Do Villain (Protagonists) Need to be Designed like PCs?

[levi]

There is a long-standing tradition that PCs and NPCs are designed using the same rules. Does anyone think that now that we are moving to a 6th Ed of the Game, that maybe this long-standing design element needs a second look?

Some goals of a re-design...

Make encounter design easier (for GMs)
Make NPC design easier
Make NPC tracking easier
Allow for scaling encounters based on some type of formula


As it stands now, Point totals are no clear indicator of comparable combat abilities.

Maybe the formula could be something based on Caps in your Campaign. Providing a universal formula (if "universal" is possible) could help with encounter design without compromising the freedom of Campaign Limits (or lack thereof)

I know there was a Henchman Rule way back in one of the old DHs that talked about assigning Henchmen a number of hits that would drop them and make the GMs job of accounting for a Viper Team or Dr. Tyrano's Dino-Fighters. I would like to see the ruturn of that line of thinking, but obviously only for Henchmen.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I have suggested making minor villains and NPCs with a reduced characteristic set: BRAWN (STR, CON, BODY rolled into one), DEX, MIND (INT, EGO, PRE rolled into one), DEF (PD, ED rolled into one), SPD, and STUN. No END or REC; such characters are supposed to have enough END and will only recover STUN between battles (when they are out, they are out for the duration).

- Klaus

[nexus]

Wouldn't villains be Antagonists?

[Hugh Neilson]

I think villains and heros should be held to the same standard. Discovering that 4e D&D allows PC's, but no one else, Healing Surges :idjit: pushed me even further away from wanting to give that a chance.

But NPC's are already built to different standards anyway. Who cares if they balance? I like building them with the points because the points assist me in comparing not only overall character but each power to the level of power the PC's possess. But I could get by without those points.

Shortcuts for minions and NPC's suggested in the rules? Sure. Different rules for PC's and NPC's? :sick: No thanks!

[nexus]

I agree with Hugh. I'd be fine with "Mook rules" and shorthand but not an different rule structure for NPC and PCs. I mean already shorthand minor NPCs and I'd assume many do.

[Chris Goodwin]

There is a long-standing tradition that PCs and NPCs are designed using the same rules.

Thinking back on all of the supervillains designed with 50+ point "Villain bonuses" ..... since when? :confused:

[Vulcan]

The 'villian bonus' is really 'experience spent'. I don't know why they ever called it a 'villian bonus' in the first place.

[Jhamin]

Back in 1st and 2nd edition there was a "Mastermind" power that cost 50 points and basically gave the bad guy all the secret bases, mooks, and doomsday devices he needed for the plot without having to pay points for therm. (I don't know if Mastermind made it into third, but I know it was gone for 4th)

So there is precident, but I don't know that it is a good thing to bring back. I'm a fan of one set of rules for everybody.

[Zeropoint]

Wouldn't villains be Antagonists?

Not necessarily--I refer you to the "Soon I Will be Invincible" thread. :)

[levi]

Wouldn't villains be Antagonists?

Most of the time, yes. Thanks Nexus, that's what I get for posting on not enough sleep. :idjit:

[levi]

I think villains and heros should be held to the same standard. Discovering that 4e D&D allows PC's, but no one else, Healing Surges :idjit: pushed me even further away from wanting to give that a chance.

But NPC's are already built to different standards anyway. Who cares if they balance? I like building them with the points because the points assist me in comparing not only overall character but each power to the level of power the PC's possess. But I could get by without those points.

Shortcuts for minions and NPC's suggested in the rules? Sure. Different rules for PC's and NPC's? :sick: No thanks!

I have to disagree with you here Hugh, I think that the exceptions based model for NPCs (Monsters) in 4E is one of the few things they got completely right. By balancing the math and designing NPC abilities based on concept rather than trying to interpret them with the same design rules as PCs they...

have created simpler stat blocks for DMs
made NPCs (Monsters) more unique
allowed for easy scaling to PCs

All things I think HERO could benefit from.

[Captain Obvious]

Back in 1st and 2nd edition there was a "Mastermind" power that cost 50 points and basically gave the bad guy all the secret bases, mooks, and doomsday devices he needed for the plot without having to pay points for therm. (I don't know if Mastermind made it into third, but I know it was gone for 4th)

So there is precident, but I don't know that it is a good thing to bring back. I'm a fan of one set of rules for everybody.

Mastermind made into 3rd edition. For 50 points, it gave the villain a number of point equal to his total points to spend on bases, etc. So a 250 point villain spending 50 points on Mastermind would get 250 points of minions and stuff. When the PCs came in and smashed it all, he'd get it again the next time he showed up in a scenario.

[Hugh Neilson]

I have to disagree with you here Hugh, I think that the exceptions based model for NPCs (Monsters) in 4E is one of the few things they got completely right. By balancing the math and designing NPC abilities based on concept rather than trying to interpret them with the same design rules as PCs they...

have created simpler stat blocks for DMs
made NPCs (Monsters) more unique
allowed for easy scaling to PCs

All things I think HERO could benefit from.

And what happens when a player has a concept that cries out for "monster" abilities? Maybe he is a transformation wizard who can shapeshift into various monster forms.

Rather than creating more special rules that only NPC's qualify for, I'd rather integrate the few we have (classes of mind; automaton powers) into the rules for all characters, or removing them entirely.

We've had a lot of discussion on these threads as to the core premises of Hero. I suggest, at its core, Hero is about creating the game and the characters that the GM and players want. That requires all abilities be available to all characters. It's much easier for the GM to rule that, in this game, PC's cannot have automaton powers than to worry about rewriting the automaton system to permit access to a player whose concept calls for it. It also assists a GM in knowing just how much that character has REALLY spent on, say, defense powers when Class of Mind has a cost. Far too often "NPC only" translates to "this is too good for PC's - it would be broken. But it's OK for NPC's to be broken."

[Chris Goodwin]

We've had a lot of discussion on these threads as to the core premises of Hero. I suggest, at its core, Hero is about creating the game and the characters that the GM and players want. That requires all abilities be available to all characters. It's much easier for the GM to rule that, in this game, PC's cannot have automaton powers than to worry about rewriting the automaton system to permit access to a player whose concept calls for it. It also assists a GM in knowing just how much that character has REALLY spent on, say, defense powers when Class of Mind has a cost. Far too often "NPC only" translates to "this is too good for PC's - it would be broken. But it's OK for NPC's to be broken."

I have it as a fundamental core house rule of my games. Please allow myself to quote... myself:

What I want is that any ability that can be described can be modelled in some way using the Hero System and whatever extensions are necessary. Granted, not every single ability will be allowed in a game -- something might be more powerful than a certain campaign would allow, or an ability might not be in genre for a particular campaign. But I don't want to be in the position of having to tell anyone "No, you can't do that because the system won't let you."

[levi]

And what happens when a player has a concept that cries out for "monster" abilities? Maybe he is a transformation wizard who can shapeshift into various monster forms."

Then that PC is written up using the Hero Rules, which are capable of emulating anything you can imagine.

Rather than creating more special rules that only NPC's qualify for, I'd rather integrate the few we have (classes of mind; automaton powers) into the rules for all characters, or removing them entirely."

I'm not advocating for NPC Only abilities, just an NPC shorthand to help out overworked GMs.

We've had a lot of discussion on these threads as to the core premises of Hero. I suggest, at its core, Hero is about creating the game and the characters that the GM and players want. That requires all abilities be available to all characters. It's much easier for the GM to rule that, in this game, PC's cannot have automaton powers than to worry about rewriting the automaton system to permit access to a player whose concept calls for it. It also assists a GM in knowing just how much that character has REALLY spent on, say, defense powers when Class of Mind has a cost. Far too often "NPC only" translates to "this is too good for PC's - it would be broken. But it's OK for NPC's to be broken."

I agree that freedom of design is a hallmark of the HERO System and I'm not suggesting that villains could ONLY be created in shorthand (I realize after looking at some of my previous posts that it may have come off that way), but I would like some official shorthand and some guidelines for more balanced encounters as well as Henchmen Rules. The USPD was a great resource for throwing a character together on the fly, so maybe something along those lines but even more truncated.

[levi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Goodwin's House Rules
What I want is that any ability that can be described can be modelled in some way using the Hero System and whatever extensions are necessary. Granted, not every single ability will be allowed in a game -- something might be more powerful than a certain campaign would allow, or an ability might not be in genre for a particular campaign. But I don't want to be in the position of having to tell anyone "No, you can't do that because the system won't let you."

You are preaching to the choir Chris!

[Kdansky]

I have to disagree with you here Hugh, I think that the exceptions based model for NPCs (Monsters) in 4E is one of the few things they got completely right. By balancing the math and designing NPC abilities based on concept rather than trying to interpret them with the same design rules as PCs they...

have created simpler stat blocks for DMs
made NPCs (Monsters) more unique
allowed for easy scaling to PCs

All things I think HERO could benefit from.

Yes. And Yes again.

Whipping up a couple of villains (you may call them antagonists if you like) takes quite a while in Hero. I could do with less preparation time. Of course, the ideal solution would be, if you had a choice.

A: I feel like writing up some cool constructs. I can do this, the villian will have a complete PC-like sheet and be nicely shiny.
B: I need some stats NOW. 20 seconds later I can use him.

Important: The PCs should not be able to tell easily if I have gone with A or B. They should also be convertible, if I have a B-Version villain and want him detailed, I should be able to do so without having to start over again. Basically I want a shorthand version, no "NPC-powers" or the like.

I liked the "POWER (con, body), MIND (ego, pre, int), REFLEXES (dex, speed, cv)" approach. Fewer numbers, but no real change for an NPC. The same would be nice for all other powers. Categories might also work well. I mean: "easily exhausted" or "brawny" or "physically fit", as in package deals. But then, summing up package deals takes at least as much time as writing up the stats yourself.

Some of my sheets for villains are longer and more complex than my PCs. Guess how much time that took me.

[Hugh Neilson]

So how do I extrapolate the 4e rules to allow a player to play a "monster"? Hero allows for this at present, and that ability to create any character is one I value.

Suggesting some short cuts for GM's makes sense to me. A dual system where PC's are designed one way and NPC's another, not so much.

[levi]

So how do I extrapolate the 4e rules to allow a player to play a "monster"? Hero allows for this at present, and that ability to create any character is one I value.

Weel, this is kind of off topic, but you could always give your 4E "monster" race characters racial Feats for their Powers (in fact the Monster Manual has a few Monsters designed this way).

Suggesting some short cuts for GM's makes sense to me. A dual system where PC's are designed one way and NPC's another, not so much.

I'm glad we've come to agree on a need for some short cut tools for the GM.

[levi]

A: I feel like writing up some cool constructs. I can do this, the villian will have a complete PC-like sheet and be nicely shiny.
B: I need some stats NOW. 20 seconds later I can use him.

Important: The PCs should not be able to tell easily if I have gone with A or B.

I think this sums up the need very well, rep for you!

[Hugh Neilson]

Weel, this is kind of off topic, but you could always give your 4E "monster" race characters racial Feats for their Powers (in fact the Monster Manual has a few Monsters designed this way).

And in Hero, after your short cut method is applied, I build my monster PC how?

I'm glad we've come to agree on a need for some short cut tools for the GM.

I don't see these as essential. The GM can always take short cuts. I see a value to suggesting such short cuts in the rulebooks.

I find templates quite useful - writing up "generic thugs 1-5" creates a pool to reuse at my discretion. And I rarely see NPC's whose base points + disad's balance without a bonus/penalty in there, already a difference in PC vs NPC development.

Now, putting myself in Steve's shoes for a moment, would I rather:

(a) Have you buy all the books of adversaries pre-built for you?

(b) Give you a bunch of short cuts so you do it yourself and don't buy those books.

So, what is YOUR proposed Hero Character Short Form? What stays and what goes?

[ajackson]

First of all, NPCs are not protagonists, they're either antagonists or secondary characters. The protagonists are the PCs.

NPCs, IMO, should not be designed with a point budget; if it costs 2,000 points, you spend 2,000 points. NPCs also don't need to have a complete writeup; if you forget something important, just write it down. However, it is desirable to have a basic writeup, because it makes it a lot easier to run the NPC in a consistent manner if you do.

[Talon]

A: I feel like writing up some cool constructs. I can do this, the villian will have a complete PC-like sheet and be nicely shiny.
B: I need some stats NOW. 20 seconds later I can use him.


I do this at present, by ignoring point costs and reducing the number of stats provided. For a sci-fi game, bad guys need DEX/SPD, PER rolls, defenses (including CON), weapons. If I need more I make it up on the spot or fill out a full character sheet between sessions. (I sometimes do this in Hero Designer and then just print out a Combat Record Sheet which includes PCs and NPCs.)

Hero could easily have text in the Campaign section describing how to do this without changing any rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

I do this at present, by ignoring point costs and reducing the number of stats provided. For a sci-fi game, bad guys need DEX/SPD, PER rolls, defenses (including CON), weapons.

I think I'd like to play a Wookie in that game. A nice PRE attack would be great when none of the opponents have PRE ;)

Seriously, though, in a typical game, just noting down key stats and assuming everything else is base level works fine.

Hero could easily have text in the Campaign section describing how to do this without changing any rules.

[Psybolt]

I find this argument unneccesary. As a GM, I use shortcuts all the time on the villains and the NPCs. As a GM, I'm more concerned with developing successful characters than anything else. If a character is effective, it helps with the story. So a GM can take shortcuts all the time without having to rely on more new rules.

[Trebuchet]

I have suggested making minor villains and NPCs with a reduced characteristic set: BRAWN (STR, CON, BODY rolled into one), DEX, MIND (INT, EGO, PRE rolled into one), DEF (PD, ED rolled into one), SPD, and STUN. No END or REC; such characters are supposed to have enough END and will only recover STUN between battles (when they are out, they are out for the duration).That's a really interesting idea (and not just for 6E). Have you detailed this anywhere; and how has it worked for you in play?

[steamteck]

every game in every system I've ever run I've made up NPCs up like PCs using the same rules. Now some NPCs may be more experienced but they use the same stats and ground rules and campaign caps. point totals also give me framework , place to stop and feel for the guys power/influence/ threat level etc
I have no objection to some sort of shortcut system but I'd never use iit. My own personal mental makeup makes them seem like illegitimate or less real characters so I'd never use it but that's me.

[Trebuchet]

every game in every system I've ever run I've made up NPCs up like PCs using the same rules. Now some NPCs may be more experienced but they use the same stats and ground rules and campaign caps. point totals also give me framework , place to stop and feel for the guys power/influence/threat level etc
I have no objection to some sort of shortcut system but I'd never use iit. My own personal mental makeup makes them seem like illegitimate or less real characters so I'd never use it but that's me.For major antagonists, I agree 100%. But for mooks and other throwaway opponents I think a "shorthand" method to whip them up would be reasonably useful.

[levi]

First of all, NPCs are not protagonists, they're either antagonists or secondary characters. The protagonists are the PCs.

I already told Nexus I was sorry. :p I was tired and made the mistake, sorry.

[nexus]

Most of the time, yes. Thanks Nexus, that's what I get for posting on not enough sleep. :idjit:

No biggie I was being anal retentive. :)

[levi]

And in Hero, after your short cut method is applied, I build my monster PC how?

The same way you would build a power from a concept. You would look at the ability and model it with the HERO Rules.

I don't see these as essential. The GM can always take short cuts. I see a value to suggesting such short cuts in the rulebooks.

I find templates quite useful - writing up "generic thugs 1-5" creates a pool to reuse at my discretion. And I rarely see NPC's whose base points + disad's balance without a bonus/penalty in there, already a difference in PC vs NPC development.

Now, putting myself in Steve's shoes for a moment, would I rather:

(a) Have you buy all the books of adversaries pre-built for you?

(b) Give you a bunch of short cuts so you do it yourself and don't buy those books.

So, what is YOUR proposed Hero Character Short Form? What stays and what goes?

When I get home, (cause it's on my laptop) I'll post the template I use currently to shorthand Villains. I have to admit that there is porbably a better way to do this and my template does not address the larger issue of encounter balance. Of course the freestyle nature of HERO may make this difficult in any event.

Here's a pic of my file, since I can't attach an excel file.

[Jagged]

I feel quite strongly that villains should use the same rules. But it is perfectly acceptable for refs to use "short-cuts" as appropriate.

But those short-cuts should remain short-cuts and not dignified as a mechanic of the system.

[Kdansky]

I'm thinking along these lines: If you redo a system, you might as well look at the shortcuts too. So I'm not proposing to design the system in a way that makes shortcuts the "better" way, but if for example CON, BODY and STR all cost 1cp, that certainly helps for shortcuts.

And yeah, split up dex into Dex and CV, as in heroglyphs proposed. DH 40 or such.

[Balabanto]

I think they definitely do. Whenever I published an adventure, in Digital Hero or when I send something to Dave Mattingly for publication, I always sent him a full slew of sheets, not because it would have been easier to write "Plot, just fudge this," but because character design=philosophy of the game.

If you don't agree with the philosophy of the sheet designer, you can always change it, but the counterargument is that if you don't see a philosophy of character design, you won't understand the idea behind the character.

Characters need character sheets. It's part of the game. And in Hero, especially in a superhero game, it pays to be thorough.

[rjcurrie]

I think they definitely do. Whenever I published an adventure, in Digital Hero or when I send something to Dave Mattingly for publication, I always sent him a full slew of sheets, not because it would have been easier to write "Plot, just fudge this," but because character design=philosophy of the game.

If you don't agree with the philosophy of the sheet designer, you can always change it, but the counterargument is that if you don't see a philosophy of character design, you won't understand the idea behind the character.

Characters need character sheets. It's part of the game. And in Hero, especially in a superhero game, it pays to be thorough.

In my mind, there's a big difference between villains designed for your own use and villains designed for others to use. Villains designed for others require full character sheets. Villains designed for your own use only require what you need to play the villain (possibly just a few basic numbers and a general overview of their powers). If I'm the only one who is ever going to be playing the villain, I don't need to have anyone else understand the philosophy behind the design.