinion it is also the worst (both as a player and as a GM). That's not to say a game must have no limits. But the limits have to be there for a campaign-defining reason. Is "My father got this drink from the Ents, which made him really big and strong" a good reason for having a 13 STR hobbit? If not, what is?

As for the STR 8 mage wanting to double his STR, I require all experience buys to be justified. If he want to improve his diet and spend time working out, then fine. If the brawny fighter wants to learn Pelorian epic poetry - then he'll have to find a Pelorian - or a court poet.

I don't feel it is up to me to define how the player defines his character in response to my GM'ing style. If you want puny mages, stop throwing situations at them where STR plays a really big role. If you WANT your fighter to acquire something other than CSLs than give them situations where those other skills are essential...

Interesting - thinking about it, in real life as well as games, I am in favour of *encouraging* the behaviour you want, rather than mandating it. The latter approach in both cases tends to encourage a "get around the rules" mentality

Cheers,Mark

[Lucius]

First of all - complicated and inflexible? How can anything seem "complicated and inflexible" compared to the Characteristic Max rules? And under the Current Dispensation, it is more inflexible than ever. In spite of what we have been saying about treating species characteristics as "powers" and doing an end run around the rule, that is very much a "house rules" thing and Mr. Long has specifically stated that, officially, "Racial Characteristics" are not powers for the purpose of ignoring the Characteristic Max.

And complicated - Gods, this rule gives rise to ENDLESS complications. Anyone who has been around these boards as long as I have knows that. I don't know how many times some aspect of the problem has come up for discussion - it is that very fact that finally convinced me to apply Occam's razor and say we are just plain better off without this needless complication in an already very complicated game. It accomplishes nothing that could not be better and more simply done without it.



Originally posted by Markdoc
I agree with the above posts: saying "No 25 STR thieves" immediately rules out someone who wants to play a Fafhrd- or Conan-inspired character.


Uh, I can't see how. Why do you say that? Fafhrd and Conan are barbarians, and large men. Saying "thief" does not begin to sum up their whole characters - nor does it completely sum up any decent character.
My point is that a "rogue" (to use the term I actually used) should not have a STR of 25 "just because." If he is a barbarian like Fafhrd (a character I love by the way, pity he is not as popular as Conan) or a giant of a bandit like Little John, that is one thing. But if the STR seems to bear no relevance to the character concept, that is another.


Originally posted by Markdoc

Arbitrarily setting limits is for sure the easiest route - in my opinion it is also the worst (both as a player and as a GM). That's not to say a game must have no limits. But the limits have to be there for a campaign-defining reason.


Naturally. As opposed to say, the arbitrary "Every point of characteristic over 20 costs double" which has nothing whatsoever to do with any campaign-defining reasons.


Originally posted by Markdoc

Is "My father got this drink from the Ents, which made him really big and strong" a good reason for having a 13 STR hobbit?

Yes. Assuming Ents and Entwine are acceptable parts of the campaign, which they often would be if there are Hobbits.

Were you thinking for some reason it wouldn't be?

It would be a great reason, one giving some depth to the character and his background. Even something I could make use of in the game.

"But why does it have to be ME? Can't the Pixies find someone else they trust for this quest?"
The Druid looks bemused and says "I don't understand it either. They say they trust you because you smell like a tree."

OR

"Hrnm, yes, hmm, I remember you. Not long ago. I took you for an orc. "
"Uh...that was my father sir, he ...told me about you...but I didn't think you'd be so BIG"
"hmm, I remember...your father, you say? But how can that be? It has not been long, at all, at all...."

But if a Hobbit's reason for having a STR of 13 is just to get an extra damage class with a weapon, that doesn't add much to the campaign.


Originally posted by Markdoc

As for the STR 8 mage wanting to double his STR, I require all experience buys to be justified.


Great, wonderful, terrific. I sincerely approve. And this is something you can do, and should do, with or without a Normal Characteristic Maxima - so what does the Normal Characteristic Max get you?



Originally posted by Markdoc

If he want to improve his diet and spend time working out, then fine. If the brawny fighter wants to learn Pelorian epic poetry - then he'll have to find a Pelorian - or a court poet.

I don't feel it is up to me to define how the player defines his character in response to my GM'ing style. If you want puny mages, stop throwing situations at them where STR plays a really big role. If you WANT your fighter to acquire something other than CSLs than give them situations where those other skills are essential...


Excellent advice.



Originally posted by Markdoc

Interesting - thinking about it, in real life as well as games, I am in favour of *encouraging* the behaviour you want, rather than mandating it. The latter approach in both cases tends to encourage a "get around the rules" mentality

Cheers,Mark

A "get around the rules" mentality. Like the end-run we have been describing about defining racial characteristics as "powers."

I still maintain, the simplest and best solution is to set certain limits for specific species and say "no going over, without a good justification." That DISCOURAGES excessively high scores without FORBIDDING them. And even if a powergamer's real motive is to squeeze out more CV or another damage class, he is being made to contribute something else to the game besides numbers crunching when he thinks up the justification.

Lucius Alexander

What do you mean, I have to justify having Palindromedary Riding skill?

[Lucius]

First of all - complicated and inflexible? How can anything seem "complicated and inflexible" compared to the Characteristic Max rules? And under the Current Dispensation, it is more inflexible than ever. In spite of what we have been saying about treating species characteristics as "powers" and doing an end run around the rule, that is very much a "house rules" thing and Mr. Long has specifically stated that, officially, "Racial Characteristics" are not powers for the purpose of ignoring the Characteristic Max.

And complicated - Gods, this rule gives rise to ENDLESS complications. Anyone who has been around these boards as long as I have knows that. I don't know how many times some aspect of the problem has come up for discussion - it is that very fact that finally convinced me to apply Occam's razor and say we are just plain better off without this needless complication in an already very complicated game. It accomplishes nothing that could not be better and more simply done without it.



Originally posted by Markdoc
I agree with the above posts: saying "No 25 STR thieves" immediately rules out someone who wants to play a Fafhrd- or Conan-inspired character.


Uh, I can't see how. Why do you say that? Fafhrd and Conan are barbarians, and large men. Saying "thief" does not begin to sum up their whole characters - nor does it completely sum up any decent character.
My point is that a "rogue" (to use the term I actually used) should not have a STR of 25 "just because." If he is a barbarian like Fafhrd (a character I love by the way, pity he is not as popular as Conan) or a giant of a bandit like Little John, that is one thing. But if the STR seems to bear no relevance to the character concept, that is another.


Originally posted by Markdoc

Arbitrarily setting limits is for sure the easiest route - in my opinion it is also the worst (both as a player and as a GM). That's not to say a game must have no limits. But the limits have to be there for a campaign-defining reason.


Naturally. As opposed to say, the arbitrary "Every point of characteristic over 20 costs double" which has nothing whatsoever to do with any campaign-defining reasons.


Originally posted by Markdoc

Is "My father got this drink from the Ents, which made him really big and strong" a good reason for having a 13 STR hobbit?

Yes. Assuming Ents and Entwine are acceptable parts of the campaign, which they often would be if there are Hobbits.

Were you thinking for some reason it wouldn't be?

It would be a great reason, one giving some depth to the character and his background. Even something I could make use of in the game.

"But why does it have to be ME? Can't the Pixies find someone else they trust for this quest?"
The Druid looks bemused and says "I don't understand it either. They say they trust you because you smell like a tree."

OR

"Hrnm, yes, hmm, I remember you. Not long ago. I took you for an orc. "
"Uh...that was my father sir, he ...told me about you...but I didn't think you'd be so BIG"
"hmm, I remember...your father, you say? But how can that be? It has not been long, at all, at all...."

But if a Hobbit's reason for having a STR of 13 is just to get an extra damage class with a weapon, that doesn't add much to the campaign.


Originally posted by Markdoc

As for the STR 8 mage wanting to double his STR, I require all experience buys to be justified.


Great, wonderful, terrific. I sincerely approve. And this is something you can do, and should do, with or without a Normal Characteristic Maxima - so what does the Normal Characteristic Max get you?



Originally posted by Markdoc

If he want to improve his diet and spend time working out, then fine. If the brawny fighter wants to learn Pelorian epic poetry - then he'll have to find a Pelorian - or a court poet.

I don't feel it is up to me to define how the player defines his character in response to my GM'ing style. If you want puny mages, stop throwing situations at them where STR plays a really big role. If you WANT your fighter to acquire something other than CSLs than give them situations where those other skills are essential...


Excellent advice.



Originally posted by Markdoc

Interesting - thinking about it, in real life as well as games, I am in favour of *encouraging* the behaviour you want, rather than mandating it. The latter approach in both cases tends to encourage a "get around the rules" mentality

Cheers,Mark

A "get around the rules" mentality. Like the end-run we have been describing about defining racial characteristics as "powers."

I still maintain, the simplest and best solution is to set certain limits for specific species and say "no going over, without a good justification." That DISCOURAGES excessively high scores without FORBIDDING them. And even if a powergamer's real motive is to squeeze out more CV or another damage class, he is being made to contribute something else to the game besides numbers crunching when he thinks up the justification.

Lucius Alexander

What do you mean, I have to justify having Palindromedary Riding skill?

[AnotherSkip]

Look NCM is a problem. Steve in as much admits its a problem.

NCM is decent for supers but it causes problems just about everywhere else.

Giants are a good excample
to build an ordinary large man (as a type of giant) costs 51 points. PER THE BEASTIARY.

When you throw in NCM it actually costs 51 + 5 for Strength over NCM, + 4 for running NCM= 60 points.

Or do you ignore the NCM limts for some obscure/unstated reason?
does Inherent Override the NCM limitation?

and why does not NCM apply to horses and warhorses? After all they are a "race" in many worlds with NCM. Yet they blatantly defy the rules of cost. (if you happen to wonder where this is going go read Mercedes Lackey)

Personally I disagree with Steve's decision that "NCM is a Genre thing".

It is a Gm decision.

adjust as you see fit and for heavens sake try to be fair.

Steven Long can no more tell me how to run my game than anyone else. Pretending otherwise is silly.

[Tasha]

I sometimes really hate this "you have to justify everything your character has with story" mentality that some people have. Hell, if I want to run a 20 str Hobbit Barbarian. If it's fun, why not? Sure it can be fun to come up with excuses for excessive stats, but it shouldn't be required. Not everyone likes that style of play.

BTW many people come to this game system from D&D where at 1st level you can have a 16 str Halfling/hobbit. I always tell my players that I love Hero because we can make any kind of character we want. Here is one way that we artificially limit that creativity. Just let the player have fun making the character she has always wanted ot play.
</Rant>

I just usually give guidelines with the average and the highest ever seen for that race. If someone wants to play a high stat character, fine. Just make sure that the character has some skills or she will feel really left out when we are not fighting something. If there is a skill for it and your haven't purchased it, it doesn't matter how high your stat is. Your roll is 8- at best

I have always run with NCM, but keeping the points given at character creation and experience low you shouldn't have much of a problem with running without.

GM participation in character creation is the best way to prevent unbalanced characters from slipping through.

Tasha :rolleyes:

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Tasha
I sometimes really hate this "you have to justify everything your character has with story" mentality that some people have. Hell, if I want to run a 20 str Hobbit Barbarian. If it's fun, why not? Sure it can be fun to come up with excuses for excessive stats, but it shouldn't be required. Not everyone likes that style of play.

To each his own, but what you describe sounds a lot more like a Champions game with a thin fantasy veneer than a FH campaign. The heroism of the usual fantasy hero stems more from wits and bravery than from some freak accident that makes them Like Unto Gods when compared with their peers.

To put it another way, the 'feel' of a fantasy campaign includes only a few heroic 'origins'--the ability to work spells, being a member of a neat demihuman race, divine providence, or just being really skilled at a few things. When you start combining these you start breaking out of the milieu--Frodo is believable as a hardheaded halfling, but if he were a hardheaded halfling with the strength of four Men because he happened to drink an ent potion once, you are fraying the rope from which you are suspending my disbelief.

To say nothing of the opportunities afforded to the munchkin. Hmm, if I run a halfling I get an extra 3 DCV, and I can still make him 20 STR such that my damage is as high as it can be before I run into the NCM penalties...

[cutsleeve]

i have always believed that ncm was a good means of simulating the more normal range of humans. but if someone wants to create a character with a higher strength because the concept for his character fine but that strength is gonna cost something. Even in the conventions of sword and sorcery, high fantasy, and many other genre's of fantasy there are a few characters that have higher then normal abilities. Its all character concept thats all sometimes a 25 strength more defines a strong character then just a 20. but that character pays for having that statistic.

Now as far as the arguement about elves with 30 strength and ogres with 30 dexs well those characters pay for those statistics and because theyre paying a higher then normal amount for a higher then normal amount they cant use those points in other areas that might be vital to their survival. this is also character concept who says that a person cant have a character who is a unnaturally strong elf who might have been cursed by a vain and jealous ancient god who made them exceptionally strong but nearly inhumanly violent and destructive with animalistic rage and the glee of a child. but this elf has tried to break away from that and has tried to make himself civilised so he can once again regain his immortality in the kingdom of the elves. i can also extrapolate on how the ogre managed to get a 30 dex. which is why its all character concept driven and ncm is the tool for balancing the characters out.

on another not of using powers and items to gain strength that higher then ncm. this seems logical to me even in classic fantasy (barring those unique and unnusually abilitied characters) most characters cannot gain statistics higher then normal levels without spells or magic items or some other more obscure way. hence a lil rule tat says a character cant have stats higher then ncm if they suffer under that restriction except through powers and items.:D

hope all that made sense. Basically its all character concept and what the GM (aka: the guy you have to suck up to) will allow.

[Tasha]

Originally posted by Old Man
To each his own, but what you describe sounds a lot more like a Champions game with a thin fantasy veneer than a FH campaign. The heroism of the usual fantasy hero stems more from wits and bravery than from some freak accident that makes them Like Unto Gods when compared with their peers.

To put it another way, the 'feel' of a fantasy campaign includes only a few heroic 'origins'--the ability to work spells, being a member of a neat demihuman race, divine providence, or just being really skilled at a few things. When you start combining these you start breaking out of the milieu--Frodo is believable as a hardheaded halfling, but if he were a hardheaded halfling with the strength of four Men because he happened to drink an ent potion once, you are fraying the rope from which you are suspending my disbelief.

To say nothing of the opportunities afforded to the munchkin. Hmm, if I run a halfling I get an extra 3 DCV, and I can still make him 20 STR such that my damage is as high as it can be before I run into the NCM penalties...

I guess what I am trying to say is that there are many different approaches to fantasy. My FH games have never felt like champions games set in a low tech past with magic. Again, many players are coming into this game from playing D&D. That is nothing new D&D is the breeding ground for Hero players. I have found however that it is quite a culture shock to go from a game that will let you have your pick from hundreds of spells that you can cast a few times a day to a Game system that allows you a few spells that you can cast as often as you have end. Now with 3rd Ed D&D you have players that want to have their characters do all sort of wild things. So, I am finding it more interesting to go with that flow. I also like to make characters that break stereotypes. So, I let my players have fun and blaze new trails.

Even without NCM penalties, that dex 20/str 20 halfling will have spent a lot of points on her stats. That is 6-7 points that they could have spent on skills. I tend to run a talking heads heavy game. There is combat, but I really enjoy character interactions. Having a deep skill list is a real plus in my games. Also, if I had a player who wanted to run a character like that, I would talk to them and see if they would pick one niche or the other. I think that Speed and Dex inflation comes more from the GM not making sure that the players have good solid niches than anything else. Unusual characters make it easy to come up with a hook early in the character's life. If I have the 30 str/20 int Ogre, what would she be like. How would others have treated her when she was young?

I still say having good guidelines are better than NCM. I would rather have that than concrete limits with penalties for going over the limit. I would like to think that my players are grown up enough to make decent characters that are fairly balanced. They also know that I look over every character and will strongly suggest changes that need to be made to an unbalanced character.

There has always been an issue with races and NCM. The bestiary doesn't make the animals take NCM. It seems like a strange thing to make a PC Awakened Dire Wolf take NCM when the NPC one will not. It is consistancy, that is why the 5th edition was originally needed. To provide a consistancy to the rules that was not really there in 4th edition. It is really like the "Special" rule on healing as it applies to Regeneration. I hate exceptions, they make for a more confusing rule set.

Tasha

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Lucius
First of all - complicated and inflexible? How can anything seem "complicated and inflexible" compared to the Characteristic Max rules? And under the Current Dispensation, it is more inflexible than ever.
"All Char's over 20 cost double." How is that complicated? One simple sentence to describe the rule. It still allows characteristics to go over 20 if a player wants. How is that inflexible?

In spite of what we have been saying about treating species characteristics as "powers" and doing an end run around the rule, that is very much a "house rules" thing and Mr. Long has specifically stated that, officially, "Racial Characteristics" are not powers for the purpose of ignoring the Characteristic Max.
I'm not sure who's been saying this. I haven't. I do not allow "my high stats are really powers" weasels.


And complicated - Gods, this rule gives rise to ENDLESS complications. Anyone who has been around these boards as long as I have knows that.
Could you give us an example? I've been around these boards for quite some time, and I don't know of any.


Naturally. As opposed to say, the arbitrary "Every point of characteristic over 20 costs double" which has nothing whatsoever to do with any campaign-defining reasons.
Of course it does! That's the entire reason detre for the NCM rule! Haven't you read the posts here? I want my game to be flexible: PCs can have 25 STR if they want; but I want such stats to be rare, so I charge them extra, so only the ones who really want it will buy it. It ensures the consistancy of the genre.

[Lucius]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

"All Char's over 20 cost double." How is that complicated? One simple sentence to describe the rule.


Well for one thing - it's not one simple sentence to describe the rule. It's not "all Chars over 20 cost double." It's all Primary Characteristics over 20 cost double, all figured characteristics over certain defined points, and also double cost for the Powers of Running and Swimming over a certain point.

You are also overlooking "except when your character takes the Age disadvantage, in which case some maxima go up and somee go down."

Its also complicated by the "Characteristics as Powers" issue, although admittedly perhaps less complicated than it used to be (see below.)

And finally, it is complicated by the fact that some people, at least, would like to play fantasy or science fiction games with rules that make some kind of rational sense for nonhuman characters.


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

It still allows characteristics to go over 20 if a player wants. How is that inflexible?


In every other case of something that should be restricted for the same of a campaign - for Active Points of powers, Damage Class of attacks, Defenses, Offensive or Defensive Combat Value, etc - the rulesbook ___suggests____ certain ___guidelines____ and gives advice about how they work together - allow too much Defense as compared to Damage and you can get "untouchable" characters, for example - but leaves it up the Game Operations Director to decide exactly where to set limits and how to enforce them for any given game.

On the other hand, the Characteristic Maxima rule is like an on/off switch - it is assumed that if it applies, it applies the same in any game to which it does apply. Even a superhero game, assuming the character took the disadvantage.

That's why I call it "inflexible." It is certainly less flexible than any of the alternatives I suggested, especially the one I consider ideal - "These are the recommended limits for various species/races/whatever, don't exceed them without a good reason."


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

I'm not sure who's been saying this. I haven't. I do not allow "my high stats are really powers" weasels.


When is a Characteristic a Power? When the guy running the game says it is. Has it occurred to you that without the NCM rule, the question would almost never arise?


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Could you give us an example? I've been around these boards for quite some time, and I don't know of any.


Hmm. SO if I use the quote function, it does not include YOU quoting ME originally. I should just go back to cutting/pasting into Word to compose, and transfering back here.

This IS an example. Nor is this the first time this particular aspect has been raised. And I remember a LOT of discussion about the "Characteristics as Powers" issue before the Current Dispensation clarified that particular issue, at least in terms of officially saying "Characteristics as Powers always cost normally." But again, if Characteristics ALWAYS cost normally, there wouldn't be an issue here.


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Of course it does! That's the entire reason detre for the NCM rule! Haven't you read the posts here? I want my game to be flexible: PCs can have 25 STR if they want; but I want such stats to be rare, so I charge them extra, so only the ones who really want it will buy it. It ensures the consistancy of the genre.

Right. One rule for all nonsuperheroic games ensures the consistency of all genres.

It ensures that a 20 yr old man and a 40 yr old man have different rules for characteristics, but a Pixie and an Ogre have the same rules.

It ensures that my Ogre pays double for exceptional STR, CON, and perhaps BOD, but your Half-Elf with the Age disad and lots of perception Skills and Powers and EGO based Glamour magick does not pay double for an EGO and INT up to 30.

It ensures that my alien from a high gravity planet pays double for high STR , PD, and ED and your psionic with an Age disad does not pay double for high EGO, INT, and PRE.

It ensures that my PI character in a lowlevel crimefighting campaign where the most imressive thug he faces probably has PD 6, CON 18, STUN 30, has the same rules for Max STR as my barbarian character in a Hyborian Age game where he regularly fights monsters with PD 10 or 12, CON 25+, and STUN of maybe 50.

It ensures that my wizard's energy blast spell, his main attack, costs the same amount per die no matter how many dice I buy it up to, but my gladiator character who specializes in unarmed combat, after buying some martial arts and STR up to 20, must pay twice as much for more dice of HIS main attack, even if his damage classes are still short of the campaign limit.

It ensures that the "I have superhuman CON and PRE because I wear the enchanted Sash of Endurance and the Royal Helm" (Focus limitations, in game terms) character pays half as much as the "I have superhuman STR and PRE because I'm a 4 meter
tall Giant" character. Actually less than half, with the limitation. Of course, a Giant COULD take the limitation "Visible" since he is OBVIOUSLY gigantic...

You want your game to be flexible. So do we all, I'm sure. But the Normal Characteristic Max rule does not help you have a more flexible game. What you want, of course, is for the game to be flexible but not too flexible - as you put it, you want that "only the ones that really want it wil buy it," you want superior Characteristics to be rare but not impossible. That is easily done - "These are the limits, you can exceed them only with justification." Someone who "really wants" the high Characteristic, or a character concept that implies high Characteristics, will have or invent a justification, adding some depth to the character and/or the game with little effort on your part. Somone who wants a DEX 21 just to get the OCV break, doesn't get to do that - whereas he COULD just by paying an extra 3 pts under the NCM rule.

At the risk of repeating myself - eliminating the Normal Characteristic Max rule will streamline and simplify the rules, make them fairer, and takes absolutely ZIP from the game. YOU DON'T LOSE ANYTHING. Where you set the limit and how you enforce it becomes just like the campaign limit on active points - you either say "That's the limit, that's it" or "That's the limit, exceptions judged on a case by case basis."

Like I said before, if it were such a good idea, why wouldn't it be applied to everything else?

Yes, I have read the posts - all the posts in this threads, and all the posts in previous threads touching on the topic. THAT is WHY I have come to this position - which is not the position I started with. I have never seen anyone show a single purpose served by this rule that is not just as well served without it.

Lucius Alexander

As the palindromedary would put it, this cud's been well-chewed.

[cutsleeve]

ok you say that an ogre should get a break on str con and pd and ed because he is an ogre. well what if i wanna make a character who is an amberite he should get breaks on pretty much all the stats and one of them should be half cost. by your reconing. now the ogre who you said should buy stregth as obvious because he's obviously big theres a power for that its called growth. ogre get big ogre get strong makes sense to me pixie get small pixie get a hell of alot harder to hit. and those are powers.

no racial or species driven character concept should give people a break on ncm. all characters pay the same amount for those higher the ncm points thats what balances a game that includes ncm as a global constant. if your character is being created as a half klingon half ogre from Haxor 1347 that doesnt mean he should just up and get an arbitrary benny on his stats or a higher maxima he is being built on a character concept and has to abide by the same rules that other races abide by. thats all it is a charcter concept and you should be thinking how can i do this best within the rules.

Hero system lets you play any character in any place, time, universe, ect. some people just have a habit of trying to get those few extra points for something (-1/4 cannot be used while asleep) As far as ncm not making sense for seperate races/species it does because all races are build from the same point base and the same amount of points are spent by each on the same thing that doesnt mean a Dorkian cant have a strength 30 he just has to pay for it like all the other races pay for their high stuff thats how you balance it by making it all equal. going out and raising maxima does not equalize the races more it causes problems in balancing.

[xanatos]

theres a power for that its called growth
Note that you shouldn't use Growth for ogres! This is one of those 4th ed. things that have been changed.

The truth is that we should look at what NCM is...
Is it the ceiling of human maxima (so is it an instrument to define how a top-human is made and why it's so rare) or is it a a campaign balancer? Probably the second, perhaps both.
First we have to thank the gods because the cost for the attributes is linear... Now think if the cost had been non-linear (1 point from 10 to 11, 2 from 11 to 12, 3 from 12 to 13 for example). Now think how many ways to "optimize" attribute we would have... I buy a ring that gives me a +1 STR, a pair of boots that gives me a +1 STR, I have +1 STR because I'm from a beautiful race, and a +1 STR because my father was blessed... And I buy these 4x+1 separately, because I'm a munchkin! Now... At least we only have the problem of NCM!
NCM works very well in a human-centered nonmagical world, or in a human-centered low power fantasy setting, where you can't buy attributes as powers (or at least they are very very very rare) where everyone has the same potential. In this genre NCM is both a campaign balancer and a human ceiling.
In a standard Fantasy Setting it's only a play balancer.
In a high-powered Fantasy Setting it's a false play balancer (you think that you gain play balance, but you aren't gaining anything, because players have learned that they can buy attributes as powers and then they can tell you a very beautiful history of faeries and ents)

[PhilFleischmann]

I think we're going in circles here. I'll see if I can clarify.


Originally posted by Lucius
And finally, it is complicated by the fact that some people, at least, would like to play fantasy or science fiction games with rules that make some kind of rational sense for nonhuman characters.
IMO, the NCM rule is not for making sense for non-human characters. It's for balancing PC's with one another. If I'm running a campaign where all the PC's are Ogres, I'd set the NCM for STR at 30 or so. If I was running a campaign where players can be anything from 50 STR storm giants to 50 CON dragons, to 50 EGO angels, then I wouldn't use NCM at all. Perhaps when I said "enforcing genre conventions" I should have said, "subgenre conventions." If I'm running a "standard" fantasy campaign where the PC's are all more-or-less "human" (humanoid, demi-human, whatever you want to call them), then yes, I'll use NCM, because I wnat them to be comparable to the normal people they'll come into contact with. If one player in the party wants to be an ogre, he'll have to pay double for his exceptional STR, not because it makes sense for ogres to be merely as strong as humans, but because of fairness compared to the other players. I want 30 STR ogres adventuring with humans and elves to be at least as rare as 30 STR barbarians.


On the other hand, the Characteristic Maxima rule is like an on/off switch - it is assumed that if it applies, it applies the same in any game to which it does apply. Even a superhero game, assuming the character took the disadvantage.
I do not assume that at all. I do not use it that way. I've said as much. I even suggested a mutli-tiered NCM that could be used in some cases, e.g., double after 20, triple after 30. I've never used such a system myself, but I would if I thought it would work for a particular campaign I was running.

IIRC, GURPS uses such a non-linear stat system, as does D&D (when you use the "buying stats" method), and probably many other game systems use it as well.


That's why I call it "inflexible." It is certainly less flexible than any of the alternatives I suggested, especially the one I consider ideal - "These are the recommended limits for various species/races/whatever, don't exceed them without a good reason."
Perhaps this is where I don't understand you. I am suspicious of vague notions like "good reason." What exactly is a good reason? Anyone can come up with a reason why their character should have a 30 STR. It's easy: "I'm an ogre." "I drank an Ent potion." "I'm Conan." "I'm half-giant." "I've been blessed by the gods."


When is a Characteristic a Power?
This is a separate (and significant) discussion in itself. IMO, the answer is, "almost never." Extra STR for any of the above reasons is not a power if I'm the GM.

[AnotherSkip]

I think part of the problem is with Steve.

now then don't get me wrong im a Fan of What Steve and 5th has Done for this system, but honestly everyone has their blind spots and I think this is Steves.

Steve Admits there is a problem.

Steve has not officially _solved_ this problem. Though he has had a few opportunities to do so.

We as gamers have come up with a temporary solution to increased characteristics problem presented by NCM. IF I AS A GM SET THE RACIAL STAT INCREASES AS POWERS IT IS MY DECISION AS A GM. Im not talking about +10 Str im talking about +/-1-5 and "negative powers" to boot. All under the purview and decision making of the Gm

"IMO, the NCM rule is not for making sense for non-human characters. It's for balancing PC's with one another".-PhilFleischmann

I happen to disagree with you on this particular quote for several reasons.
I do have as possible PC characters Non-human characters. I agree they should be balanced with other Pc's but they should be _different_
than what Joe Schmoe can do. If i have a Character who has the shape of a horse for _whatever_ reason I feel that His NCM should be no different than any other horse. Not spending a buttload of points (that any joe Schmoe with the points could do _anyways_ if allowed) so that he costs twice as much as a horse so that he can be "balanced" with the Hummies. We are trying in case you don'
t get it to make the races different with different advantages and disadvantages for choosing each race. a Halfling with 13 STR is just as unusual as a human with 23 STR, not as powerful, but certainly as rare.

Therefore i propose to you that NCM _Must_ make sense for Non-human as well as human. Hell if you are going to argue that it doesn't make sense for non-humans then ill Play non-humans and not have the NCM limits and Do Exactly what I am doing _with_ NCM and the Characteristics as Racial Powers. What the heck is the point then?


Now then in case someone brings up buying Increased NCM stats for points I laugh in their face. I spent _23_ fricking points to buy a Dwarf(more accurately to buy up the maximum stats for a dwarf, most of which I would never use!). I could have spent those 23 points as a human and built a better human that the fricking Dwarf!!!!!!!!!!


"I'd set the NCM for STR at 30 or so. ".-PhilFleischmann.

Actually, According-to-Steve you can't do that IIRC.
Otherwise i'd reset the racial NCM's as I so desire (and if they flippin fall exactly where they'd be if I used Racial Characteristics as Powers Ooooopps!) and we would not be having this discussion!

Oh yeah Old Man, I recommend using a Phisical limitation: Hobbits to repersent STR 5-10 double after that.

[PhilFleischmann]

I can understand and accept the fact that people will disagree on this, but my reasoning is very simple:

In HERO, you only pay points for things that have a *game effect*. You don't pay points for special effects, you don't pay for the rubber-science explanation of your powers, you don't pay for your character's personality, you don't pay for your character's history. If you want to cast a fireball, you pay for the amount of damage you can do, not for the SFX of "fire." If you want to see the future, you pay for Clairsentience with Precognition, not for the fact that the power was granted to you by the gods. If you're a born leader and everyone likes you, you pay for PRE and PRE-based skills, for *What You Can Do,* not for *Why You Can Do It.*

At least, that's how I see the system working. Yes, you may be able to find examples from the published books where this idea is violated. Those are precisely the areas that I would argue with as "flawed" or "mistaken."

And I see the same principle applying to races. You don't have to pay for being an ogre, you only pay for what being an ogre allows you to do. And of course the converse it true as well: You don't get anything free, just because of a special effect, personality, character history, etc., and that includes race. Just because you add the character detail "ogre" doesn't mean you should be allowed to buy STR for less than what other players have to pay.

This is the way I see it and the way I handle NCM and races. It seems the fairest to me. I go back to the central idea of the system: You Get What You Pay For, and You Pay For What You Get.

[Markdoc]

Phil has expressed my feelings pretty well, but one thing that I had sort of "assumed" - and it seems that Phil shares - is that NCM is actually "Human NCM".

We can all agree that the old system of paying to raise the maxima was just whacked, and I never used it.

Likewise the idea that NCM applies to with the same levels to pixies and ogres, nut not to horses, elephants and palindromedaries is, well, just silly.

However, I find the *concept* of NCM thoroughly useful - just as I find the Disadvantage of "Age" useful. And I apply it the same way. "Age 40+" is different from "Age 60+". Players can choose to have either or neither. Likewise, "NCM, human" is different from "NCM, centaur" - both are 0 point disadvantages in my game, but they could well be worth points in another game.

To take a simple example in an FH game. One player wants to play a Dark Elf assassin with two swords :-=. In addition to his regular skills, he wants to have a very high DEX, the ability to see in the dark, etc.

The GM then has three choices. He can say No. Or he can say "OK, good character concept, you are allowed a DEX of 27. But I don't want everyone in the game to have really high DEX, so no, Blog the Unworthy has to stick to the campaign limit of DEX 20."

In a few months the GM has an adventuring party consisting entirely of Dark Elves, Minotaurs and Ghosts....

Otherwise, he can say, OK, we'll scrap the campaign DEX limits - and then deal with fighters with DEX 27 and SPD6 (and hey, as far as I am concerned, that's perfectly valid FH, it's just not where I like to run most of my games...)

My approach is to set out the allowed races and their NCMs - which generally total 0 as far as raised/ lowered Stat.s go - and say to my players: you all get NCM, but you can chose NCM: ogre, NCM: human, NCM: slimy thing that lives under the floors of houses, but if you want to go outside the normal range of Stat.s, there is a penalty to be paid.

NCM gives me a control mechanism that is unbiased (at least as far as players go - it may favour certain races over others). It allows me to weasel out of having to decide what constitutes a "good reason". I have long since learned that even with good players, the definition of what constitutes a good reason often varies wildly from what I would like. Telling a player his character concept sucks is not something I enjoy.

so in conclusion, i thingk it is fair tp say the problem is not NCM. but the notion that NCM is a flat limit that applies to all species. I think this is where Phil is coming from with his comment that NCM only makes sense applied to humans.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Actually my point is just what you guys in the last two points have been arguing _FOR_.

NCM works fine for an all human campaign.
It breaks down the further you get from "one race to rule them all and in the darkness bind them".

It gets tossed right out of the window when you allow Characteristicas as Powers from Spells.

The races i do Certainly keep the flavor and restrictions of NCM well within the realm of possibility.

im certainly not advocating the wholesale removal from the game, What "I" am advocating is Either for Steve to Solve the NCM vs. Multible Races OR flipping allow our mods.

Sorry, but building races with +10 STR(non-powered), just makes the cap all the more painfully obvious.

The point of Greatest Agrravation with Steve is the simple fact that "he" has decided (incorrectly IMNSHO) the NCM is a Genre thing.

It isn't, it's a GM thing.

I don't suddenly see a great increase in non/demi-human characters in my campaign because I build them, not the players. Just like in the real world you did not "design yourself" there are some things that you are just born with and have to deal with.

I certainly Agree NCM is useful, I just want to be able to adjust it. However appearently Steve feels that it is too too for us poor incapable of balancing Gm's, much less players.

I dont want to have to flipping have to have each races NCM in a chart, I just want certain factors to be listed and be done with it.

PhilFleischmann- "I go back to the central idea of the system: You Get What You Pay For, and You Pay For What You Get. "
And IF a GM so chooses he can give you a 10,000,000,000,000 point spaceship, make the Everyman skills build up onable, by the rules of the game, and NO he cannot modify NCM without houseruling it.

THE GM can give you whatever he want's _except_ modify NCM.

Sorry, your argument is kinda baseless for that reason.

And keep in mind guys this is a GM freaking arguing this, not a player.

Steve has put the artifical limits making it an on/off switch, Im merely arguing for moderation on the offical stance.

the simple problem is if you buy +10 Str Orcish Muscles Racial ability you smack right up against the limit, now it costs you twice as much to raise it, few are going to buy an Orc unless they want the +10 STR and few are going to increase their Str beyond the racial min/max.

If you buy +10 STR Orcish Muscles Racial Power now Orcs will have Str between 20-30 on average with few others outside of that range.

if you buy +10 Str Spell of Orcish Muscles, IIF Hair, Incantations you only spend 7 points to get 10 points of Str _AND_ it leaves your NCm just as intact as the second way.

Besides What the H e Double-hockey- sticks happens when you have a 60+ equivalent ORC with the Age Disadvantage?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!
in case one the Orc just paid to double his Str with doulbe the points but the other two cases it does not matter.

Sorry, but NCM Should be adjustable so it can aplly to all the races appropriately at Gm's discretion. after all that is what the rest of the book is all about.

[Heroman]

I have always seen NCM not as a method of balancing PC against each each other, but one of several mechanisms to maintain capabilities below a certain level because of the expected power level of the game.
In general, if I run a lower power game (like Heroic), I would like to make sure people have an incentive to work within the power levels I expect without strict cutoffs. In example, for a Heroic game, it is expected that characteristics would be between 10-20 (h5, p15). I find that NCM helps people keep in that area, but gives allowances (at a cost) if they want values higher. Heck, since NCM is normal for heroic level, I would dare guess that the values chosen for NCM are based on the character ability guideline table for heroic level; a restriction to help maintain the suggested values but provide allowances to exceed it.

As far as ogres vs humans, I would never give a price break (since I find the NCM more of a campaign thing than a per character thing). If an ogre wants a 40 STR, he needs to pay for it. Not all racial packages are equal. If a player wants to play a racially stronger species, he will pay for it. If he wants to exceed the general guidelines for power level of a characteristic, he will pay for it regardless of race (hey, I must be an equal opportunity GM!)

As far as characteristics bought as powers not counting vs NCM, I find that to be the biggest crock ever and a very stupid, stupid rule made to Make Math Easy. God forbid we make players count CPs....You basically get a free advantage (or maybe better described as a non-impeding -1 limitation) on Chars when you stick something stupid on a characteristic. I let it in my current games, but my house rule for the next campaign I run will nix this stupid allowance.

'Age', I find, to be a self-imposed further restricting element (of course, to get points). For anyone who would whine about 'but I can make a character who is not restricted by this, really' I would counter with the "Only Elemental Magic' and like restrictions people but on frameworks; I can easily make a character who is not limited, really, by this either.
If I did not have NCM, I would probably make rules to help govern how powerful people should be for the different categories based on the campaign level to insure decent balance. I myself find that I do not need to reinvent wheels, though, and use the NCM as part of my balancing.

[AnotherSkip]

"If an ogre wants a 40 STR, he needs to pay for it. Not all racial packages are equal. If a player wants to play a racially stronger species, he will pay for it."-Heroman

I agree

However most of the discussion seems to be not whether or not someone _pays_ for the abilities but how and how much.

If a "mage" can get away with 200 Str for 200 points then certailny others should be able to get away with that also.
If _no one can _ which seems to be your point then by all means go ahead.

I am however merely pointing out that if there are certain cases then the character should not be penalsied for having a good character concept with a good Gm approved race over a Human with a "book O' spells", otherwise you end up with the party of humans with book O' spells and no one want's to play other races.

besides I built a NCM, FH, mid level magic character wit 23 str, she paid 16 points for that.
I did not build her with the "its a power, therfore NCM does not apply" even though there were and _Are_ ways to do so. Heck I just rebuilt her to cover a major campaign influence and even though I had the opportunity to add +3 STR to my powers list and get back 3 cp's I chose not to.

She is the strongest humanoid in the campaign with nautural strength. there are others (at least two in the party) who have frameworks that allow greater strengths due to their magics. But without magic she is _Rare_ even with magics she is still rare. There is nothing (no dispells or disads) on her Strengths that limit what she can do and others cannot face. (one has the "only when in contact with the earth" the other needs to mod his VPP).

in the end though she is not really balanced with the others, she really would have been better off with some magic and a punier Str.

[Markdoc]

>>> Sorry, but NCM Should be adjustable so it can aplly to all the races appropriately at Gm's discretion. after all that is what the rest of the book is all about.<<<

NCM *is* adjustable. OK, so I know The Steve says it isn't, but in this case he's just wrong.

Time to move on :-)

And anyone who tries to buy "Orcish muscles" as a power in my game will be introduced to the Sharp Pencil of Pain...

cheers, Mark

[nytflyr]

heres what I amn working on for myown campaign, I like the basic concept of NCM, I dislike its implementation.

Half Orc package
+1 STR (21 Max)
+1 BOD (21 Max)
+1 CON (21 Max)
-2 INT (18 Max)
-1 EGO (19 Max)
-2 COM (18 Max)
Cost: 0

some cost a little more, up to 5 I believe, thanks to things like natural armor (Lizardmen) and natural claws (cat men)

one thing that did bug me though is the cost for night vision, shouldnt it be +4 to PER rolls with Normal sight (4 active points) instead of sight group (8 active points, which includes night vision?). that knocks the real cost down to 3

I also like restrainable, but I have added one more limitation to claws, not vs hard targets (ie. you use your claws against metal or stone you are just going to hurt yourself)

[cutsleeve]

I think a Responcible GM should enforce one simple rule for dealing with characteristics as powers. All characteristics that are bought as powers must be bought with limitations or advantages to simulate that they are indeed powers. If there are no advantages or limitation on them they arent powers they are statistics and conform to all the rules of Purchasing them (such as in NCM and doubling after 20). This is a rule that i used back in 4th edition after seeing defender it makes a kind of sense. Magic items may give adds to strength but they are foci and can be removed from the character. Magical spells that or the ability to Berserk may adjust characteristics temporarily but they are either temporary or require certian actions that could cause them to be aborted, suck as an activation roll or gestures.

Thats the simplest way to ensure the characters dont just pick the characteristic power and say im an ogre thats a power. The old characteristics ability under the powers section was so you could stick power advantages and limitations on it just like the old skills ability under the powers section.

Of course i dont have my Fred yet but even in the old 4th edition under characteristics it says that they can be purchased with power limitations and advantages and put in frameworks and if this is dont they count as standard powers. I always assumed if this wasnt done then theyre just regular characteristics and should be bought at double point costs after 20 for non figures characteristics.

Hope all that made sense.:D

[Spyritwind]

Wow. This issue is always fun. I suppose my perspective and opinions may fall in to the minority category, but here they go.

I do see NCM as primarily being a genre thing for the purpose of game balance and keeping thing 'in' genre.

Obviously humans in real life aren't waking around with a str of 30. A cap of 20 works for me. Fantasy literature (and definately super heroic) do not follow in the steps of reality though. Epic fantasy character may bend, or even break what is actualy possible and I'm sure we are all aware that 'super' hero's, that are only supposed to be well trained human perform feats that are totally impossible in 'real' life.

So ... the maximum human limit changes to match the genre. Running a realistic gritty modern day mercenary campaign? Probably stick with 20 as being the max ... period. Running standard fantasy fiction? Pay double after 20 works to keep it from becoming too common among your players. Super hero's? You can just about throw it out the window for many stats. No need to bother with a stat limit since players have sooo many points that the issue really becomes spending them where you should for your concept, but obviously not over what the GM allows.

True enough it could be said that one shouldn't spend points beyond what their concept includes ...

Varying characteristic caps among races make perfect sense to me, whether or not there is a doubling cost at some point. A halfling being able to be as strong as the orc, northern man mixed breed doesn't make sense.

Or course if you are alllowing non conservative character concepts such as: the druid fairy queen kissed me so my half orc barbarian has a com of 30 then ... okay. If that's the style of fantasy campaign you are running then characteristic max's may not mean much to you.

The problem of course is how do you adjust the points if you vary the characteristic maxima?

Yes, the old 4th rule didn't work because you wasted many points that were never used if you wanted to be certain races and you felt cheated. As it has been said, you could have just made a better human with the same points so why pay points in essence to visualize your character being a dwarf?

Making stats powers for altering races makes sense to me, but then the problem may be that races, other than human presumably, will have an unfair advatage with out paying any extra points for it. Now the disadvantage might be in playing a human.

My first thought was to go with the old 4th edition rules regarding stats in a racial package deal, but using a -1/2, or -1/4 limitation on it. This means it doesn't cost as much, but at least it does cost you something.

Example:
Half Orc strength + 5 to maxima

1) 4th Ed = 10 pts

2) Stat as power= 10 pts, but has the advantage of actually giving you 3 points of strength to your base and you automatically have an increased max for free.

3) 4th ed with -1/2 limitation = 7 pts This would leave the 3 extra points for increasing the base.

TOO MESSY right?

Okay, how about adding an advantage on the 'stat as a power' idea since you are also getting the benefit of increasing your maximum and not just adding to the base. Perhaps a +1/2 advantage?

The above +5 Str would then cost 7 pts.
2 more points than the human with a 15 str, but 3 points cheaper between a human and a half orc each with a 25 strength. A fairly balanced way of handling it IMO. This way you pay more than normal if you don't meat the maximum, but less if you do.

Depeding on your character concept and race this could either be a minor disadvantage, or minor advantage.

Strength is potentially the most easily abused stat for these purposes though in a fantasy setting since strenght plays such an important part of game mechanics and the strength stat is so cheap. One I recommend making Str cost 2 pts per point.

Example:
Dwarf
Dex -1 (-4.5)
Con +3 (+9)
Body +2 (+6)
Pre -2 (-3)
Com -2 (-1.5)
Pd +1 (+1.5)
Total: +7.5
Yes I used decimals and added them together for a grand total which is unconventional.

This would not include changes to running, or any racial/cultural package skill, talents, perks or what ever that may accompany the same package.

I'm sure this will get flamed since it doesn't mechanically fit the 'way things are done', but it's an idea for those that want to give the idea a try that aren't bothered by that.

And on another note. How things are payed for, for any race, creature, animal, or object that is not being played by a player really doesn't matter in terms of NCM. Really! Think about it? Who cares? A minotaur is a minotaur no matter how it's payed for or how many points it is. It doesn't matter until a player wants to play one (and if I allowed it) because the character's abilities and cost's would need to be balanced with the other characters. Until then it really doesn't matter.

NEway ... just an idea in between 4th ed and the stat for power idea's. :)

[James Gillen]

Boy, this is getting complicated. :)

I'm starting to agree with Lucius; the NCM concept is getting to be too much math, and too much inconsistency, to be worth it. Odd, since cleaning up inconsistency and math seems to be Steve's rationale in making the NCM rule uniform.

In the FH games I actually ran, I ditched the 4th Ed. rule in favor of Racial Maxima modifying the base (so a Dwarf pays +6 in his Package Deal to get base 13 CON and 23 CON max before doubling). This was actually the rule in the ancient first edition of Fantasy HERO (before 4th Edition), and it solves the 4th Ed. FH problem of paying for a stat you're not actually using (so that an Elf with 21 DEX max pays +3 points whether she buys her DEX up that high or not- so it's not cost effective unless you buy the stat to max).

Adjusting Maxima by race may complicate things, but I hardly think it's that arbitrary if one is going to use NCM at all. Otherwise just say that the Pixie buys her STR at 5 (-5 pts.) and the Ogre buys a STR of 30 (+20) at start, and are permitted to do so by character concept. Note that this creates an effective 'Package Deal' in and of itself by defining how many points you need to get a character within a certain racial concept; your Ogre could also be an 18 INT mage with several spells, but with the points you've already spent on brawn, it's less likely.

Steve has done a lot of things which (in my opinion and some others') contradict the idea of standardizing and simplifying the rules. Re-engineering Instant Change and Regeneration (as Transform and Healing variants) is one example. Changing Size Powers (so you can't buy Growth Always On, Inherent) would seem to be another, but it actually is more logical the new way; just buy the traits appropriate for your permanent size, then offset them with Physical Limitations (and Distinctive Features) that fit. EXCEPT, in Star HERO for example, they list several packages for making alien races that are smaller or larger than normal, WITHOUT counting the effects of NCM, even though NCM are supposed to apply *universally* in the Heroic genre.

However, a standard has to be enforced to get game product out, and Steve has already made clear what his standard is going to be. Deal with it and move on. I have no objecting to making my house rules and having them count only in my game; the whole point of 5th Edition is that it is "the ultimate gamer's toolkit" and could not serve as such if the GM could not take the raw material and refit it according to genre and effects (just as Steve himself had to alter Healing Regeneration to make it more like 4th Ed. Regen and less like 5th Ed. Healing).

When the new Fantasy HERO comes out, I'm probably going to either keep my rule on modifying Maxima by Racial Package, or drop NCM altogether for the "buy what you can justify" concept. After all, in a Chinese Martial Arts campaign, a normal human shouldn't get a natural 50 STR, double cost or no.

JG

[Markdoc]

>>>Boy, this is getting complicated.
I'm starting to agree with Lucius; the NCM concept is getting to be too much math, and too much inconsistency, to be worth it. Odd, since cleaning up inconsistency and math seems to be Steve's rationale in making the NCM rule uniform.<<<

Only if you a) start with the rationale that NCM is always 20 and b) want characters with NCM to be able to go above 20 in some cases but not others...

That's where the inconsistency (and complication) comes from, as well as all this piffle about buying normal characteristics as powers.

Forget all this nonsense about "paying extra to raise caps". That was an ugly pimple on the buttocks of 4th Ed., which thankfully is no longer with us.

NCM works fine as long as you treat it exactly the way it was intended to be used: as a genre-defining disadvantage.

In a superheroic game, nobody (normally anyway) is forced to take NCM. It is a disadvantage in that it limits the character's participation in the normal statistics arms race that occurs as a game develops. I've read all the "it's not really a disadvantage, 'cos you don't have to buy those stat.s" posts and feel that if you take that approach, it falls into the same category as "Susceptibility to sunlight". After all, you don't HAVE to go outside during daylight...

Just so: NCM doesn't penalise you if you don't go outside the range - and does if you do. Susceptibility to sunlight doesn't penalise you if you don't go out in the sun, and does if you do...

In a heroic game where the GM decides that NCM is in force, the "20 cap" is essentially "NCM, human". If the GM decides that "NCM, ogre" has different caps, then it can be changed - and possibly the points changed also, just as Age has different levels.

if NCM offends you, then don't use it. If it offends you and you want to use it anyway, then call it "Physical limitation: human" (which is what it really is) and treat it exactly the same way. Then you can have Physical limitation: Elf, or Physical limitation: Ogre, or....

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

The problem with stat package deals is that the ones that don't zero out--those which cost points--wind up costing the player points for potential. Which is not really fair, and it greatly encourages those players to max out the stats that they can in order to make use of the points they paid for the package.

The problem with NCM, or hard limits, is that if the points total is high enough characters will all wind up with about the same stats, right at the border. I've seen several campaigns where evey non-wizard wound up with 20 for the first four stats. It's not hard.

I think that if I were to start up another FH campaign, I would dispense with NCM, but limit the points that could be spent on stats during character creation--probably to about 50% of the point total--and impose fixed racial maxima for stats, but again, only during character creation. After I boost the cost of STR to two, that ought to work reasonably well.

[Markdoc]

>>>The problem with NCM, or hard limits, is that if the points total is high enough characters will all wind up with about the same stats, right at the border. I've seen several campaigns where evey non-wizard wound up with 20 for the first four stats. It's not hard.<<<<<

The borderline issue is a sure sign of a campaign where the players are starting with too many points - and as you note will happen if you use fixed caps just as readily as using NCM (more so actually, 'cos there'll be no way to go over a fixed cap).

I'm not sure that dumping NCM and letting players buy 40 STR fighters is a great idea (and the only other option is fixed caps - the least appealing of the 3 options, to my mind)

Setting STR at 2 XP per point of STR will help some - but not too much.

From experience, requiring 50% to be spent on other things than CHA will result in lots of strong, dextrous, ugly, weak-willed characters, and an even smaller range of Stat.s as the pressure to cluster around cost effective points becomes greater.

I'd just start 'em off with less points and let the players make the choices.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Actually Playtesting FH has given me a few ideas,
Really there are a few broken points that surprising enough I think have to do with views of what is effective and Weapons Str Min.

I cannot discuss it here until after publication but I think Steve managed to open my eyes to the way things should be changed (and not the way he intended/wrote!!!!!)

However I still have a major problem with NCM and (for example) negative running. Negative running (-1" typically for Dwarves) I see as a problem. Okies I bought -1"running, now then If I want a "speedier" Dwarf and buy +1" running I either could get a better bennie out of being a human(and building a character on 150 points rather than 148 with thi s method which is all i'm really doing) spending no points and Telling the Gm I am buying it off as a background thing (which now means I can run as fast as any human), or I have a disadvantage that is not worth any points, (hmmm seems I see that in big black bold letters as something you cannot have every time i read the Disadvantages section of 4th or 5th editions......)


pretty much what it means is that you have two types of Dwarfs: 5" movers and Humans-who-look-like-Dwarfs.

[PhilFleischmann]

Numah, the Human has 30 STR (quite rare for a human)
Ergo, the Ogre has 30 STR (common for an ogre)
Gnilflah, the Halfling has 30 STR (really wierd for a halfling)

They can all do the same thing with their STR, in terms of game effect, therefore they should all pay the same amount for their STR.

If Ergo had to pay for an ogre package deal that included STR or increased STR limit already, that still counts as the total cost of his STR. The only problem is what happens when a PC is a "runt of the litter" ogre? Does he still have to pay the same for the ogre package when he has only 10 or 15 STR?

The opposite problem occurs in the case of Gnilflah.

This is, in a nutshell, why I don't use varied char maxima do define races. The only thing you (as the GM) have to decide is: How rare do you want 30 STR to be among your players? If you want it rare, you use NCM as written in FREd, and Numah, Ergo, and Gnilflah all pay 30 points each for their STR. If you want 30 STR to be more common, don't use NCM and the three each pay 20 points. If you want 30 STR to be extremely rare, set the NCM for STR at 15, (or even 10!) or say that costs triple (or even quadruple!) after 20.

If you're the GM, you can set the "strata of rarification" however you want.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Numah, the Human has 30 STR (quite rare for a human)
Ergo, the Ogre has 30 STR (common for an ogre)
Gnilflah, the Halfling has 30 STR (really wierd for a halfling)

They can all do the same thing with their STR, in terms of game effect, therefore they should all pay the same amount for their STR.

Fine then, but what do you do to discourage the Halfling player from buying 30 STR in the first place? I personally am not interested in playing the wild fantasy genre.

[Vondy]

I use a simple rule:

everyone has NCM, and everyone pays double to go over NCM.

I don't make non-humans pay for the potential to go over because the player may never want to use it, and therefore, may be forced to waste points on it.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Old Man
Fine then, but what do you do to discourage the Halfling player from buying 30 STR in the first place? I personally am not interested in playing the wild fantasy genre. Just say no to the guy who wants a 30 strength halfling unless there is a good reason for it.

[Old Man]

That's just not good enough. There has to be something to encourage halflings to be of halfling strength. A hard limit isn't going to work because that will just cause all halflings to be at that maximum.

I'm starting to think that the answer is to alter the actual costs for stats for specific races. STR could cost 2 for the ogre, 3 for humans and 4 for halflings. DEX could cost 3 for elves and halflings, 4 for humans and 5 for the ogre. If it all balances out between the races we could do away with the NCM. If the halfling player wants to spend 80 points for 30 STR he's welcome to try.

[Markdoc]

>>Just say no to the guy who wants a 30 strength halfling unless there is a good reason for it.<<<

And here we are back in the same place: what is a good reason? Your player might consider "father drank an entish potion" a good reason while you consider it unbearably cheesy. (I know I would)

And what if you want STR 30 halflings to be really really rare, STR 30 humans to be really rare, STR 30 ogres to be uncommon....

BUT, you also want DEX 30 halflings to be rare, DEX 30 humans to be really rare and STR 30 ogres to be unheard of?

In other words, what if you want race to be marginally more than a rubber suit pulled on over the same set of Stat.s?

i guess what it comes down to is either GM Fiat "Because I say so" or rules that *encourage* the style you want: personally I come down hard in favour of the latter.

And please, enough with the "paying for Stat. increases you might never use.." stuff. We don't DO that anymore :-)

cheers, Mark

[Lucius]

Back to cutting and pasting. I should come here more often.

Before responding to specific posts, I would like to comment that no one even addressed certain points I made about using NCM and Age….so, to quote myself
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It ensures that a 20 yr old man and a 40 yr old man have different rules for characteristics, but a Pixie and an Ogre have the same rules

It ensures that my Ogre pays double for exceptional STR, CON, and perhaps BOD, but your Half-Elf with the Age disad and lots of perception Skills and Powers and EGO based Glamour magick does not pay double for an EGO and INT up to 30

It ensures that my alien from a high gravity planet pays double for high STR , PD, and ED and your psionic with an Age disad does not pay double for high EGO, INT, and PRE

It ensures that my wizard's energy blast spell, his main attack, costs the same amount per die no matter how many dice I buy it up to, but my gladiator character who specializes in unarmed combat, after buying some martial arts and STR up to 20, must pay twice as much for more dice of HIS main attack, even if his damage classes are still short of the campaign limit

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Cutsleeve
"you say that an ogre should get a break on str con and pd and ed because he is an ogre."

Who, exactly, has said that?


"Hero system lets you play any character in any place, time, universe, ect. some people just have a habit of trying to get those few extra points for something (-1/4 cannot be used while asleep) As far as ncm not making sense for seperate races/species it does because all races are build from the same point base and the same amount of points are spent by each on the same thing that doesnt mean a Dorkian cant have a strength 30 he just has to pay for it like all the other races pay for their high stuff thats how you balance it by making it all equal. going out and raising maxima does not equalize the races more it causes problems in balancing."

I’m in favor of making all races equal. I oppose NCM for all of them.

Phil Fleischman

"Perhaps this is where I don't understand you"

Perhaps not.

"I am suspicious of vague notions like "good reason." What exactly is a good reason? Anyone can come up with a reason why their character should have a 30 STR. It's easy: "I'm an ogre." "I drank an Ent potion." "I'm Conan." "I'm half-giant." "I've been blessed by the gods." "

Well, yes, anyone can come up with a reason why their character should have 30 STR. But it’s harder to justify for a Hobbit than for an Ogre. Frankly, I can’t think of ANY good reason a Hobbit should have a STR that high.
Now, suppose we dispense with reasons and just have NCM.
If you think it’s easy to come up with a good reason for a high char, it’s even easier to not have to come up with a reason, just spend the points. If you use NCM and have no "good reason rule" then NOTHING prevents florist friars. I’ll run right over to your game with my Brother Rose character and his sidekick Brother Orchid (remember them?)
I have a question. WOULD you permit those characters? If not - why not? They don’t break any rules, and they are built under NCM.
And to address the issue someone else has raised, that you may want certain high characteristics to be "common" for some "races," "rare" for others, "unheard of" for still others. Under NCM rules (the current official rules anyway), nothing makes it harder for a Hobbit to have a STR 25 than for an Ogre. If you require justification, the Ogre has it by virtue of being an Ogre, the Human needs some kind of backstory or disadvantage or the like, and the Hobbit is probably out of luck (exceptional things happen in fantasy, but can you really think of ANY reasonable justification to let a Hobbit START with STR 25?)

"And I see the same principle applying to races. You don't have to pay for being an ogre, you only pay for what being an ogre allows you to do. And of course the converse it true as well: You don't get anything free, just because of a special effect, personality, character history, etc., and that includes race. Just because you add the character detail "ogre" doesn't mean you should be allowed to buy STR for less than what other players have to pay.
This is the way I see it and the way I handle NCM and races. It seems the fairest to me. I go back to the central idea of the system: You Get What You Pay For, and You Pay For What You Get"

I am quite in agreement here. Unfortunately, under NCM, if I want a base characteristic over 20, I literally "pay two prices" to use my mother’s colorful phrase, rather than Getting What I Pay For and Paying For What I Get.

James Gillen

"Boy, this is getting complicated

"I’m starting to agree with Lucius; the NCM concept is getting to be too much math, and too much inconsistency, to be worth it. Odd, since cleaning up inconsistency and math seems to be Steve's rationale in making the NCM rule uniform"

Yes, I only came to this conclusion after seeing a LOT of threads come and go.


Old Man

"I've seen several campaigns where evey non-wizard wound up with 20 for the first four stats."

I think I mentioned that…in particular I have seen every warrior player character with a STR of 20.


Markdoc

"not sure that dumping NCM and letting players buy 40 STR fighters is a great idea (and the only other option is fixed caps)"

Except it’s not. Not the only other option that is. All I’m saying is, treat Characteristics like everything else in the game that would be subject to Campaign Limits. I believe the rules specifically say that it is possible to exceed the Limits on a case-by-case basis, for either good justification and character concept, or because the G.O.D. decides that this or that power is not unbalancing despite, say, a high active point total.


Phil Fleishman
.
"Numah, the Human has 30 STR (quite rare for a human)
Ergo, the Ogre has 30 STR (common for an ogre)
Gnilflah, the Halfling has 30 STR (really wierd for a halfling
.
"They can all do the same thing with their STR, in terms of game effect, therefore they should all pay the same amount for their STR"

Again, I am in full agreement. Except that I am not sure I’d allow a Hobbit ("Don’t call me a Halfling - I’m not half of anything!" Human looks down and says "My height." Hobbit looks up and responds "I’m not half your height - you’re twice my height!") with a STR of 30….unless I’m running a really really weird game.




Agent X

Originally posted by Old Man
Fine then, but what do you do to discourage the Halfling player from buying 30 STR in the first place? I personally am not interested in playing the wild fantasy genre.

"Just say no to the guy who wants a 30 strength halfling unless there is a good reason for it"


Thank you, thank you, Agent X.

And finally - what’s wrong with beautiful stories about Faeries and Ents? I thought that was supposed to be the POINT of the game, telling beautiful stories….

One must count points, else
Pointless the rules: but know that
Points are not the point.

Lucius Alexander

Markdoc
"the idea that NCM applies to with the same levels to pixies and ogres, nut not to horses, elephants and palindromedaries is, well, just silly"

[Markdoc]

Having read this thread, it seems the problem is not NCM, per se (Lucius, if I read his comments correctly, seems not to have a problem with Age, which works *exactly* the same way). After all, do you defined "aged" for your immortal Elves and your humans the same? Do you limit the STR of elves over 60?

The problem is when you attempt to apply NCM (or age) at the same level(s) to all races/species, which plainly defies its (their) rationale for existence.

Yes, I know The Steve says NCM is 20 for everybody, and I can see why he said so - and also I can see that this thread ilustrates that he was wrong.

As pointed out above, NCM (just like Age) is thoroughly useful limitation: as a GM, I have no interest in dropping either of them from my toolkit, but I realise that a) both need to be balanced (if some Stat. limit.s go up, others must come down) and b) it needs to be changed to fit the GM's plans.

For me, the crucial deciders are: has NCM (applied sensibly) caused any problems in my game, or the games of my fellow GMs? (answer: No). has it had a beneficial effect (answer: yes). Is there another method that can serve as well? (Answer: we have tried "what you can justify" - it often leads to arguments. We have tried fixed caps - that were universally despised. So: No)

Other people may have had problems that have not been brought up here - but as I say, all the ones discussed here are essentially problems with GETTING ROUND A FIXED NCM OF 20 - and nothing to do with NCM (as a mechanism) at all.

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Markdoc
The problem is when you attempt to apply NCM (or age) at the same level(s) to all races/species, which plainly defies its (their) rationale for existence.
This is my whole point: That is NOT its rationale for existence! It's for limiting high stats in non-super genres, not for defining races!

The "30 STR hobbit" issue is purely academic AFAIK. Have any of you ever had a player who wanted to play one? I haven't.

Why not, do you suppose? It's because most players know what a halfling is! If a player in my game wanted to be wierd and play a 30 STR halfling, I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with it, any more so than if they wanted to play a 30 STR human or a 30 STR ogre or a 30 STR gloof - as long as they pay the points for it. My only concern is that the PCs abilities make a good match for the difficulty of the adventure.

I'd have the same reaction to a player who said, "I want to be a wizard with 30 STR, a big sword, plate armor, lots of combat skills and no spells." I'd first say, "Don't you mean, you want to be a warrior?" If the player can't or won't understand the standard meanings of the words "wizard" and "warrior," that's his problem, not mine. He can still play in my game, just like any other warrior.

This may be a simple matter of GM style. Some see the GM's job as "enforcing." I see it as "allowing." That's one of the reasons I like HERO over B&D. In the latter, everything is strictly defined in advance. While in the former, you're allowed to build whatever you want, using the point system to keep it balanced, even if it's something wierd.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

The "30 STR hobbit" issue is purely academic AFAIK. Have any of you ever had a player who wanted to play one? I haven't.[

Shadowpup just had one a couple months ago. Actually it was 20 STR, and the player refused to consider playing anything else. So he doesn't play.


Why not, do you suppose? It's because most players know what a halfling is! If a player in my game wanted to be wierd and play a 30 STR halfling, I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with it,

But I would. I'm not interested in playing a wild fantasy campaign with no consistency or logic to the character conceptions.


While in the former, you're allowed to build whatever you want, using the point system to keep it balanced, even if it's something wierd.

In the particular case of Hefty Halfling the points don't balance at all. I strongly suspect the player in question simply wanted the inherent DCV bonus for the shrinking, without having to balance that out in any way. Sure, he's paying points for both the shrinking and the STR, but Hero is absolutely not balanced pointwise for heroic level games.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Old Man
In the particular case of Hefty Halfling the points don't balance at all. I strongly suspect the player in question simply wanted the inherent DCV bonus for the shrinking, without having to balance that out in any way.
I have no idea what the situation is here, but it is not logical to limit characters based on simple concepts. Maybe the player wants to play the "Heracles" of halflings (son of a god). Maybe the character does not know it is the son of a god, it just knows it is un-halfling-like strong. To force a player to only play within a limited concept is counterproductive to the versatility the HERO System provides over other game systems, IMO.

[Markdoc]

My Quote:
The problem is when you attempt to apply NCM (or age) at the same level(s) to all races/species, which plainly defies its (their) rationale for existence.

And Phil said:
This is my whole point: That is NOT its rationale for existence! It's for limiting high stats in non-super genres, not for defining races!
----------------------------------------------

Assuming that "non-super" was a typo, I kind of agree. NCM first popped up as a way of limiting high stat.s in *Supers* games, so that your Batman types did not have 40 STR.

Essentially, it was a way of defining your character as "human". So of course it IS a way of defining race - it's just that in supers games brimming with aliens, critters from alternate planes, cyborgs, warlocks, uncle Tom cobbly an' all, there is only one default race: human.

The problems with NCM only arise because a) in non-supers games (specifically: fantasy) it went from being a limitation you could purchase like Age, to the default and b) the default was set rigidly at 20, which ceases to make sense when you have "default" fantasy races that are different from humans.

Alter either of those conditions and the problem evaporates like (strangely enough) so much hot air :-)

cheers, Mark

[Heroman]

I agree with the misconception of NCM equating to "Normal Human Maximas". It has nothing to do with species, it have everything to do with a layer of limitations in a heroic level campaign. It is to keep your powers below a certain level to help with balancing. A troll who has a 30 Str should pay as much as a human who has a 30 Str from a point balancing standpoint. The racial package would give the troll more Str at the start, but at 20 he would pay double just like the human. You don't get anything for free, just because of your species.

What you *could* do, is have CHAR caps imposed on races while retaining NCM to keep overall power levels low. For your campaign, maybe, you would say humans are capped at 23 Str and trolls at 35. That way both pay points for everything they purchase, but allow trolls to exceed human capabilities. This method would also make magical methods of enhancing CHARs sought after.

Now, if you wanted to make it more of a racial characteristic maxima than a campaign limitation, I would suggest that your maxima simply be 10 above the CHAR the racial package would provide. This will, however, give 'free' points to certain racial packages. In example: If a troll package gives +5 STR, then I would make the STR NCM value for trolls to be 25. If the troll bought the STR up to 25, this would effectively give him 5 free points as compared to a human (who would pay double for 21-25). While this is nicer from a racial range perspective, it enforces the fact that not all species are created equal and some will effectively be more cost effective.

Both methods are easy to do on a single sheet/half sheet of paper only needed in character creation.

[Markdoc]

>>>Now, if you wanted to make it more of a racial characteristic maxima than a campaign limitation, I would suggest that your maxima simply be 10 above the CHAR the racial package would provide. This will, however, give 'free' points to certain racial packages. In example: If a troll package gives +5 STR, then I would make the STR NCM value for trolls to be 25. If the troll bought the STR up to 25, this would effectively give him 5 free points as compared to a human (who would pay double for 21-25). While this is nicer from a racial range perspective, it enforces the fact that not all species are created equal and some will effectively be more cost effective.<<<<<

And this is EXACTLY what I (and many others do). The trick (as GM) is to balance it off. If the troll gets 5 free points in STR, then he loses 5 points elsewhere (INT and DEX are traditional).

That encourages the perception (among the players as well as the fantasy population at large) that trolls are strong, but clumsy and stupid - but does it not *force* anyone to conform to that mould. If a player (or I as a GM) wants to play a smart, puny troll, he can. He may pay extra to move outside the racial NCM, but that's a choice to be made during character creation and play, like any other form of character development.

Cheers, Mark

[Heroman]

Yep. Now, the one thing to keep in mind is that this idea is about as bad as the paying of points for a cap increase you never use, but this time to the player's advantage. Now, a player will likely gain points for CHARs which will never be limited by the reduced caps.
In example: Ogre. Let's say the Ogre racial packags consists of 2 stats (just because only 2 makes it simple :) ):
Str + 5 (NCM: 25)
Int - 5 (NCM: 15)
If someone makes an ogre, lets his Int sit at 5 and spends points to cap his Str to 25, then he saves 5 points; the INT reduction when making a stupid ogre is not limiting.
In its defense, though, this nicely enforces the purpose of racial packages in that it shows a 'standard' for the race. Point-wise, you save points by developing skills which fall within your NCMs. You should not see a ton of Ogre scholars and I think this method works rather well for that.
Now, in the case of a person who works up an interesting, creative, and in depth background (not just overly complex or munchkiny), I would suggest this is just handled by awarding extra CPs based on the quality of their background (which could offset some of the racial caps to achieve the unusually high CHARs the PC possess). At worse, you will encourage quality backgrounds....

Oh, also, as far as CHARs bought as powers and the effect on NCM, I find this concept to be sheer crap and pointless, other than encouraging people to make up annoying & cheesy ideas. Suck down some math, and have em adhere to the NCM caps...

[Markdoc]

>>>Now, a player will likely gain points for CHARs which will never be limited by the reduced caps.<<<<

Presumably then you would never let a character purchase the Age limitation, which acts in exactly the same way? I assume you also don't use skill modifiers such as Scholar which gives the character free points if he buys lots of skills?

I'm being facetious, of course - simply pointing out that yes, if you take this approach then players who conform will gain a small cost benefit - and that this is precisely the point.

>>>>In its defense, though, this nicely enforces the purpose of racial packages in that it shows a 'standard' for the race. Point-wise, you save points by developing skills which fall within your NCMs. You should not see a ton of Ogre scholars and I think this method works rather well for that.<<<<<

You have stated it succintly, my dear sir.

>>>>Now, in the case of a person who works up an interesting, creative, and in depth background (not just overly complex or munchkiny), I would suggest this is just handled by awarding extra CPs<<<<

Ah but this, I wish to avoid at all costs. I am a practical GM. I like to make my life as easy as possible. I have seen all too many character concepts that are clearly beloved of their inventors which to me smell strongly of Gorganzola - and to be fair, I have had GMs reject what I felt were very interesting and fun character concepts. I have seen at least one high-quality game implode over this very issue.

As a GM, I am confident of my ability to skim a character sheet and note what is legal, what is not and what is questionable. I am not confident that I can always and fairly rule what is "a good concept" - nor frankly, do I want to.

Indeed, in my last long-runing game, the character that I thought had the highest dairy content turned out in play to be one of the most fun, and altered the game in ways that I had not anticipated. Ya just can't tell....

I have also noticed that some players will generate highly detailed backgrounds with glee, while others hate that aspect. You can force adherence to the rules: you cannot force creativity and attempts to get the players to make the characters that you would like to see as a GM just foster resentment.


>>>Oh, also, as far as CHARs bought as powers and the effect on NCM, I find this concept to be sheer crap and pointless, other than encouraging people to make up annoying & cheesy ideas. Suck down some math, and have em adhere to the NCM caps...<<<

Amen, brother!

piously, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

So how does a 30 STR halfling ruin your game?

It wouldn't ruin mine. I'd rather have a player have more fun by playing the character he wants to play than impair his fun by not letting him play it, or kick him out of the game completely.

Granted, there is a limit. A 70 STR halfling would impare my game, but that has nothing to do with race or character conception. It would be the same with a 70 human or giant. I plan an adventure to have a certain level of difficulty and require certain actions/skills/abilities/etc.

If I was writing a fantasy novel by myself, I probably wouldn't include a 30 STR halfling. But this is a game with other people involved, not a novel.

And again, NCM (I'm talking about using it as a default in fantasy or other non-super genres), does not define a race, human or otherwise. It defines a power level.

[Lezentauw]

Originally posted by Heroman
Yep. Now, the one thing to keep in mind is that this idea is about as bad as the paying of points for a cap increase you never use, but this time to the player's advantage. Now, a player will likely gain points for CHARs which will never be limited by the reduced caps.
In example: Ogre. Let's say the Ogre racial packags consists of 2 stats (just because only 2 makes it simple :) ):
Str + 5 (NCM: 25)
Int - 5 (NCM: 15)
If someone makes an ogre, lets his Int sit at 5 and spends points to cap his Str to 25, then he saves 5 points; the INT reduction when making a stupid ogre is not limiting.
In its defense, though, this nicely enforces the purpose of racial packages in that it shows a 'standard' for the race. Point-wise, you save points by developing skills which fall within your NCMs. You should not see a ton of Ogre scholars and I think this method works rather well for that.
Now, in the case of a person who works up an interesting, creative, and in depth background (not just overly complex or munchkiny), I would suggest this is just handled by awarding extra CPs based on the quality of their background (which could offset some of the racial caps to achieve the unusually high CHARs the PC possess). At worse, you will encourage quality backgrounds....

Oh, also, as far as CHARs bought as powers and the effect on NCM, I find this concept to be sheer crap and pointless, other than encouraging people to make up annoying & cheesy ideas. Suck down some math, and have em adhere to the NCM caps...

What you are saying does not make much sense to me. I have tested this out in Hero Designer, and it works. Characteristics bought as powers modify the stat after you purchase them as a characteristic. So a halfing that wanted a 30 str, and say his racial modifer is -5 to Str, he would have to purchase a base 35 str. Then you apply the racial modifier. He would then end up with a 30 str for a cost of 40 pts without counting the racial package. Say if the oger had a +5 to his str, then the oger spent the same 40 pts on his str would end up with a str of 40. That would make the oger 4xs stronger than the halfling. If you do the math you will notice that this costs the exact same as saying the NCM is 10 over starting value, just a different way of looking at it. So if you would not allow a person to buy the racial characteristics as powers, then you should also not allow them to modify the NCM.

With all that said and done, I saw somewhere that Steve made the statement that characteristics are not bought as powers, and that NCM is 20 period. If you use low enough points, the halfing will be making a sacrafice in points to get that 30 str. Each character only gets so many points for disadvantages, and the -5 for str that would be in the halfling package would count against the max disad points. So that halfling character would be starting out with 5 less points than every other character, as he bought off that limitation.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Lezentauw
Each character only gets so many points for disadvantages, and the -5 for str that would be in the halfling package would count against the max disad points. So that halfling character would be starting out with 5 less points than every other character, as he bought off that limitation.

Actually you don't list the -5 STR as a disad. You list it as a racial power or skill, the same way you would list things like Nightvision. That way the Halfling will have access to just as many points in Disads as every other character.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
So how does a 30 STR halfling ruin your game?

It ruins it by going against the campaign background, just as surely as if that same halfling showed up with STR 10 and an AK47. Neither 30 STR nor assault rifles are appropriate for fantasy campaigns, except for very high fantasy campaigns, which are just Champions with a thin fantasy veneer and so do not interest me.

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the Halfling of Giant Strength bothers some of us. Those of use who are bothered by it are looking for a mechanism that GMs can use to enforce a certain amount of campaign cohesion. There is no such mechanism at present that works well. "Just say no" is not a solution. Neither is "It doesn't bother me, so there must not be a problem". The former is a handwave, and the latter is sheer narrowmindedness.



It wouldn't ruin mine. I'd rather have a player have more fun by playing the character he wants to play than impair his fun by not letting him play it, or kick him out of the game completely.

I would kick that player out of the game in a heartbeat if his character conception ruins the fun for myself and the other players.

[AnotherSkip]

i think there are a few issues here that are confused by the way people allow characters to be built.

One way is: Here are your 7 default races if you want something different tell me the race name/concept and ill build the race for you.
or see if it really is something different.

The other way is :here you go build whatever race/class combo you want as long as it fits within medival fantasy campaign concept.

Now then I use the fist method, this ties in with my philosophy on how I use NCM. Which is I built these to repersent the standard for the race. Therefor is there any reason why not I should have the races all play by the same limits when they are all different?

There are no 30 minimum str Ogres, there are no 300 int brainiacs. All of the races can at max have 3 points of a stat over a human before they pay for NCM unless it is a Magical Spell/Supernatural Ability. If i did have one of those there would be pretty bad problems involved for the character

One of the reasons why i keep NCM is because it changes the way people think. People dont think "there is nothing stopping me from having 60 Str" when you have NCM or even "mostly NCM" people think differently.

now then I read the FH PDF document so I am going to explain a problem I realized with reading through Steve's work.

I looked at steves stuff and was struck by some the suggested stat increases for the fighter classes. having an 18 Str can be seen as deficient or average for the proposals (depending upon whether or not you were basing it upon 8 Str= normal human).

Then I thought about _why_ they are that way

IMNSHO Weapon Str min's are too high.

yes they are WRONG.

Look, I have a copy of Imperial Austia presented by the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. Armies had tons of weapons that we place at 18 Str.
These armies were expected to use thier weapons effectively.
Now then just how uncommmon _is_ an 18 str when 3000 of your buds had it as they trained alongside you? Heck I might be for something as radical as halving the Str Mins. After all you are going to still have lots of armor to slow you down and other sorts of problems. Perhaps this will keep the Str's down _because_ you don't need an 18+ Str to weild all of the common weapons.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
IMNSHO Weapon Str min's are too high.

yes they are WRONG.

This is an artifact of two things: First, Hero is extremely granular at the heroic level. The only values for STR that you are likely to see are 13, 15, 18, 20, and 23. Second, in 4th, FH authors seem to feel that weapon STR Mins need to be derived by the usual Hero math--which does maintain a rough balance, but only at the expense of reinforcing the granularity above, and resulting in relatively high STR Mins.

Attempting to define STR Mins purely by "realism" is doomed to fail. It will only wreck game balance in an effort to meet one person's definition of "realistic". Weapon STR Mins must be determined not by "realism", and not by mathematics, but by game balance concerns.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Old Man
I'm sorry that you don't understand why the Halfling of Giant Strength bothers some of us. Those of use who are bothered by it are looking for a mechanism that GMs can use to enforce a certain amount of campaign cohesion. There is no such mechanism at present that works well. "Just say no" is not a solution. Neither is "It doesn't bother me, so there must not be a problem". The former is a handwave, and the latter is sheer narrowmindedness.

I would kick that player out of the game in a heartbeat if his character conception ruins the fun for myself and the other players.
I do understand why it bothers you. It bothers me, too. But I want to play with other people, and their ideas do not always conform to my pre-conceived notions. One wierd halfling does not bring my whole campaign world crashing down. And I don't see how it ruins the fun of the game for you or other players. And you're calling me narrow-minded?!

---changing subject---
And I do agree that STR mins on weapons are generally too high and unrealistic. I feel sure there's a balanced way to adjust them. How 'bout: lower them all by 5 - but only for the purpose of avoiding OCV penalties, not for adding additional damage. So a weapon with 15 STR min could be wielded by someone with 10 STR at no penalty, but even with 15 STR, you still don't get to add any extra damage. At 20 STR, you could add 1 DC. Hmmm... I'm not sure that will work, I'll have to think about it some more.

[Markdoc]

Actually, Phil, I don't think iyt was you that ws called narrow-minded, but people who just blew the whole thing off.

Personally, while not helpful, I'd describe that as (too) broad-minded rather than narrow-minded, but that's just me.

On the issue of NCM, I think we have now officially reached the end of the thread, since both sides seem to be saying the same thing, but drawing different conclusions from it :-)

On weapon STR min, here's what I do:
================================

STR Min is calculated using Active Pts/2. OCV Mods, whether positive or negative, do NOT figure in. Stretching DOES figure in. HAs are calculated at 5 pts active each, not 3, to make calculation standard at 5 pts per Damage Class. Finally, Two-handed melee weapons get an automatic -5 STR Min; 1.5H weapons have two STR Mins listed (one for one-handed fighting, the other for two-handed). The STR Min for a normal weapon used two-handed is -3 STR Min. Weapons that are +1 Stun or AP use their active points for calculating STR Min; ones that are -1 Stun have their STR Min calculated as if they were -1 DC from their listed damage. STR Min for Autofire throwing of weapons is based upon their active point cost, same as with +1 Stun weapons. However, these weapons have two STR Min listed: one for single shot, and one for autofire use.
================================

The details, rationale, etc are posted here:

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/Sengoku/weapons.html

as well as a credit to the guy who did most of the work :-)

This system works fine: it gives most weapons STR mins in the7-12 range meaning most people can use normal weapons wihout penalties due to STR problems, it's simple, and it has not led to problems (in several years of play) with the ability to add damage to an attack.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Having been to busy to post this note eariler, I _like_ the idea of an advantage that enables you to adjust NCM.

Okies if we accept that this is what they were trying to do with NCM in 4th edition(applying an advantage) then the real problem is that they were charging too high a price for the changes. Originally (if you view it this way) the price was a +1 advantage. This became a real sore point so let's try adjusting the value of the advantage......

unfortunately i'm not too mathmatically inclined to do the math at a dozen breakpoints but let us try the advantage at +1/2 and +1/4 (keeping in mind that a Gm can choose to adjust the values for his campaign.)

for one point stats (Int, Str) it wont affect caluclations on cost untill 3 points for +1/4. it starts affecting cost at 2 points for +1/2.

now then for a really huge affect ill ake the biggest nubers thrown at the screen +40 STR.
at a +1/4 that means you will be paying 50 points for 40 Str, and 60 points for 40 Str with a +1/2. rather than 40 for no NCM and 70 for with NCM


essnetially it goes
no =40
+1/4=50
+1/2=60
w = 70
for such large numbers it looks decently grainy
and with a +3/4 or higher it equalls or exceeds the results of with an unmodified NCM.

there probably _are- holes somewhere with this like any other Adv, but hey so is every thing else