Too many stats in Hero [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

tetsujin28

Aug 29th, '03, 10:07 AM

This is a continuation of a theme that started in the Fantasy Hero forum. In an effort not to hijack that thread, it has been moved here.

My idea was to fold STR, CON, and BODY into one stat ("BODY") costing six points, and INT and EGO into "MIND", costing 3 points. PD & ED would be based on the same stat, although they could be modified individually. SPD was eliminated.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
YMMV. Personally, I like the ability to have a tough hero who's not necessarily all that strong, a strong character who may not have a high BOD, a smart character with limited willpower (or vice versa), etc. I think Hero does a great job of segregating these abilities to allow customization. Merging them takes out a lot of that customization.

But I have to disagree with you, and I think that your analysis is a simplistic way of looking at the problem I felt needed to be solved. First, Hero INT has never been a measure of cognitive ability, but rather how fast one reacts to situations. This is why Perception rolls used to be based on INT, but Sciences weren't. In fact, this is mentioned in the flavor text (FRED pg. 23): someone with a low INT could be a brilliant scientist, he just can't come up with things right now. Second, eliminating INT was simply my way of dealing with the fact that people can't roleplay subtle differences in intelligence. Realistically, someone can play: themselves, someone dumber than themselves, someone really dumb, and with the help of skills and other gaming tools, someone way smarter than themselves. One or two points of difference in the INT stat is a false statistic, and is only there for metagaming purposes. Pendragon, one of my favourite games, doesn't have any sort of intelligence statistic.

Want someone really smart with a low "EGO", using my system? Easy - just make MIND fairly average, and buy a lot of skill levels with "smart skills". Conversely, if you want someone of average intelligence with great Ego powers, just up their EGO CV.

Regarding the physical characteristics, I think that what you're describing is a consequence of "Heroese", rather than any verisimilitude. Most people with a higher physical endurance are also stronger and capable of taking more physical punishment. And it's difficult to be stronger than normal, but have a poor constitution. Those that do, can easily be represented by 1)reducing END (strong, but has asthma or the like); or 2)physical disads. The same argument has always held true for drains and the like. It's silly to just drain someone's "BODY" without affecting their STR or CON. As people get ill, they get weak.

May as well merge EB's and RKA's/martial arts, hand attacks and HKA's while you're at it. No sense them looking any different - they're all ways to do damage at range/in HTH.

Hero already does things the way you suggest would be bad for the game: there is no functional difference between an EB and martial arts, once you take away the lims that make each up.

And finally, by only having four characteristics rather than eight, and only four figured CHAs instead of six, it cuts the characteristic work for new players. Which I think is more important than anything else. Again, I think the age of Chivalry and Sorcery-style never-ending lists of characteristics is long past.

Talon

Aug 29th, '03, 10:08 AM

I've been playing FH forver, and this would never work. :) :) :)

tetsujin28

Aug 29th, '03, 10:12 AM

This is actually more or less the way I've been running all forms of Hero for more than 10 years. This is just a refinement of it. Just to let you know my experience, I've been playing Champs since it came out in '81, and started my first fantasy campaign using it the same year.

Hugh Neilson

Aug 29th, '03, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by tetsujin28
This is actually more or less the way I've been running all forms of Hero for more than 10 years. This is just a refinement of it. Just to let you know my experience, I've been playing Champs since it came out in '81, and started my first fantasy campaign using it the same year.

YMMV, but to me folding all the stats in may create a workable game, but it's no longer Hero System. To say that a character's physical strength, toughness and will to live will all vary at the same rate takes out a lot of possibilities.

A very small person, physically weak, could be very healthy and have a strong will to live. Low STR, high CON, decent BOD. We could have someone in poor physical condition (low STR, low CON) with a strong will to live (high BOD), or just a large individual (the sickest elephant has more BOD than a healthy mouse).

As for making it easier for the new players, I don't think merging a few stats will have that powerful an effect.

If it works for you, well and good. But when you change a lot of core rules (as opposed to tinker with some costs or effects), you're not playing the same game. That's not to say it's a worse game, or a better game, but it's not the same game.

FWIW, I feel the same way about the switch from AD&D to D&D 3.0. This isn't the same game. AD&D 1.0 to 2.0 was an update to the game,. and 3.0 to 3.5 is tweaking. 2.0 to 3.0 is sufficiently different to constitute a different game. Which is better? No ansdwer. Are they the same game? Clearly not.

Bartman

Aug 29th, '03, 10:38 AM

I wouldn't use it. But if it floats your boat go for it. Combining Strength with Toughness and Perception with Willpower seems a bit too granular for me. I can see far too many instances where I would want characters who were differentiated in these catagories. But it is a concept whic may work for some groups, certainly the excellent Tri-Stat system does exactly with their three charactersistics of Mind, Body and Spirit.

A couple of years ago I came up with a simplified Hero which I used for one campaign. It worked well and if I were designing a new RPG I would probably use something like it as the base. It was designed for a bunch of anti-Heroites. With a set of simplified powers it worked really well. It had the following characteristics.

Strength
Dexterity
Toughness (Body and Constitution combined)
Perception (Intelligence)
Willpower (Ego)
Socialization (Presence)
Defense (PD + ED. Based on Toughness)
Recovery (Also based on Toughness)
Stun (Based on Toughness and Willpower)

But in general I prefer the full bodied flavor of Hero.

Tech

Aug 29th, '03, 11:08 AM

If you're looking for simplicity, try the Tri-Stat system. I think the Hero Games system works fine, as it has for the past 20 years or so. I'm not for or against Tri-Stat, just suggesting but it's too simplistic for me. I like all the details in Statistics.

Supreme

Aug 29th, '03, 01:26 PM

Your idea is basically a reinventing of GURPS, tetsujin28. The only major difference is that GURPS separates the STR from the "BODY". I don't know why they do this. Probably because strength is a very important skill. Another possible reason is that every RPG I've ever seen (and I used to work at a game store, so I've seen a LOT) has had a strength stat. Even Amber which is about as high-level in its character conceptualization as it gets. Don't know why. I suppose there's more than a little bit of a psychological component there.

I think the idea is sound, in fact it's great. I've thought about this myself more than once. Have a system withonly three or four stats with separate advantages and disads that allow you to be more specific about issues like attractiveness, relative health, etc. This means a system where the player characters can be just as complex or as simple as the player chooses. Great idea, but if you're going to go that way you should just create an entirely new system. Don't try and stitch this together with HERO. It won't work. It's too much of a fundamental change.

tetsujin28

Aug 29th, '03, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Supreme
I think the idea is sound, in fact it's great. I've thought about this myself more than once. Have a system withonly three or four stats with separate advantages and disads that allow you to be more specific about issues like attractiveness, relative health, etc. This means a system where the player characters can be just as complex or as simple as the player chooses. Great idea, but if you're going to go that way you should just create an entirely new system. Don't try and stitch this together with HERO. It won't work. It's too much of a fundamental change. As I said above, I've actually run Hero this way for the last ten years or so. It works great.

One of the reasons I was disappointed with FRED (although it's a great game) is how little things have changed from 1st edition back in '81. Whilst in some ways this reflects Hero's strengths (e.g. powers creation), in others the game is really beginning to show its age. Having 13 characteristics that you have to keep track of is one of the relics of the game being written from the late-'70s to early '80s gaming theory that more complexity equals greater verisimilitude, as are the goofy stat breakpoints. Another is that skills use a different mechanic than attack/defense, although they use the same number of dice. Even d20 managed to fix that. And whilst I feel that in general FUZION was a bloody mess (horrible power construction rules), its theory of making each point of a stat matter, and unifying the combat and skills systems, were both great ideas. (And yes, I'm aware that FUZION screwed this all up by actually adding characteristics. As if Hero needed more...)

I am an admirer of both GURPS and Tri-Stat, admittedly (though I feel that in the end Silver Age Sentinals was a failure). But I love Hero. I'm more used to creating and balancing in Hero, and I love the powers system. But it's a hard game to get people to like, which is why I came up with these rules. They may seem superficial, but in the end they create a smoother game with less of a learning curve (admittedly, powers are still a doozy for beginners).

tetsujin28

Aug 29th, '03, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
YMMV, but to me folding all the stats in may create a workable game, but it's no longer Hero System.
Steven Long would seem to disagree:

"We think the Hero System rules work well just as they are, and encourage you to use them that way. However, you may find that certain rules do not suit your style of play, or make it more difficult for you to do what you want to in the game. If that's the case, change the rules!" FRED, pg. 356.

Supreme

Aug 29th, '03, 02:26 PM

Whichever. Just stating my Opinion Supreme.

Pattern Ghost

Aug 29th, '03, 02:56 PM

Trimming stats may be doable, but is it really necessary? I don't think any of the stats save COM are really deadwood, and I don't think any of the stats pose a particular challenge for players to understand. There are a lot more things to keep track of besides the fairly easy to understand stats. I always go for simplifying combat and helping out with powers as being the two areas most needed to make things digestible for players new to the system. Characteristics are an easy concept to get across to almost anyone, even if they haven't played other RPGs.

Of course, if you want to get rid of some stats, that's fine.

Some thoughts:

Get rid of COM and making it a Talent that gives a bonus to certain skills. Maybe make one for "sexy" and one for "cute" types of attractiveness, wtih different applications.

Combining PD and ED into DEF. If a character has a significant difference in defenses vs. energy or physical attacks, disadvantages can be used.

Revising PRE. For the beginner, it's probably one of the harder characteristics to model. PRE attack mechanics don't mesh with PRE skill mechanics. PRE attacka are also something that's supposed to be fairly infrequently used, and that most GMs won't inflict on their PCs anyway. I'd favore just using PRE to base social skills on and RPing the PRE attacks.

I like BODY and STUN. But, if you wanted to reduce stats, you could do away with them and use a more generalized damage system.

REC seems useful, but you could base healing time off of another mechanic.

END could be done away with, but then you'd probably want to drop the cost of CON.

I don't like combining INT and EGO. There is a whole subsystem of powers and combat based on EGO, and brains and willpower don't really have any logical relationship. I think combining these two would defeat the purpose of streamlining.

Just a few random thoughts, probably worth less than you paid to read them.

Vondy

Aug 29th, '03, 03:08 PM

Smells like Fuzion Ala Gurps to me.

It would work with some playtesting - but it would essentially be a different system at that point.

pinecone

Aug 29th, '03, 03:23 PM

Sounds fine to me...I beleive Fred has a section on adding and losing stats...I myself would not go that way but it is both workable and in my opinion "still Hero". It all depends on the out come,it the outcomes good the change is good.....

Pattern Ghost

Aug 29th, '03, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by D-Man
Smells like Fuzion Ala Gurps to me.

It would work with some playtesting - but it would essentially be a different system at that point.

Pretty much, because you'll find all kinds of fallout from tweaking something as fundamental to the system as characteristics.

The two characteristics that are most problematic to me are COM and PRE, for the above reasons, and they'd be the easiest to houserule, but what's the point? They're easily dealt with: Use a COM roll as a complementary roll to some PRE skills, and for PRE...if you're good at PRE combat, but inept socially, why buy any PRE skills at all? Unflappable characters can buy extra PRE only for defense, or just buy up their EGO if they're unflappable b/c they're strong willed. INot point efficient, but fits some concepts.)

Nothing is really broken enough to try to "fix" in regards to characteristics.

Toadmaster

Aug 29th, '03, 04:29 PM

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I have found most players of both GURPS and HERO criticise the other for the number of stats, GURPSians say HERO has too many stats, HEROphiles say GURPS needs more stats.

I fall into the second group, I like GURPS for some aspects but I like the fact HERO has the all stats it has, perhaps it is just number crunching but I like that you can build a tough several differant ways, high con, and moderate body / defenses who is tough to stun but more vulnerable to damage, or you can go for the high defand body but moderate con who may get stunned occasionally but is hard to kill, or the high stun / body moderate defences and con who just keeps coming even if you occasionally can phase him with a good hit, I find most of my "tough" characters in GURPS wind up looking very similar to one another (high STR, high HT, Toughness, high pain threshold etc).

zornwil

Aug 29th, '03, 06:19 PM

First, let me say that if this works for you, great, AND I always like seeing things like this on the boards. So please don't take my criticisms as an attempt to prove this "wrong", I'm just giving you my reaction, and on top of that there are points here that I take exception to. But hey it's your game.

Originally posted by tetsujin28
This is a continuation of a theme that started in the Fantasy Hero forum. In an effort not to hijack that thread, it has been moved here. My idea was to fold STR, CON, and BODY into one stat ("BODY") costing six points, and INT and EGO into "MIND", costing 3 points. PD & ED would be based on the same stat, although they could be modified individually. SPD was eliminated.

But I have to disagree with you, and I think that your analysis is a simplistic way of looking at the problem I felt needed to be solved. First, Hero INT has never been a measure of cognitive ability, but rather how fast one reacts to situations. This is why Perception rolls used to be based on INT, but Sciences weren't. In fact, this is mentioned in the flavor text (FRED pg. 23): someone with a low INT could be a brilliant scientist, he just can't come up with things right now. Second, eliminating INT was simply my way of dealing with the fact that people can't roleplay subtle differences in intelligence. Realistically, someone can play: themselves, someone dumber than themselves, someone really dumb, and with the help of skills and other gaming tools, someone way smarter than themselves. One or two points of difference in the INT stat is a false statistic, and is only there for metagaming purposes. Pendragon, one of my favourite games, doesn't have any sort of intelligence statistic.

I don't believe people can roleplay ANY subtle differences in HERO. The subtle differences effect the "do it now" skills and as the differences get larger they can be roleplayed.

Furthermore, your objection here seems to me that you just want INT retitled. It seems to function fine for what you say, even if it's not "intelligence" to you. However, it does describe what I see as intelligence, quickness of mind. Just because someone is very knowledgable, I don't think of them as "intelligent."

Want someone really smart with a low "EGO", using my system? Easy - just make MIND fairly average, and buy a lot of skill levels with "smart skills". Conversely, if you want someone of average intelligence with great Ego powers, just up their EGO CV.

I think it's going to cost a lot more and inflate the cost unfairly if I have to buy a number of things to bring up the skills AND PER rolls AND other uses of INT (such as, "okay, let's see if your character realizes how what he's going to do will impact everyone in the heat of battle.")

Regarding the physical characteristics, I think that what you're describing is a consequence of "Heroese", rather than any verisimilitude. Most people with a higher physical endurance are also stronger and capable of taking more physical punishment.

So far, so good. The base stats interact as they stand now to create this "Most people" effect.

And it's difficult to be stronger than normal, but have a poor constitution. Those that do, can easily be represented by 1)reducing END (strong, but has asthma or the like); or 2)physical disads.

This is a good point. However, CON is really used to either derive greater END and such, or it si used to buffer against being stunned. I feel like it does a good job with these. You can easily build a character who is strong but doesn't have as much END and has a glass jaw in essence. We all know plenty of strong people who can't take a punch. HERO does this.

The same argument has always held true for drains and the like. It's silly to just drain someone's "BODY" without affecting their STR or CON. As people get ill, they get weak.

This is totally fair. There's an awful lot of mud around BOD - is it life force, is it your physical bulk, what is it?

However BOD does work very well a practical way to have essentially phyiscal hit points. It works fine for that, and as such SHOULD be separate from STR or CON or any other stats IF YOU WANT A GRANULAR SYSTEM.

Hero already does things the way you suggest would be bad for the game: there is no functional difference between an EB and martial arts, once you take away the lims that make each up.

And finally, by only having four characteristics rather than eight, and only four figured CHAs instead of six, it cuts the characteristic work for new players. Which I think is more important than anything else. Again, I think the age of Chivalry and Sorcery-style never-ending lists of characteristics is long past.

What I feel you are really arguing against is the granulatiry of HERO and its ability to build very complex (and seemingly if not actually inconsistent) characters. That's fine, and I think its cool if you rebuild HERO to change that or adopt another system. But I don't think you can say that the current base characteristics are so screwed up as you attempt to claim. If you don't like having 8 stats and 6 derived characteristics, fine. Personally I can't fathom this hue and cry among some that it's "so complicated" and "so hard". Sheesh, you make like one character if you're playing. If you're GMing, sure, you make a lot more, but what, like half a dozen or a dozen for a session, tops?

In my games I actually added 2 more derived characteristics, Mental Defense and Supernatural Defense. That works, too.

Mr. Negative

Aug 29th, '03, 08:36 PM

So by replacing STR, CON, and BODY with one stat costing 6 points, aren't you basically using the 2 point/Str cost and simply requiring each character to purchase the same score for their BODY, CON, and STR?

Similarly, with INT and EGO being bundled together into MIND with a cost of 3 per level, it again effectively requires purchasing the same score for both stats?

I don't see this as ANY change in the system (other than increasing the cost of STR, which is another basket of threads in and of itself. If this works for you, that's great, but ultimately, it seems trivial as a game system idea.

Now you haven't discussed the Derived Characteristics, which is where this could get interesting. How are those determined?

Also, since STR, BODY, and CON are bundled, how do you represent healthy but small beings, especially animals and the like that would normally have a negative STR score in HERO? For instance, a badger would have a quite low strength, but should have fairly decent CON rolls.

Also, are you REMOVING Speed, or simply giving everything the same Speed score? If Speed is being done away with, how do you handle multiple actions and the like? If everything has the same Speed score, what is it (out of curiosity) and how do you model exceptionally slow or exceptionally quick characters who might have more or less "actions" than normal?

Mutant for Hire

Aug 29th, '03, 08:48 PM

Actually, the only real consolidation I would make would be to combine PD and ED into a single DEF stat, and if someone wants PD or ED they just buy DEF with a -1 limitation for the difference.

My main feeling on COM is to give rules to have it directly add to PRE rolls.

Hugh Neilson

Aug 30th, '03, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by D-Man
Smells like Fuzion Ala Gurps to me.

It would work with some playtesting - but it would essentially be a different system at that point.

Or you might get Mutants & Masterminds - it's only got a few stats.

tetsujin28

Aug 30th, '03, 12:46 PM

Funny you should mention M&M, which is a great game. My players greatly prefer it to Hero, so I'm if I run any supers games in the future, I'll be using it.

I do love Hero, though. Its flexibility is unmatched, and it works great for fantasy and low-power games.

Hugh Neilson

Aug 30th, '03, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by tetsujin28
Funny you should mention M&M, which is a great game. My players greatly prefer it to Hero, so I'm if I run any supers games in the future, I'll be using it.

I do love Hero, though. Its flexibility is unmatched, and it works great for fantasy and low-power games.

"With great flexibility comes great complexity"

In reading M & M, I saw a lot of quotes reiminiscent of various Hero products over the years, and the "d20 Supers" game owes at least as much to Hero as to D&D. I found the system coarser, but complexity and flexibility are always a trade off.

Ron

Aug 30th, '03, 03:03 PM

Tetsujin28,

I think your system might work and, if that's what is needed to make Hero work to you, more power to it! I do agree that Hero shows some age regarding the high number of stats (yes, that's one of the things I like in GURPS) and the fact that skills works somewhat different from powers, but I so used to it that it is not a issue anymore.

However, what could be a nice add on is to have a NPC character sheet with few stats to decrease the GM work. Schematic NPC character sheets would do great to mooks and minor vilains, whereas we could use all stats to better portrait the major NPCs.

tetsujin28

Aug 31st, '03, 01:42 AM

Thanks for all the responses, both pro and con. I'm hard at work on Plato's Meno and Symposium, as well as Elizabeth O'Brien's Post-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Burial Practices Reviewed (along with my Hero/Exalted convertion), so I hope to get back to you in a few days.

Cheers!

Rene

Aug 31st, '03, 03:32 AM

Too many stats in HERO? Maybe. But folding STR and CON, and INT and EGO, into single stats wouldn't be the way to go, if I had any say.

To say that the amount of weight you can lift is correlate to your health may or may not be "realistic", but that is not the point, since we're talking simulation of a wide variety of genres, not all of them realistic.

That is even worse for INT and EGO, IMO. Actually I heartly dislike GURPS's system of rules, and that is one of the reasons.

I'm not terribly unhappy with Characteristics as they're now, but if I had to make HERO simpler, I'd get rid of Figured Characteristics, BODY and COM.

Most of the changes would be cosmetic, of course. The Stats would still exist in the form of powers or other elements that could easily be used by experienced players, but ignored by newbies.

For instance:

SPD would go. I don't think the SPD Chart stuff is really complicated, it's just that it's very different from how almost other system handles Initiative. So getting rid of SPD would make the system simpler for newcomers. To represent Speedsters and other quick characters, we could have cleaner rules about Levels to offset Sweep and Rapid Fire penalties. That would have the added bonus to make it easier to build Mentalists and Magicians who can use their powers quickly, but aren't physically quick. Just buy the Levels with Limitations in what kinds of actions they apply to.

PD and ED removed as Stats would mean human-level characters would be hurt and knocked-out way more easily in fistfights. That can be a good or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. The Armor power would be reconfigured to make it simpler to buy non-resistant Armor to represent Pulpier Heroes who can soak some damage from punches, for instance. That would get rid of the Damage Resistance power too. Actually, "Armor" would be now called "Damage Resistance", and could be built resistant or non-resistant.

BODY and STUN totals would be derived directly from CON and not considered "Stats". That could be a good excuse to make CON cost 3 pts per Level, I don't know. Of course you could always buy extra CON with Limitations to represent that rare character that has lots of "hit points", but not overall health.

END would just disappear and make the game way simpler. In it's instead, for those worried about characters using their powers all day long, we'd have some entirely optional rules about how to represent fatigue. Those would also be used when the characters push their powers.

REC would be derived from CON and not treated as a Stat. But you could augment your recovery time using a modified and cleaner version of Regeneration Healing.

Speaking about Stats, two things I'd love to see would be getting rid of the "breakpoints", and making all Stats cost the same. That would go a long way to make HERO more elegant. Not an easy thing to do, I guess.

OddHat

Aug 31st, '03, 04:07 AM

We can get rid of everything and just use one stat: Coolness. Your character's Coolness is all you really need to know anyway.

All non-gadget based powers will be replaced by one power: Cool Stuff.

All gadget based powers will be replaced by one power: Cool Junk.

All disadvantages will be replaced by one disadvantage: Funky Stuff. Note that while Funky Stuff is a disadvantage, it is almost implossible to be really Cool without also being kinda Funky.

Dice rolling will be replaced by arguments.

Say you want to roll play a fight between Batman and Superman. Who wins? It would go something like this:

"Batman wins! He's much cooler than Superman!"

"No way dude! Superman can do all kindsa Cool Stuff!"

"Dude, Superman's all funky! Way funky!"

"So what! He can do all the Cool Stuff!"

"Batman has his Cool Junk! His Cool Junk is way cooler than Superman's Cool Stuff! He can use it to take out Superman, 'cause Superman is Funky!"

(player and GM start punching each other)

Hugh Neilson

Aug 31st, '03, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by OddHat
Say you want to roll play a fight between Batman and Superman. Who wins? It would go something like this:

"Batman wins! He's much cooler than Superman!"

"No way dude! Superman can do all kindsa Cool Stuff!"

"Dude, Superman's all funky! Way funky!"

"So what! He can do all the Cool Stuff!"

"Batman has his Cool Junk! His Cool Junk is way cooler than Superman's Cool Stuff! He can use it to take out Superman, 'cause Superman is Funky!"

(player and GM start punching each other)

:cool:

But you won't have the argument if Cooplness is statted out - we'll be able to see who has the higher Coolness! We need to ditch all the rules.

We don't need any stats at all. RPG's only have rules because, somewhere along the line, we lost the ability to play "let's pretend" backed solely with our own imaginations.

And all RPG's really are is a game of "Let's Pretend" with structure!

So, we get back no "no rules" RPG's and we get all the advantages Oddhat describes, plus more! And best of all IT'S FREE!

Rene

Aug 31st, '03, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by OddHat
We can get rid of everything and just use one stat: Coolness. Your character's Coolness is all you really need to know anyway.

That was funny :)

But I didn't meant to say HERO was "broken" or something, if that is what you're reacting against (or maybe you're just making a joke for the sheer pleasure of making a joke, if that is the case, forgive me).

It was just a intelectual exercise: "If I absolutely had to get rid of some Stats to make the game simpler, without sacrificing much definition, what would I do"? And to say I disagreed with the original poster about how I'd go about it.

But I'm mostly pretty happy with HERO the way it is.

OddHat

Aug 31st, '03, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Rene
That was funny :)

But I didn't meant to say HERO was "broken" or something, if that is what you're reacting against (or maybe you're just making a joke for the sheer pleasure of making a joke, if that is the case, forgive me).

I'm just joking. I've played and enjoyed a bunch of minimalist systems.

Originally posted by Rene

It was just a intelectual exercise: "If I absolutely had to get rid of some Stats to make the game simpler, without sacrificing much definition, what would I do"? And to say I disagreed with the original poster about how I'd go about it.

But I'm mostly pretty happy with HERO the way it is.

As was mentioned elsewhere and in the skills thread, Hero is a textured system. You can drop stats and it will still work; GURPS does fine with four stats, and BESM is a great game with three. Any game can work well with a good group of players, and you'll always need to tweak the rules to suit your style of play.

The problem with minimalist systems (if there is one) is that the stats you drop will almost always start to creep back in. GURPS drops the separation between CON and BOD in favor of HT (which defaults to equal yout Hit Points), the separation between INT and EGO in favor of IQ (Which also gives you your Will), and the separation between STR and END in favor of ST (which gives you your fatigue). DEX is DX. Stun and REC vanish and are replaced by HT rolls to avoid being knocked out and a base rate of recovering fatigue, and PD and ED merge into DR (which is always resistant). Speed works differently and is hidden away from the other stats, but is still a figured stat.

So from the begining a "simple" four stat system is really a seven stat system with the three figured stats sneaking in there, or an eight stat system once you add in DR. Want to simulate a particular genre like Super Heroes and you'll end up adding back in more stats in the form of advantages.

At which point you might as well have just started with a nice long stat list up front. ;)

So, my serious reaction to your idea is cool, you can make things simpler up front and move what were stats in the skills / talents / powers list. It works fine.

I prefer a bit more out in the open.

Rene

Aug 31st, '03, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by OddHat
So, my serious reaction to your idea is cool, you can make things simpler up front and move what were stats in the skills / talents / powers list. It works fine.

I prefer a bit more out in the open.

Yes, I guess you're right.

It's really just a matter of convincing newbies the game is simpler without changing it in any substancial way. :) You just move Figured Characteristics into later Chapters.

It's basically what GURPS and D&D do. I guess it helps to smooth the learning curve, because it gives less stuff for newbies to know right away.

Ron

Aug 31st, '03, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by OddHat
[...]The problem with minimalist systems (if there is one) is that the stats you drop will almost always start to creep back in. GURPS drops the separation between CON and BOD in favor of HT (which defaults to equal yout Hit Points), the separation between INT and EGO in favor of IQ (Which also gives you your Will), and the separation between STR and END in favor of ST (which gives you your fatigue). DEX is DX. Stun and REC vanish and are replaced by HT rolls to avoid being knocked out and a base rate of recovering fatigue, and PD and ED merge into DR (which is always resistant). Speed works differently and is hidden away from the other stats, but is still a figured stat.

So from the begining a "simple" four stat system is really a seven stat system with the three figured stats sneaking in there, or an eight stat system once you add in DR. Want to simulate a particular genre like Super Heroes and you'll end up adding back in more stats in the form of advantages.
[...]

You're right. But I hope that you also appreciate the beauty in such design. You have four stats as a standard and, when needed, you can add three more and get seven. In this way, many characters can be described with less numbers. One of the reasons HERO has so many stats is Champions focus in superheroes. For people like me who uses HERO much more often in heroic campaigns, some stats such as PD and ED, which are very useful in super games, look superflous.

badger3k

Aug 31st, '03, 01:14 PM

Hero showing its age? Maybe, but I see that as a sign of its Strength. I've played Champions since 83 (at least), played the precursers of GURPS (The Fantasy Trip as well as Melee and Wizard), Chivalry and Sorcery, Runequest, etc, etc etc (I lost count after 40 or so). Given my experiences, and in my opinion, Hero has a good combination of stats. Adding more can add to the complexity of the game (or might not), while removing stats and bunching them together takes away some of the distinctions. To me to few stats end up with everyone feeling like they're the same character (despite disads and all).

Also, remember that GURPS really started out with just Strength and Dexterity, then added Intelligence, and that was in the late 70s. Today they basically have the same stats. A sign of age or something that works? To me it's an okay system, but is too basic for my taste. Mutants and Masterminds, while a credible effort for a basically bad system for superheroes (d20 does not form a good base for a superhero game), it is basically Champions for d20. It's not a bad system, but after playing it I'll stick with the original system.

Why do the change though. For one point of the new Body you just made STR cost 2 points, and INT and EGO stats cast 1.5 point each. Getting rid of SPD would do what? While the initiative system used in 3e (and 3.5) is workable, it is vastly different than the SPD system (that's assuming you'd use a system like that, or else just use DEX). You'd also change all the rules that work on phases or turn (or post 12 recovery) - basically you redo the whole time system as well. Hmm - although I suppose you can just use 1 phase = 1 round translation with everybody moving the same. Where's the advantage there? I (and the others I know who play) have never had any problems with the system as it stands, so I can't see any need to change things. Still, I'm interested to hear how you work the SPD thing.

Markdoc

Sep 1st, '03, 03:14 AM

I played around with reducing the No. of Stat.s in a fairly similar fashion and with similar goals: to make it easier for newbies to get into the game, and also to reduce the amount of GM-brainpower needed to keep things flowing. I also simplified power construction somewhat (This was in pre-FUZION days)

After 6 months of playng around, I went back to straight HERO system since for the first part of the equation, dropping the number of characteristics did absolutely zero to make it easier to introduce new players. Having 13 Stat.s was neither easier or harder than having 6. Characteristics have always been the easiest thing to explain to players. It didn't really help on the GM brain-power front either since I still used essentially 3 stat.s in combat: the fact that the low point goons had a bunch of extra stat.s was neither here nor there.

And the simplified powers satisfied no-one. Still "too hard" for many noobies, too kludgy for herophiles.

That's not to say others shouldn't try: I understand the impulse. But I have tried it and it is 100% not for me.

cheers, Mark

Mr. Negative

Sep 1st, '03, 10:39 AM

As someone mentioned GURPS (which seems to be the paragon of simplified attribute systems), I'd like to point out one thing about GURPS attributes that gets overlooked. Most "extra" attributes get moved into Advantages and Disadvantages, thus, not actually simplifying the system at all, but simply moving the complexity from one chapter to another.

Fatigue is based on STR (or HT), but you can buy extra fatigue (thus, you have a END score)

Hit Points are based on HT (or ST), but you can buy increased or decreased HP (thus, you have a body score).

Will Rolls are based on INT, but you have Strong and Weak Will (so you have an EGO score).

Reaction rolls are based off a random roll, or a INT based skill, but you have Charisma and the like (so you have a PRE score)

Sexual/Physical attraction is also a random roll, or a HT based skill, but you have Appearance modifiers (so you have a COM score).

Everyone gets one action per second, but you can buy Extra Actions (so you have a Speed score).

You can also buy advantages and skills that help you recover fatigue more quickly (or disads that make it slower) (so you have a REC score).

You also have DR (which can be bought up separately for different types of attacks) (so you basically have PD and ED).

GURPS, while a "simple, four stat" system, fundamentally offers you the same complexity of Attributes as HERO. While you don't have to use that complexity, there's nothing making you buy stats over 10 in HERO either. The only thing they don't offer, except as an optional rule, is a Stun score, but instead do this more like Stunning in HERO.

While I am a big fan of GURPS, too, I wouldn't offer it up as an exemplar of a simple Attribute system.

Victim

Sep 1st, '03, 11:51 AM

I'd say that HERO has too many skills rather than too many stats.

Most systems are going to have a comparable number of "stats," even if they aren't actually stats. Storyteller has 9 primary stats, Health levels (body), Soak (PD/ED), and sometimes a stat that shows how often a character's powers can be used (END). DND has 6 stats, but more special qualities like DR, and Energy resistance that are somewhat analagous to HERO stats.

OddHat

Sep 1st, '03, 01:27 PM

Too many skills?

You do need to try the Coolness(tm) system.

Vondy

Sep 1st, '03, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by OddHat
We can get rid of everything and just use one stat: Coolness. Your character's Coolness is all you really need to know anyway.

All non-gadget based powers will be replaced by one power: Cool Stuff.

All gadget based powers will be replaced by one power: Cool Junk.
<huge-buttocksed snip>

This reminds me vaguely of ChampsGuys skill revision that reduced the system to two skills:

"Do Stuff" and "Know Stuff"

OddHat

Sep 1st, '03, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by D-Man
This reminds me vaguely of ChampsGuys skill revision that reduced the system to two skills:

"Do Stuff" and "Know Stuff"

Great! Now Coolness(tm) Hero has a skills system!

:D

Ron

Sep 1st, '03, 06:20 PM

Mr. Negative, you are missing the point in relation to GURPS. Although you can have up to ten stats, most characters can go with only four., whereas in HERO you're locked with ten. As such, GURPS, unlike HERO can function at several levels of complexity, as much as each character needs.

Rene

Sep 1st, '03, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Ron
Mr. Negative, you are missing the point in relation to GURPS. Although you can have up to ten stats, most characters can go with only four., whereas in HERO you're locked with ten. As such, GURPS, unlike HERO can function at several levels of complexity, as much as each character needs.

Wow, you're Brazilian! Me too. I hadn't really noticed the "Brazil" in your location. A pity I live in São Paulo, I'd love to meet other HERO System players.

Ron

Sep 2nd, '03, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Rene
Wow, you're Brazilian! Me too. I hadn't really noticed the "Brazil" in your location. A pity I live in São Paulo, I'd love to meet other HERO System players.

I agree. There are not many people playing HERO in Rio...:(

TechnoViking

Sep 2nd, '03, 06:41 AM

The only stat in Hero I feel in unneeded is COM. I usually remove it and replace it with a beauty talnet or grusome appearance disadvantage.

Mike

Black Rose

Sep 2nd, '03, 02:38 PM

I don't feel that COM is useless; or rather, I think it is now, but it doesn't need to be. If some actual rules for its use were written up, like complementary rolls for PRE skills and attacks, perhaps, it would be worth the points.

There was some commentary about having a much more detailed COM writeup on the old boards; I'm going to have to see if I can find it.

OddHat

Sep 2nd, '03, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Black Rose
I don't feel that COM is useless; or rather, I think it is now, but it doesn't need to be. If some actual rules for its use were written up, like complementary rolls for PRE skills and attacks, perhaps, it would be worth the points.

There was some commentary about having a much more detailed COM writeup on the old boards; I'm going to have to see if I can find it.

I allow COM rolls as complementary skill rolls for PRE skills, and COM based skills. Essentially you can base any PRE skill on COM, the drawback being that you can only achieve effects that would reasonably be the result of physical attraction. A COM based seduction roll on a guard that would reasonably find you physically attractive is fine; a Seduction roll to build a friendship instead of lust would require a PRE based skill. I also allow a very limited set of COM based "attacks" using the PRE attack table, again only useful against those who would reasonably be affected by the characters physical attractiveness.

Black Rose

Sep 2nd, '03, 05:24 PM

Ah, found it. You know, the Old Post Archives are not the easiest thing to look through.

Anyhow, here it is... with some neatening by moi.

Originally posted by drkrash
It goes like this. I remind readers at the outset that I GM a group that is mostly female players (interpret that as you wish).

Here are the nine categories:

Approachability: Whether someone interested in the character would believe they have a chance of actually talking to him or her.

Attitude: How friendly, likeable, and possibly outgoing the character is.

Body: Generically speaking, how healthy and/or well-built their body is.

Face: Generically speaking, how attractive the character's facial features are.

Hair: How stylish the character's hair tends to be, whether or not it fits their overall look, whether their hair is healthy or limp.

Highlight: The most unusual category. This refers to the possibility of some physical trait that stands out on the character. Not all characters should have one; most should not. In our campaign, we've seen breasts, legs, abs, eyes, pecs, biceps, butt, etc.

Magnetism: Defines the character's sensuality; the capacity to arouse interest, especially sexual interest, despite physical appearance.

Style: Defines the character's personal fashion flair, whether or not they dress well and appropriately for their overall look.

Voice: The quality of the character's voice, whether or not it is pleasant to listen to.

For each point of COM above 10, 1 point can be placed in one of these categories. For each point under 10, 1 point must be placed as a negative in one of these categories. A character can also choose to voluntarily take negatives in some categories to "earn" points for other categories (and vice versa). In order to keep things reasonable, unless a character has a ridiculously high COM (30+), no single category should have higher than a +3.

That's basically it. Our campaign is also based in Hollywood, so the ladies are all around the 20 COM range. As it happens to turn out, one of them tends to have her 20 COM defined mostly in her physical appearance, another has hers in mostly intangible qualities like magnetism, and the third has hers in mostly personality traits.

It's a good system that works for us. It won't change the minds of anyone who thinks COM is a wasted stat, and it won't add anything to someone who wants COM to have actual game mechanics applied to it. But if you're just detail-oriented enough to care how one 14 COM differs from another 14 COM, it works well.

By the way, don't try to apply this system to any of the artwork in any Hero Games product. It just can't work. :)

PerennialRook

Sep 2nd, '03, 07:11 PM

So in drkrash's detailed comliness structure what did these new values mean/represent?

What happens if I have a +3 Highlight?

I like the general idea, however, and think it would be something interesting to incorperate with some rules. Another twist might be to give bonuses to different "comliness stats" with the regular stats.

For instance: for every 2 points you spend on PRE you get to Approachability, Attitude, Magnetism, or Voice, for every 2 points you spend on CON you get a +1 to Body, Face, Hair, or Highlight, for every 1/2 point you spend on COM you get a +1 to any "comliness stat," for every 3 points you spend on DEX you get a +1 to Grace (a new one I added), Body, Magnetism, or Style, etc...

Then you would have higher "comliness stats" and rather than having a +3 Highlight a character has a Highlight Score of 18 (base 10 plus 8 "+1's"), or a Highlight Roll of 13-, a very fine (insert physical attribute here).

Also, out of curiosity, where might I find drkrash's origional post?

-Preston

PerennialRook

Sep 2nd, '03, 07:22 PM

I just realized the irony of talking about adding more stats in a thread entitled "Too many stats in Hero."

Snarf

Mar 29th, '04, 08:37 PM

If you liked Coolness Hero, you may also like D02 (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm). It has 0 Stats, which you can expand to as many as you want, and can include coolness.

Mike W

Mar 29th, '04, 08:57 PM

I've seen people argue for a Presence Defense stat but that is about the only stat I would consider adding. I don't see a need to subtract anything either. Things balance well the way they are. Also, I particularly like keeping say, STR and CON separate. Combining them, to me, is more trouble than it's worth. For example, I ran track/cross country in high school. I could run 6 or 7 miles in 45 minutes. I'm a fast healer. I can shrug off most drugs rather quickly. This definitely sounds like a high CON character(as well as buying up REC and END). But I bench about 130. That makes for an average to below average STR. In the established system, you buy the character a few extra points of CON, reap the figured characteristic benefits and not have to mess with things much. If you've only got one "Body" stat, then you have to leave the body stat where it is(so the character's STR doesn't exceed what it should be) and individually buy up all of those other abilitilities. Same with EGO and INT. INT does affect how quickly you can pick things up and how well you can utilize information. EGO or willpower is a completely different idea. I hate games that try to make them the same stat because they are completely different ideas. You can have a weak willed genius or a strong willed guy with average intelligence. Combining stats just means you have more things to buy up.

Al_Beddow

Mar 29th, '04, 09:13 PM

BoneDaddy

Mar 29th, '04, 09:21 PM

As I see it, the manifold stats make sense. Consider the following examples: 1) Lou Ferigno could kick Lance Armstrong's behind, but he couldn't catch him. 2) Bruce Lee could have whipped 'em both, but he still couldn't have kept up with Armstrong or lifted Ferigno 3) Einstein could think circles around Charles Bronson, but wouldn't hold up as well under torture. 4) Neither Bronson nor Einstein could hold a crowd like Bill Clinton (hate him if you want to - the man has Presence), who is neither tough nor ingenius.

JmOz

Mar 30th, '04, 12:20 AM

Personaly I have added one stat, and in essence merged two in my games (Not quite but will explain)

I have "created" Mental Defence as a characteristic (NCM=8), functions juust like the power, but you can have 0 or negative points in it, and has an NCM limit

I also advice players to take Def instead of PD/ED (In otherwords I advise them to keep the numbers the same, though they do appear as PD/ED on sheets) I also advise them to make it divisiable by 5. These are just speed up tricks for the game IMO

Solomon

Mar 30th, '04, 02:46 PM

Given HERO's toolkit approach, adding and removing stats is de facto already an option for any group. Characteristics can be bough with limitations or, where appropriate, even with advantages. Thus the feature to "brach" or customize characteristics is already a standard feature of HERO.

Lumping togheter characteristics is simply a matter of ruling that, for instance, in your campaign characters should have CON=BODY. There are, however, game balance issues. Having a single stat that governs the realms of STR, BODY and CON, as Tetsujun28 suggest, is feasible but makes STR not cost-efficient when compared with other attack powers. It might be a non-issue in heroic games, but it would matter in superheroic games. Pricing STR at 6 effectively rules out bricks as a viable character type.

zornwil

Mar 30th, '04, 08:56 PM

Ok, I've only skimmed through all these posts but I feel the need to chime in here...

If you want less stats, then why don't you play GURPS or Silver Age Sentinals (Tri-Stat system), etc.

I think for what Hero is designed for it's got a great balance of stats... Yea it could have fewer, it could have more... but I don't think there is a system out there that makes everyone happy as written. In fact, I think the only person who would never change a system is the dude who CREATED IT.

So, why complain and try to change an existing system? Just find one that does what you want it to.

But none of them do what I want! Just like no politican stands for my beliefs completely.

Although I'm making a broad statement in that first sentence, it's basically true. By the same token, I could play many games "as is" with no alterations, HERO definitely one of them.

I like to tinker - it's fun. I'll be the first to admit that no matter what the system, including anything I've written, I would make changes. I think HERO attracts a lot of people like that - it's HERO's charm.

Of course, also, there can be things that one feels are outright broken in a game, even seriously, while the rest of the system is fine. It's certainly foolish in that case to keep searching for another system if it's something that can be discreetly fixed.

Did I answer your "why complain"? :)

Badger

Mar 30th, '04, 09:31 PM

Being good at math during my school days, the large number of characteristics dont bother me much. I could see combining the defenses into a single stat (with some disadvantages and such to show how a person might be affected less or more by one or the other) and I dont see much use in PRE and COM except for extreme circumstances (they arent really needed much if roleplayed properly). I wouldnt mind seeing an IQ stat so we could have an easier time figuring out the geniuses and dummies. But I do admit some things can be intimidating. If it wasnt for HERO Designer I'd have a time figuring out how much some of my powers would cost sometimes. But then again some math in real life is mysterious to me (I still have a time figuring out interest rates) :eek:

Basically I like this system more than others I've tried. And all games will have flaws mo matter how hard they are worked at.

zornwil

Mar 30th, '04, 10:51 PM

(snip) I dont see much use in PRE and COM except for extreme circumstances (they arent really needed much if roleplayed properly).

The thing is, some people aren't charismatic or outgoing enough to play these well. The numbers help them and relying on dice rolls isn't so bad, particularly as many people just can't do some types of characterizations well but want to play that type of character. I think arguing against them doing so or penalizing them for not being strong of voice or quick of wit detracts from the fantasy element of our hobby. IM-not-so-HO.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 31st, '04, 05:09 AM

I dont see much use in PRE and COM except for extreme circumstances (they arent really needed much if roleplayed properly).

I agree with Zornwil. I find players who take low stats in these areas (PRE/COM in Hero, Charisma in That Other System) and then complain that "they role played the interaction well" so they should get an advantage have missed a salient point. It is not you making the speech, it is your character. Your (the player's) speech was eloquent and stirring. But your character with the 8 PRE and 6 COM just isn't capable of giving such a rising speech.

If you want the ability, pay the points!

Dust Raven

Mar 31st, '04, 12:04 PM

I agree with Zornwil. I find players who take low stats in these areas (PRE/COM in Hero, Charisma in That Other System) and then complain that "they role played the interaction well" so they should get an advantage have missed a salient point. It is not you making the speech, it is your character. Your (the player's) speech was eloquent and stirring. But your character with the 8 PRE and 6 COM just isn't capable of giving such a rising speech.

If you want the ability, pay the points!

In my opinion, it's not they lack of necessary stats, it's the lack of role-playing the character properly. If you've got low PRE/COM, or even average, you just can't give a charismatic, crowd swaying speach. If you do, you're not playing the character. Sure you could try, and maybe someone nearby who is charismatic will listen and then get everyone's attention for you (end of Revenge of the Nerds). And even then you've only got the crowd's attention as long as Mr Charisma is there to hold it for you.

tesuji

Apr 1st, '04, 03:54 AM

Hugh Neilson

Apr 1st, '04, 04:55 AM

The way i do it...

I give a bonus to a scene for when the player does it well, roleplays the scene well... so the player who makes a good reasonable argument gets a bonus while the player who doesn't or rather who gives a senseless argument gets no bonus and perhaps a penalty. Whether holding a crowds attention or convincing someone to do what you want or lock picking the door or checking for traps... good decisions help and poor decisions hurt.

This bonus or penalty is applied to the mechanical check for success failure and results.

So the smooth talker player with a low pre character will get a favorable adjustment now and again, but he still pays for his stat deficiency by that not overriding his stats, just modifying the odds somewhat.

This depends on how far the matter is taken. If the result is that an eloquent player who posits intelligent arguments for his case, but has an 8 INT/8 PRE character, generally needs the same roll for success as a player who is less eloquent and doesn't tailor the case to the audience at that level, but has a character with 18 INT and 18 PRE, then the first player is being allowed to override the points he saved by role playing the character poorly.

If, on the other hand, these bonuses are rare and in character (eg. the 8 PRE, but 23 INT, superscientist occasionally realizes just the right thing to say which proves his argument to the crowd, then notwithstanding he may not be very impressive, his irrefutable argument may just carry the day), then I don't see the same problem.

If the bonuses for being an eloquent player are going to cancel out the penalties for a poor stat (or penalties for being an eloquent player will cancel bonuses for good stats), then it's probably better to just eliminate all these stats and play based on each character having the persuasiveness and mental acuity of his player.

nHammer

Apr 1st, '04, 01:24 PM

This is a continuation of a theme that started in the Fantasy Hero forum. In an effort not to hijack that thread, it has been moved here.

My idea was to fold STR, CON, and BODY into one stat ("BODY") costing six points, and INT and EGO into "MIND", costing 3 points. PD & ED would be based on the same stat, although they could be modified individually. SPD was eliminated.

But I have to disagree with you, and I think that your analysis is a simplistic way of looking at the problem I felt needed to be solved. First, Hero INT has never been a measure of cognitive ability, but rather how fast one reacts to situations. This is why Perception rolls used to be based on INT, but Sciences weren't. In fact, this is mentioned in the flavor text (FRED pg. 23): someone with a low INT could be a brilliant scientist, he just can't come up with things right now. Second, eliminating INT was simply my way of dealing with the fact that people can't roleplay subtle differences in intelligence. Realistically, someone can play: themselves, someone dumber than themselves, someone really dumb, and with the help of skills and other gaming tools, someone way smarter than themselves. One or two points of difference in the INT stat is a false statistic, and is only there for metagaming purposes. Pendragon, one of my favourite games, doesn't have any sort of intelligence statistic.

Want someone really smart with a low "EGO", using my system? Easy - just make MIND fairly average, and buy a lot of skill levels with "smart skills". Conversely, if you want someone of average intelligence with great Ego powers, just up their EGO CV.

Regarding the physical characteristics, I think that what you're describing is a consequence of "Heroese", rather than any verisimilitude. Most people with a higher physical endurance are also stronger and capable of taking more physical punishment. And it's difficult to be stronger than normal, but have a poor constitution. Those that do, can easily be represented by 1)reducing END (strong, but has asthma or the like); or 2)physical disads. The same argument has always held true for drains and the like. It's silly to just drain someone's "BODY" without affecting their STR or CON. As people get ill, they get weak.

Hero already does things the way you suggest would be bad for the game: there is no functional difference between an EB and martial arts, once you take away the lims that make each up.

And finally, by only having four characteristics rather than eight, and only four figured CHAs instead of six, it cuts the characteristic work for new players. Which I think is more important than anything else. Again, I think the age of Chivalry and Sorcery-style never-ending lists of characteristics is long past.

If you're playing this way, you're not playing the Hero System.

If people want to change everything, why don't they just make their own game? :rolleyes:

tesuji

Apr 1st, '04, 05:43 PM

[/QUOTE]

This depends on how far the matter is taken. If the result is that an eloquent player who posits intelligent arguments for his case, but has an 8 INT/8 PRE character, generally needs the same roll for success as a player who is less eloquent and doesn't tailor the case to the audience at that level, but has a character with 18 INT and 18 PRE, then the first player is being allowed to override the points he saved by role playing the character poorly.

Huh?

Eloquent player with pre/int 13 paid 6 pts and also handled the pitch well... he has a base 12- plus say +2 for good choices... he has a 14- chance to succeed.

Same guy with 8's... same +2... now he has an 11- plus 2 for a 13-.

So, the lower stats, they cost him a -1 to his chance.

Isn't that exactly what they do in every other case?

If your concern is that the difference between 14- and 13- is not as big as the difference between 12- and 11-, try a non-3d6 task system.

If the bonuses for being an eloquent player are going to cancel out the penalties for a poor stat (or penalties for being an eloquent player will cancel bonuses for good stats), then it's probably better to just eliminate all these stats and play based on each character having the persuasiveness and mental acuity of his player.

OK, unless one of us is crazy, there is still a -1 difference between the players chances based on his stats. Same event without low stats is +1 more likely to succeed. pay less points (enough to adjust the prob...) and have a lower chance of success. That seems pretty simple and, color me simple, but seems very much not a leap into "go statless" land.

maybe i should express this more in HEROspeak?

page 28 lists skill modifiers based on how difficult the task is...

it will be less difficult to persuade someone to do something that sounds reasonable, and thus, describing something more reasonable will likely produce a different modifier, perhaps 1-3 points to the good, than describing something that sounds unreasonable. Much in the same way that a player choosing to climb up the corner with the drain pipe might get an Easy modifier while the character who decides to freeclimb the bricks might get a less beneficial difficulty modifier... much as the character who moves to 8m might get a better chance to hit than the one who moves to 10m...

Do you really not have varying modifiers for the difficulty of the task (combat or otherwise) in your games? Do you not allow player choices, character action, to affect these chances?

If one guy bought +2 range skill levels while another guy bought no such levels BUT that guy always moves to within 4" so he never "pays the price" for not buying ranged skill levels do you feel the urge to go to a rangeless system?

zornwil

Apr 1st, '04, 07:00 PM

Huh?

Eloquent player with pre/int 13 paid 6 pts and also handled the pitch well... he has a base 12- plus say +2 for good choices... he has a 14- chance to succeed.

Same guy with 8's... same +2... now he has an 11- plus 2 for a 13-.

So, the lower stats, they cost him a -1 to his chance.

Isn't that exactly what they do in every other case?

If your concern is that the difference between 14- and 13- is not as big as the difference between 12- and 11-, try a non-3d6 task system.

OK, unless one of us is crazy, there is still a -1 difference between the players chances based on his stats. Same event without low stats is +1 more likely to succeed. pay less points (enough to adjust the prob...) and have a lower chance of success. That seems pretty simple and, color me simple, but seems very much not a leap into "go statless" land.

maybe i should express this more in HEROspeak?

page 28 lists skill modifiers based on how difficult the task is...

it will be less difficult to persuade someone to do something that sounds reasonable, and thus, describing something more reasonable will likely produce a different modifier, perhaps 1-3 points to the good, than describing something that sounds unreasonable. Much in the same way that a player choosing to climb up the corner with the drain pipe might get an Easy modifier while the character who decides to freeclimb the bricks might get a less beneficial difficulty modifier... much as the character who moves to 8m might get a better chance to hit than the one who moves to 10m...

Do you really not have varying modifiers for the difficulty of the task (combat or otherwise) in your games? Do you not allow player choices, character action, to affect these chances?

If one guy bought +2 range skill levels while another guy bought no such levels BUT that guy always moves to within 4" so he never "pays the price" for not buying ranged skill levels do you feel the urge to go to a rangeless system?[/QUOTE]

Player choices should affect chances, but should not to the extent that having an 8 PRE nonetheless most of the time is effectively the same as a 13 PRE. Sometimes, particularly if the player uses a clever idea that does NOT depend on his character's PRE, yes, but it should not be the norm, or the PC should simply have a 13 PRE, lest the Player be metagaming the PC.

As to your last paragraph, I can't buy that comparison as the movement closer requires the character to actually do something physical that is in the PC's wherwithall. Always speaking more eloquent than you are - without a specific skill or other compensatory game mechanic - is pure metagaming.

tesuji

Apr 1st, '04, 07:11 PM

Player choices should affect chances, but should not to the extent that having an 8 PRE nonetheless most of the time is effectively the same as a 13 PRE. Sometimes, particularly if the player uses a clever idea that does NOT depend on his character's PRE, yes, but it should not be the norm, or the PC should simply have a 13 PRE, lest the Player be metagaming the PC.

As to your last paragraph, I can't buy that comparison as the movement closer requires the character to actually do something physical that is in the PC's wherwithall. Always speaking more eloquent than you are - without a specific skill or other compensatory game mechanic - is pure metagaming.

Ok lets say i buy into this notion.

What skills or stats should a character have to buy for his player to not be metagaming when he chooses to move to the range breaks instead of short of them, often giving himself 2 less penalty in his attack? Which ones do you REQUIRE in actual play in your games for this?

What skills or stats should a player have to buy for his player to make other tactically correct and competent decisions and not be considered metagaming? Say for instance a character who uses cover well, a character who lines up his attacks so they do knockback into hard objects and thus get full knockback damage, or who makes good decisions about preferrable targets, such as using fire against an ice guy or mental attacks against a speedster with high DCV? Which ones do you REQUIRE if the player is expecting he will be permitted to use these choices?

What about the using of held actions to milk the speed chart? Which character traits need to be bought, or not bought off, to do that without being a "metagamer"?

zornwil

Apr 1st, '04, 07:22 PM

Ok lets say i buy into this notion.

What skills or stats should a character have to buy for his player to not be metagaming when he chooses to move to the range breaks instead of short of them, often giving himself 2 less penalty in his attack? Which ones do you REQUIRE in actual play in your games for this?

Why buy any? It's the most elemental knowledge in the world, "I'm bad at range, must close", which is (usually) risky. Seems like a good tradeoff. I would tend to look askance at a low-INT character who employs such tactics though.

What skills or stats should a player have to buy for his player to make other tactically correct and competent decisions and not be considered metagaming? Say for instance a character who uses cover well, a character who lines up his attacks so they do knockback into hard objects and thus get full knockback damage, or who makes good decisions about preferrable targets, such as using fire against an ice guy or mental attacks against a speedster with high DCV? Which ones do you REQUIRE if the player is expecting he will be permitted to use these choices?

What about the using of held actions to milk the speed chart? Which character traits need to be bought, or not bought off, to do that without being a "metagamer"?

Good questions, , although, again, for THESE examples, a low INT character (who otherwise lacks Tactics, let's say) would be a candidate for "reeling in". And otherwise I have little concern. You see, the thing is that while I know where you're going (extra actions in SPD, specialized maneuvers that may or may not be too clever for a player), and I agree that it's not a simple matter as we get closer to more problematic real-world examples, the thing is that what you describe belongs for the most part in any superheroic game - PCs seem to "just know what to do". But when a PC - or a leading character in a flim - has a known low characteristic/weakness, we EXPECT him to fail some portion of the time, and to the degree it is more often comic relief (at least that's been my experience with 8 CHAR PCs). Do we see the low-CHAR character succeed "in the crunch"? Surely! And I have no issue with that - dramatic license is an important part of HERO.

Javed

Apr 1st, '04, 07:55 PM

zornwil

Apr 1st, '04, 08:10 PM

Tesuji's work sometimes makes me think of using some of those to make my own HERO Lite, a game of lightning-fast mechanics and more fudgy (RPing) play. Something like I was hoping from M&M (and to be fair M&M does accomplish some of those goals quite well).

But can you say Fuzion? That went over like a lead baloon.

Well, I do need to study the Fuzion stuff. Lemming was kind enough to loan it to me. I think I"ll look at it tonight, hope i don't fall asleep. This flu is weird, one moment I'm wide awake and raring to go, the next I'm dead as a doornail.

dataweaver

Apr 1st, '04, 09:57 PM

The only problem with Fuzion (in terms of Champions) was that Champions: the New Millenium didn't have a sufficiently flexible Powers system. Other than that, it was at least as good as Hero System (and, in many ways, is the one that I prefer). Especially since the Powers system has been addressed quite nicely by Jason Dour's "Heroic Abilities" add-on - google for it.

As for "too many stats": I disagree. The problem is that Hero System's characteristics are poorly organized. Restructure into two sets of Primary Characteristics: Physical (STR, DEX, CON, BODY) and Mental (INT, EGO, PRE). Replace Comeliness with an Appearance Perquisite patterned after Reputation; STR and PRE are analogs of each other (except for PRE's participation in Interaction skills); INT can be treated as a mental analog of DEX (I'd base ECV off of INT instead of EGO), while EGO can be treated as a mental analog of CON. All you need to complete the symmetry is a mental analog of BODY - call it MIND, and use it in a manner similar to Sanity in Call of Cthulu. In terms of Figured Characteristics, Presence Defense can be revised to conform to the same type of mechanics as Mental Defense; it then becomes the mental analog of Physical Defense, while Mental Defense becomes the mental analog of Energy Defense. Adjust SPD, REC, END, and STUN so that their formulae are derived evenly from both sides of the split.

End result: you have even more Characteristics than you did before; but the ones that you have are more structured and thus less intimidating.

zornwil

Apr 1st, '04, 10:43 PM

The only problem with Fuzion (in terms of Champions) was that Champions: the New Millenium didn't have a sufficiently flexible Powers system. Other than that, it was at least as good as Hero System (and, in many ways, is the one that I prefer). Especially since the Powers system has been addressed quite nicely by Jason Dour's "Heroic Abilities" add-on - google for it.

Thanks much, will do! Have added it to my mile-long to-do list!

As for "too many stats": I disagree. The problem is that Hero System's characteristics are poorly organized. Restructure into two sets of Primary Characteristics: Physical (STR, DEX, CON, BODY) and Mental (INT, EGO, PRE). Replace Comeliness with an Appearance Perquisite patterned after Reputation; STR and PRE are analogs of each other (except for PRE's participation in Interaction skills); INT can be treated as a mental analog of DEX (I'd base ECV off of INT instead of EGO), while EGO can be treated as a mental analog of CON. All you need to complete the symmetry is a mental analog of BODY - call it MIND, and use it in a manner similar to Sanity in Call of Cthulu. In terms of Figured Characteristics, Presence Defense can be revised to conform to the same type of mechanics as Mental Defense; it then becomes the mental analog of Physical Defense, while Mental Defense becomes the mental analog of Energy Defense. Adjust SPD, REC, END, and STUN so that their formulae are derived evenly from both sides of the split.

End result: you have even more Characteristics than you did before; but the ones that you have are more structured and thus less intimidating.

Personally I'm good with HERO's stats, though I'm always interested in what people have to say. I just don't think they necessarily require change. But change could be good.

Then again, I grouse about most HERO changes for at least 5 years before adopting them... (end of 2003 I finally went from 1 END/5 points (which I had corrupted, deliberately, to Real not Active) to 1 END/10 AP)). :rolleyes: (to be clear, that rolling of eyes is self-directed)

Gary

Apr 1st, '04, 10:49 PM

dataweaver

Apr 1st, '04, 11:41 PM

It does, doesn't it? To my mind, that's a good thing - especially considering how few changes are needed to accomplish it.

DrFurious

Apr 2nd, '04, 12:32 AM

This sounds a lot like the old DC Heroes RPG where all characters had 3 physical, 3 mental, and 3 mystic stats. All 3 sets were symetrically balanced to have 1 acting stat, 1 power stat, and 1 toughness stat.

Dex, Str, Body for physical
Int, Will, Mind for mental
Infl, Aura, Spirit for mystic.
A similar scheme is used in the Action! system:

There are six attributes, which are arranged in two groups: Body and Mind.
Each group contains a Power Attribute, an Aptitude Attribute and a Resistance Attribute.
New attribute groups can be added, providing more variety and additional attributes for characters, but the core rules use only these two.
The three attributes that define a character’s “body” or physical being are Health, Strength, and Reflexes.
The three attributes that define the character’s “mind” or mental and emotional being are Presence, Intellect, and Will.

!DrFURIOUS!

Hugh Neilson

Apr 2nd, '04, 05:21 AM

Player choices should affect chances, but should not to the extent that having an 8 PRE nonetheless most of the time is effectively the same as a 13 PRE. Sometimes, particularly if the player uses a clever idea that does NOT depend on his character's PRE, yes, but it should not be the norm, or the PC should simply have a 13 PRE, lest the Player be metagaming the PC.

As to your last paragraph, I can't buy that comparison as the movement closer requires the character to actually do something physical that is in the PC's wherwithall. Always speaking more eloquent than you are - without a specific skill or other compensatory game mechanic - is pure metagaming.

Zornwil hits the nail on the head. Yes, bonuses to PRE skills apply iuf a chatracter has an especially persuasive argument. How often does/should an 8 INT character think of that very persuasive argument under pressure? How eloquently can an 8 PRE character present his argument? If I'm using my high player INT and PRE to offset my low Character INT and PRE, that's just bad roleplaying/metagaming.

"Your argument is, of course, very cogent, and your presentation as a player was flawless. Unfortunately, Mordo the Spaz has a 5 PRE, and in receiving delivery his speech, the Princess has discovered, to her disgust. that Mordo is a spitter."

Hugh Neilson

Apr 2nd, '04, 05:27 AM

2) By the same token, weakness darts are now lethal attacks since they affect BODY, and hence can kill their targets instead of just weakening them.

3) What are you doing to adjustment powers? It will now cost three to six times as much to get an equivalent effect on the physical stats and 1.5 to three times as much on the mental. Even if you put limitations on the power to show that it is only affecting one part of the new stat, you still have problems with active points. You can't just change the active point cost of the power since DEX, PRE and other stats remain the same.

Curious to read how you handle these issues in your games.

The above are great examples of why I don't like tinkering with the game system. Anything beyond the most minor change often has rasmifications that aren't considered, and tend to come back to bite one at inopportune times.

To add another, if the SPeed chart goes away, how do we handle characters who cause others to move slower, or speed up their own actions. M & M has superspeeed and time manipulation powers, among others. Hero has SPD Aid and SPD Drain as examples. What does Hero have if we toast the SPD chart? Well, we need an all,new mechanic, so we didn't necessarily simplify the game we just changed it. It's probably simpler in some cases, and more complex in others.

Vorsch

Apr 2nd, '04, 05:55 AM

As to dropping the spd chart and how spd drains etc would work i have tried the following

Hth OCV DCV now based on dex/5 + spd
Ranged OCV dex/3
Ranged DCV spd or based on movement combat inches/3 ( note in my version +5" doubles your velocity with 1-10 being 1-10ms, give mach 1 at 35" DCV 12 )
Initiative based of spd + random roll, lightning reflexis at 3pt each give +1 ( spd only for initiative -2 lim basically)

People can attack more than once at 2 OCV penalty

This gives a gun weilder at close range a advantage over HTH guy ( not unreasonable )

Most characters will end up with the same relative CV.

I find new players find this more intuitive that the spd chart and some of its more Metagaming attributes, also allows for spd enhancement in a simple way ( gee this spell makes me 10 time quicker, gives +7 spd , each +2 doubles your speed just like +5str doubles your lift. character now becomes a HTH god ,but then i think being 10x faster should affect your CV not just the amount of actions you can take )

i call this new mechanic "combat rounds"

zornwil

Apr 2nd, '04, 07:37 AM

Zornwil hits the nail on the head. Yes, bonuses to PRE skills apply iuf a chatracter has an especially persuasive argument. How often does/should an 8 INT character think of that very persuasive argument under pressure? How eloquently can an 8 PRE character present his argument? If I'm using my high player INT and PRE to offset my low Character INT and PRE, that's just bad roleplaying/metagaming.

"Your argument is, of course, very cogent, and your presentation as a player was flawless. Unfortunately, Mordo the Spaz has a 5 PRE, and in receiving delivery his speech, the Princess has discovered, to her disgust. that Mordo is a spitter."

Ewww, did you have to make your point so graphically? :)

Kristopher

Apr 2nd, '04, 07:42 AM

HERO is fine the way it is.

zornwil

Apr 2nd, '04, 08:43 AM

HERO is fine the way it is.

I know you're very conservative on this matter, and that's fine, but I am curious at what point (which edition) you feel HERO was fine and further development was unnecessary? If I had to pick, personally, I'd pick 3rd, though as you know I'm equally comfortable with tinkering. I have mixed feelings about how "finished" any ruleset as I know I'll tinker with it. Anyway, I'm just curious at what point you felt further change was essentially frivolous, if I may use that word (correct me if you wish).

tesuji

Apr 2nd, '04, 09:14 AM

[/QUOTE]

Zornwil hits the nail on the head. Yes, bonuses to PRE skills apply iuf a chatracter has an especially persuasive argument. How often does/should an 8 INT character think of that very persuasive argument under pressure? How eloquently can an 8 PRE character present his argument? If I'm using my high player INT and PRE to offset my low Character INT and PRE, that's just bad roleplaying/metagaming.

Whatever penalty to the die roll the character "nought" is still applied. it is never lost or offset. Had the character been built with more points in those traits, she would not be getting a -1 for the stats and would have a greater chance of success.

If instead you not only penalize them with the -1 thet stats enforce AND refuse to permit them to make the right choices, you are doubly-damning them by having them put themselves in worse situations AND ALSO applying a penalty to the mechnical rolls involved.

"Your argument is, of course, very cogent, and your presentation as a player was flawless. Unfortunately, Mordo the Spaz has a 5 PRE, and in receiving delivery his speech, the Princess has discovered, to her disgust. that Mordo is a spitter."

and as such he takes 10- base starting point as opposed to 11-, and then we apply the reasonable skill modifiers... say "easy" since the point he is arguing is "very cogent" and with a good speel even though the sipt thing was distracting. Had he not been a spitter, had he a 10 pre, he would have an 11- base and them applied the "easy" modifier.

In short, the difference between 5 pre and 10 pre in the above example is 10- vs 11- base starting point, not 10- vs 11- base AND ALSO not allowing the character to chose the tact which will result in "easy" as opposed to "difficult." If you do the latter, you in effect turn that 5 pts of presence from a -1 modifier net to a -2 or -3 modifier net, which is out of whack with its savings.

Again, what requirements do you mandate for players being allowed to make "good meaningful choices" in all those other areas without being called nasty names for doing so? How much tactics skill do i need for common superheroic level teamwork?

zornwil

Apr 2nd, '04, 09:25 AM

Whatever penalty to the die roll the character "nought" is still applied. it is never lost or offset. Had the character been built with more points in those traits, she would not be getting a -1 for the stats and would have a greater chance of success.

If instead you not only penalize them with the -1 thet stats enforce AND refuse to permit them to make the right choices, you are doubly-damning them by having them put themselves in worse situations AND ALSO applying a penalty to the mechnical rolls involved.

and as such he takes 10- base starting point as opposed to 11-, and then we apply the reasonable skill modifiers... say "easy" since the point he is arguing is "very cogent" and with a good speel even though the sipt thing was distracting. Had he not been a spitter, had he a 10 pre, he would have an 11- base and them applied the "easy" modifier.

In short, the difference between 5 pre and 10 pre in the above example is 10- vs 11- base starting point, not 10- vs 11- base AND ALSO not allowing the character to chose the tact which will result in "easy" as opposed to "difficult." If you do the latter, you in effect turn that 5 pts of presence from a -1 modifier net to a -2 or -3 modifier net, which is out of whack with its savings.

Again, what requirements do you mandate for players being allowed to make "good meaningful choices" in all those other areas without being called nasty names for doing so? How much tactics skill do i need for common superheroic level teamwork?[/QUOTE]

But I disagree, at least in part. You are referring to "easy" and "difficult" sorts of modifiers which are circumstantial and have nothing to do with the modification the PC brings. And as such, if a PC spent time preparing for a specific encounter or if it were life-and-death and they role-played well, I'd surely give them a bonus to represent that. But that bonus is against the easy or difficult modifier and all is additive.

In any case, Tesuji, do you not see a problem with granting an extra +1 for a roleplaying person who can act with great PRE "for" his PC but whose PC does not have that PRE? I suppose that's the crux of the matter, and if you really have no trouble with that, c'est la vie. I feel it unfairly condemns people who aren't that good at RPing PRE - and a lot of gamers aren't!

As to your last two questions, the first is too abstact. To answer it in the abstract, though, as those choices represent heroic choices common to such characters, I won't penalize unless they have some inhibiting factor. OTOH, if they are making a choice that is near-metagaming or seems unusual, I'll say something (and not call nasty names of course). As to the second question, no Tactics if the team has been around a while, but if the team has not been around, I don't give them much advantage beyond rolling their DEXes and the like.

By the way, I like M&M's Leadership ideas applied to Tactics in HERO, though I tend to think it takes a half phase for game balance considerations if the PC is going to grant other PCs' additional CVs and such. Just a tangent...

tesuji

Apr 2nd, '04, 10:06 AM

[/QUOTE]

But I disagree, at least in part. You are referring to "easy" and "difficult" sorts of modifiers which are circumstantial and have nothing to do with the modification the PC brings. And as such, if a PC spent time preparing for a specific encounter or if it were life-and-death and they role-played well, I'd surely give them a bonus to represent that. But that bonus is against the easy or difficult modifier and all is additive.

Not sure what your distinction is.

I AGREE... all modifiers from any source factor into the equation. Thats my point. The -1 for the 5 savings in cp is already going to be applied and no force on heaven oru heck can prevent that. For -5 cp in pre, he gets a -1 to his chance of success.

He does not ALSO get a mandate from the Gm that he also choose deliberately poor options which will in turn also make his odds of success less.

If a guy has a 3 less dex, saving 6 cp roughly, he gets a -1 to all CVs and such automatically. he does not ALSO have to make "poor dex use" decisions. if a guy has 5 less int and thus a lower per roll, he does not ALSO have to deliberately choose to put himself in positions where he gets a penalty to his per rolls. he can choose to freely move his character to high ground to afford himself a better view.

In any case, Tesuji, do you not see a problem with granting an extra +1 for a roleplaying person who can act with great PRE "for" his PC but whose PC does not have that PRE? I suppose that's the crux of the matter, and if you really have no trouble with that, c'est la vie. I feel it unfairly condemns people who aren't that good at RPing PRE - and a lot of gamers aren't!

OK lets put this on the table.

I do not have a problem with rewarding with circumstantial bonuses, or penalizing with circumstantial bonuses (if you want it in HERo speak, adjusting the skill modifier for difficulty "easy", "difficult" etc see page 28) based on the player choices.

If the player makes good choices, he will get a better chance of success than if he makes poor choices.

My players are not there to observe their character's stats. They are there to play and by that they expect to be given the opportunity to make MEANINGFUL DECISIONS that will affect the outcome. They come to the table expecting that their decisions will have some weight.

If i ever led them to believe that its all going to be determined by the stats and the dice, why should they show?

Do the dice and the stats matter? Sure. That -1 difference for the 5 cp saved on PRE will matter EVERY SINGLE TIME the player has his character undertake a pre related action. Its a -1. It will apply whether he says something stupid or says something brilliant. It is never lost, never offset, never avoided... it applies. He will every single time have -1 less than he would have if he had spent those points on PRE.

If i also tell him he cannot himself make good choices, and must instead make bad choices too, i am doubly whamming him.

Allow me an example:

Jimmy is playing Edgar the Simpler, an Int 5 Pre 5 fighter. Due to an ironic set of circumstances, Edgar is in the queen's parlor and is the only one left to talk with her. He knows they need her help against the forces of darkness. He really wishes Daewen the wise, his team leader, was here but...

Queen: "Your friends are in peril and will not last long. You seek my help. Why should i help you?"

Player thinks and says...
Edgar: "Oh crap... they are dying, lady. Get off your boney buttocks and help or else."

or

Player thinks and says...
Edgar: "Lady, i really wish Daewen was here, but he's busy trying to not get kil't. He could 'splain it more better. Sometime he think gooder than me. othertimes he thinks things harder. You are good people. You do good things. You treat you peoples good. We are good peoples too. We do good things. They are bad peoples. They hurt peoples. They hurt my peoples. They hurt you peoples. When bad peoples do this, good peoples stop them. My daddy told me that before he died. Daewen tells me that. Now i am telling' you that too. You are good peoples and good peoples help stop bad peoples. I wish Daewen was here... so he could 'splain it betters." looks down and sighs.

I would never in any game i ran tell the two players with those two different answers that their choices on how to answer the queen were IRRELEVENT. I would never ever tell them that "hey its great but it wont affect the chance of success." The first would likely get a PENALTY (or a harder difficulty modifier) while the latter would likely get a bonus (or an easier difficulty modifier.)

Their PRE score still applies its penalty or bonus in terms of the base roll needed, but then the choices the player makes weighs in as well.

I see this as no different than one player deciding to stop at 5" range and suffering a -2 range penalty while another moves into 4" and suffers no penalty.
I see this as no different than a player who tells me his character is using his dagger to open the box from the side while another player tells me he just opens the box.
I see this as no differently than a player who decides to shoot at the guy who is at half dcv while another guy decides to shoot at someone still at full dcv.

In each of those cases, the players CHOICE (good or bad) has a meaningful impact which will affect the probability of success or desirability of the outcome. Whatever stat created bonuses or penalties still apply and add into the mix, but the player can make meaningful choices and have them affect the outcome. he can do this all the time.

Thats why he is there, sitting at the table, instead of just having to email me his character sheet and let me email him the results of the conflict.

Assuming the queen is not an evil person secretly in league with the dark forces...

Would you in your game give the two above guys answers to the queen (if they both had 5 pre and 5 int) the same chance of success in convincing her? Would the players CHOICE be meaningless? or would you give the latter case a better chance of succeeding?

i would, obviously, give the first a penalty, possibly only slight if the queen is normally dismissive of "lessers" and give the latter a bonus.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 2nd, '04, 10:32 AM

Not sure what your distinction is.

[/QUOTE]

Let's take your example for a spin. Both of your responses are legit for the character in question. Now, let's say Edgar's player replies with:

"Prithee, Milady, allow me to extoll upon the virtues of aiding my comrades at arms." He then launches into an extesive geo-political analysis of the likely impact on the Queen's kingdom, based on the PLAYER's knowledge of your hgame world's 250 year history, providing the inescapable conclusion that "Your Majesty, clearly thine aid of my colleagues is the only proper choice. Failure to come to their aid would be tantamount to surrendering thy throne."

That doesn't sound like Edgar the Simpler to me. That sounds like a player with a degree in political science. No bonus, and a "poor roleplaying" xp penalty.

Gary

Apr 2nd, '04, 11:02 AM

"Your argument is, of course, very cogent, and your presentation as a player was flawless. Unfortunately, Mordo the Spaz has a 5 PRE, and in receiving delivery his speech, the Princess has discovered, to her disgust. that Mordo is a spitter."

I hope you don't expect your players to roleplay that out... :p

tesuji

Apr 2nd, '04, 12:25 PM

[/QUOTE]

Let's take your example for a spin. Both of your responses are legit for the character in question. Now, let's say Edgar's player replies with:

And so, would you give the "good guys" guy a better chance of success (a bonus to his needing value or a better "difficulty" modifier) because of his better choice? Would the "or else" guy get a lower chance?

or would you tell them the stats determine the odds and make them roll the same chance?

The stats are the same, only the choice made by the player was different.

Would it matter if this were the fifth time something like this had occured rather than say the first?

Hugh Neilson

Apr 2nd, '04, 03:38 PM

And so, would you give the "good guys" guy a better chance of success (a bonus to his needing value or a better "difficulty" modifier) because of his better choice? Would the "or else" guy get a lower chance?

or would you tell them the stats determine the odds and make them roll the same chance?

The stats are the same, only the choice made by the player was different.

Would it matter if this were the fifth time something like this had occured rather than say the first?[/QUOTE]

The first option ("get off your bony butt", I believe) would probably have seen a beheading. Rolls only take you so far. The second? What has the character given the Queen besides his best efforts at persuading her. There's no non-interaction skill case made. I'd be inclined to give him a bonus just for the nice, in-character role playing but whether that's a bonus to the roll or a bonus xp is open to debate. Regardless, he has a chance at success, which is more than I can say for the first approach.

The better question would be how I view the Queen's persona. Is she likely to be swayed by this particular line of argument, or isn't she? If she's a romantic at heart, he's pulled some real strings there. If she's a jaded cynic, he hasn't. So he may get a bonus based on the situation - he may have made the kind of argument the Queen is inclined to hear favourably. But it's not the player's eloquence causing that modifier - it's the Queen's personality interactinjg with the aproach chosen by the character, Did he hear earlier that she's an incurable romantic and use it to his advantage? Good for him - he earned a bonus. Did he just get lucky? Again, good for him. He gets a bonus. And he played it in character.

Now what about Mr. Political Dissertation. Does he deserve a bonus for making the perfect argument, notwithstanding that it was completely out of character for his 5 PRE 5 INT character to make that speech, or does he get an XP penalty for poor role playing? Or do you give him both?

PhilFleischmann

Apr 2nd, '04, 03:44 PM

I don't remember GURPS well enough, and I'm not familiar with Tri-Stat at all, but I know d20. There are many who delude themselves into thinking it has fewer stats than HERO.

Hero has 14. 8 Base STR, BODY, CON, DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, COM, and 6 figured SPD, PD, ED, REC, END, STUN.

D20 also has 14. 6 Base, S, I, W, D, C, Ch, and 8 figured Fortification Save, Reflex Save, Will Save, Attack Bonus, Armor Class, Hit Points, Character Level, and one other that I thought of but can't remember now. (I don't play deendee.)

I know GURPS has four Base stats and Tri-stat has 3 base stats. Can anyone tell us how many figured stats they have?

dataweaver

Apr 2nd, '04, 06:42 PM

It depends on what you mean by "Derived Stats". In GURPS, you have ST, DX, IQ, and HT as primary attributes; Hit Points, Fatigue, and Speed are clearly derived traits. In addition to these, though, there are issues such as Will and Alertness (which technically aren't stats - yet - but can be thought of as traits derived from IQ. Likewise, the Reaction Modifier can be thought of as another "pseudo-Attribute", hidden in the guise of numerous Ads and Disads which provide bonuses and penalties to it. Then there are things such as "Fearlessness" and the like - other Advantages and Disadvantages which can potentially produce results equivelent to additional Characteristics. BESM does something similar, with its equivelent to Perquisites/Talents/Powers (called "Attributes") providing situation-dependent modifiers to its three Stats. In addition, you have Health Points, Energy Points, Attack Combat Value, Defense Combat Value, and an optional Shock rating.

OTOH, Hero System also has a few "hidden Characteristics" in the form of Running, Leaping, Swimming, Mental Defense, OCV, DCV, ECV, and possibly others.

The only real difference between Hero and these other systems is that Hero doesn't disguise its complexity: it presents all of its Primary Characteristics and six of its Figured Characteristics in one massive lump, making it look messier than it really is. And even eight Primary Characteristics can be made far more palatable if properly presented.

zornwil

Apr 2nd, '04, 06:43 PM

Not sure what your distinction is.

I AGREE... all modifiers from any source factor into the equation. Thats my point. The -1 for the 5 savings in cp is already going to be applied and no force on heaven oru heck can prevent that. For -5 cp in pre, he gets a -1 to his chance of success.

He does not ALSO get a mandate from the Gm that he also choose deliberately poor options which will in turn also make his odds of success less.

If a guy has a 3 less dex, saving 6 cp roughly, he gets a -1 to all CVs and such automatically. he does not ALSO have to make "poor dex use" decisions. if a guy has 5 less int and thus a lower per roll, he does not ALSO have to deliberately choose to put himself in positions where he gets a penalty to his per rolls. he can choose to freely move his character to high ground to afford himself a better view.

Apples and oranges. You are referring to physical actions a heroic person can take to offset a physical disability, and it involves personal risk. The PRE-deprived person may be able to do the same, trying to use INT or other compensatory factors, but where those lack or are irrelevant, he can do little more - just as the low-DEX person can do little if he cannot close rnage or cannot set or brace.

In all of these cases - the apple-to-apple part - the issue here is the degree to which unusual effort must be made and the degree to which the player still ought be constrained by good roleplaying. And good roleplaying means playing an 8 PRE - or an 8 DEX. And I will darn well say that an 8 DEX and 8 INT guy in my campaign better not be figuring out moves such as you described above on any sort of consistent basis - or he'll face more-frequent dice rolls in combat against his INT. Or I'll demand he buy Tactics.

OK lets put this on the table.

I do not have a problem with rewarding with circumstantial bonuses, or penalizing with circumstantial bonuses (if you want it in HERo speak, adjusting the skill modifier for difficulty "easy", "difficult" etc see page 28) based on the player choices.

If the player makes good choices, he will get a better chance of success than if he makes poor choices.

My players are not there to observe their character's stats. They are there to play and by that they expect to be given the opportunity to make MEANINGFUL DECISIONS that will affect the outcome. They come to the table expecting that their decisions will have some weight.

If i ever led them to believe that its all going to be determined by the stats and the dice, why should they show?

A player taking an 8 PRE character is to ROLEPLAY an 8 PRE character, not a 13 PRE character.

Do the dice and the stats matter? Sure. That -1 difference for the 5 cp saved on PRE will matter EVERY SINGLE TIME the player has his character undertake a pre related action. Its a -1. It will apply whether he says something stupid or says something brilliant. It is never lost, never offset, never avoided... it applies. He will every single time have -1 less than he would have if he had spent those points on PRE.

If i also tell him he cannot himself make good choices, and must instead make bad choices too, i am doubly whamming him.

Tesuji, stepping back for a minute, are you seriously saying you're okay that if I personally, a player in your game, happen to be forceful and eloquent in real life, and I want to play an 8 PRE character, but with the ease of my expressive capabilities you'll essentially always give me a +1? I do not understand that logic. And in my mind that is in very large part what we are discussing here - but perhaps it is not what you are discussing.

If you are saying that a player going the extra mile earns a bonus, surely. But I posit that if that "extra mile" is achieved with ease every time a PRE roll comes up (and PRE rolls should only come up when it matters at least somewhat), it is no extra mile whatsoever - it is metagaming, deliberate or not.

Allow me an example:

Jimmy is playing Edgar the Simpler, an Int 5 Pre 5 fighter. Due to an ironic set of circumstances,

Right there you've begun the setup for some success, this being a unique circumstance (unless ironic circumstances are so common in your game).

Edgar is in the queen's parlor and is the only one left to talk with her. He knows they need her help against the forces of darkness. He really wishes Daewen the wise, his team leader, was here but...

Queen: "Your friends are in peril and will not last long. You seek my help. Why should i help you?"

or

I would never in any game i ran tell the two players with those two different answers that their choices on how to answer the queen were IRRELEVENT. I would never ever tell them that "hey its great but it wont affect the chance of success." The first would likely get a PENALTY (or a harder difficulty modifier) while the latter would likely get a bonus (or an easier difficulty modifier.)

I see this as askew to what I'm saying if it so dire as represented. I have already stated that this being a heroic game, in the crunch such roleplaying is well within boundaries and will gain a bonus.

However, if the player approaches every situation, as an 8 PRE character, with such eloquence, I WILL bump up his PRE, whether he likes it or not, by giving him XP for obviously having gained greater ability with his PRE. Whereas other players will likely get bonus XPs for things they really need!

Their PRE score still applies its penalty or bonus in terms of the base roll needed, but then the choices the player makes weighs in as well.

I see this as no different than one player deciding to stop at 5" range and suffering a -2 range penalty while another moves into 4" and suffers no penalty.
I see this as no different than a player who tells me his character is using his dagger to open the box from the side while another player tells me he just opens the box.
I see this as no differently than a player who decides to shoot at the guy who is at half dcv while another guy decides to shoot at someone still at full dcv.

In each of those cases, the players CHOICE (good or bad) has a meaningful impact which will affect the probability of success or desirability of the outcome. Whatever stat created bonuses or penalties still apply and add into the mix, but the player can make meaningful choices and have them affect the outcome. he can do this all the time.

You ignore that PRE is partly a matter of willpower and choice, while DEX is absolutely not. And that the GAME ALREADY GIVES A MECHANIC EQUAL FOR BOTH - PREPARATION!

You also ignore or do not believe that a character ought to roleplay his stats. In the cases of mental/mind stats, that involves roleplaying them at the level they are on the page most of the time. Otherwise, why do they have these stats?? I contend it makes no sense to play an 8 PRE character like a 13 PRE character with anything at all approaching regularity.

I fully admit that the "this is heroic, a must-do" is a bit of a double-standard, but that is a "problem" with the genre. Take that one up with the writers of yore! :)

Thats why he is there, sitting at the table, instead of just having to email me his character sheet and let me email him the results of the conflict.

Assuming the queen is not an evil person secretly in league with the dark forces...

Would you in your game give the two above guys answers to the queen (if they both had 5 pre and 5 int) the same chance of success in convincing her?

It would depend somewhat on the player. Some players are not (to stick with this singular example) PRE-savvy. They simply can't turn in such performances. I've known plenty of guys like this. If they play a 20-PRE character, I'm only going to ding them for poor roleplaying if they just make a roll and don't want to try. Otherwise, I'm going to be sympathetic - after all this is a fantasy heroic game!

Would the players CHOICE be meaningless?

No. But you ignore the range of choices, including not to use their PRE at all or to use their PRE improperly. By saying "I'm going to try to orate as best I can, mustering up my courage, and telling her what a powerful empress she is," they have made their action, their choice, even if it is less eloquent than someone who actually is eloquent.

or would you give the latter case a better chance of succeeding?

Depending on the player and circumstance. In this circumstance, and if the player were working at this hard (which means if they naturally speak as in the latter example above I am absolutely NOT giving a bonus), yes. In this circumstance, if the player were casting about pitifulyl and trying but inept, I'd be pretty likely to give a bonus. In this circumstance, if they don't give a crap, I'll demerit.

i would, obviously, give the first a penalty, possibly only slight if the queen is normally dismissive of "lessers" and give the latter a bonus.

tesuji

Apr 2nd, '04, 09:21 PM

[/QUOTE]

The first option ("get off your bony butt", I believe) would probably have seen a beheading. Rolls only take you so far. The second? What has the character given the Queen besides his best efforts at persuading her. There's no non-interaction skill case made. I'd be inclined to give him a bonus just for the nice, in-character role playing but whether that's a bonus to the roll or a bonus xp is open to debate. Regardless, he has a chance at success, which is more than I can say for the first approach.

Ok, so while you cannot decide whether or not he gets a bonus, you are certain the other guy gets a penalty... automatic failure. At least we have that.

In my games, for the same reasons your decisions on how to approach this can give you a penalty to your chance of success, they can also give you a bonus to your chance of success. i don't want my players to think the only effect their own choices can have are negative impact.

The better question would be how I view the Queen's persona.

Which leads us into "who knows for this example" land.

certainly in any case, there can be circumstantial modifiers. The queen's ex could have been named Edgar and so she might be angry at all men named edgar.

Now what about Mr. Political Dissertation. Does he deserve a bonus for making the perfect argument, notwithstanding that it was completely out of character for his 5 PRE 5 INT character to make that speech, or does he get an XP penalty for poor role playing? Or do you give him both?

Players describe what the character ATTEMPTS to do, not what they do.
Player may say "Rufus jumps the 30' span" but he is really saying "attempts to jump..."

In the rather blatent case you describe, about two sentences in i would ask the player to make an int check (assuming the character did not have a more appropriate skill) and would see a failure as indicating that the character was getting his geopolitical facts wrong. It would be assumed the character was not as eloquent at the discourse as the player was speaking... whereas in the case I listed, since the dialog was kept to simple terms there would not be such a problem.

The net result would likely be no bonus, as the faltering character does not have the skill or wherewithal to pull off the task, anymore than he could jump the 30' gap.

These highlight just what i mean... the first makes a bad choice and gets a penalty. The second makes a good choice and keeps it within his character's capabilities.... he gets a bonus. The one you mention (do you have players who actually do this or is this just a wild outlandish example?) is a case where the decision is not bad but a poor choice for the character. It would be akin to having a short ranged character stay at range during a fight... it might be a good idea IN GENERAL but unsuited to the character's strengths.

As for Xp awards, i never base Xp on performance, so frankly all three would come out with the same XP. In my game, the benefits of good decisions vs bad decisions is the results they create in the game, period. A side benefit of that is a definite fostering of having the choices effects represented in game as opposed to an atitude of "maybe i will just reward him later with an out of game Xp bonus."

Everyone gets the same Cp per session or levels up at the same point if the system levels. if the system does levelling, i dont bother with Xp points and that nonsense, just set a timetable for levelling. Typically, its a level every 3 months. in a Cp system its typically a cp per session. \

heck, i dont even dock you for non-attendance. if you are out, your character earns just the same.

just my preference.

tesuji

Apr 2nd, '04, 10:02 PM

Apples and oranges. You are referring to physical actions a heroic person can take to offset a physical disability, and it involves personal risk. The PRE-deprived person may be able to do the same, trying to use INT or other compensatory factors, but where those lack or are irrelevant, he can do little more - just as the low-DEX person can do little if he cannot close rnage or cannot set or brace.

I am speaking about CHOICES. If my character has a lower dex, i can still try and possibly succeed at dextrous things. At the point that you hit impossibilities ("cannot set or brace") we are not talking choices and odds but simply restrictions. having an 8 PRE does not restrict you from making better choices.

In all of these cases - the apple-to-apple part - the issue here is the degree to which unusual effort must be made and the degree to which the player still ought be constrained by good roleplaying. And good roleplaying means playing an 8 PRE - or an 8 DEX. And I will darn well say that an 8 DEX and 8 INT guy in my campaign better not be figuring out moves such as you described above on any sort of consistent basis - or he'll face more-frequent dice rolls in combat against his INT. Or I'll demand he buy Tactics.

aren't 8 dex, 8 int, 8 pre the typical stats? Average person around oage 223 has 8's.

whyb should i assume that anything my "non-superhero" friend sitting across the table from me can figure out based on his own average guy intellect that his 8's average guy statted hero cannot... making exception for specific skills such as computing knowledge and the like?

8s are not infrimed or retarded or crippled... they are average guy... and even average guys can state their cases well sometimes.

A player taking an 8 PRE character is to ROLEPLAY an 8 PRE character, not a 13 PRE character.

ie not do better than any average guy could?

Tesuji, stepping back for a minute, are you seriously saying you're okay that if I personally, a player in your game, happen to be forceful and eloquent in real life, and I want to play an 8 PRE character, but with the ease of my expressive capabilities you'll essentially always give me a +1? I do not understand that logic. And in my mind that is in very large part what we are discussing here - but perhaps it is not what you are discussing.

Other than hubirs, what leads you to believe that you would always earn a +1?

What i would do, is almost always when you make good choices, you would see benefits and almost always when you made bad choices, you would see penalties.

I would want you, as my player, to always come away knowing that your choices matter, that your decisions affect the outcome, and never ever to walk away with the notion that your own efforts are irrelevent and you might have well had just sat back and rolled dice.

If you are saying that a player going the extra mile earns a bonus, surely. But I posit that if that "extra mile" is achieved with ease every time a PRE roll comes up (and PRE rolls should only come up when it matters at least somewhat), it is no extra mile whatsoever - it is metagaming, deliberate or not.

I really have never seen a benefit to the bad names thing.

Right there you've begun the setup for some success, this being a unique circumstance (unless ironic circumstances are so common in your game).

uhhh... well, so much for flavor text. i probably should have skipped the ironic part and just given the queen's stats, right?

BTW, what part of ironic leads you to equate that with success?

I see this as askew to what I'm saying if it so dire as represented. I have already stated that this being a heroic game, in the crunch such roleplaying is well within boundaries and will gain a bonus.

So are you saying that...
if his friends are in peril, this is a dire circumstance and he can earn a bonus for his choices (and presumably a penalty)...
but...
if his friends were not and this was just a conversation while they are off buying supplies and he meets the queen, then he would NOT be getting a bonus (or penalty) for his choices?

me, i see the bonus or penalty for choices as a given, regardless of dire or not dire... all the extra factors do is influence urgency and perhaps poigniancy.

However, if the player approaches every situation, as an 8 PRE character, with such eloquence, I WILL bump up his PRE, whether he likes it or not, by giving him XP for obviously having gained greater ability with his PRE. Whereas other players will likely get bonus XPs for things they really need!

Are you saying that you feel the second edgar example to be an example of high PRE?

You ignore that PRE is partly a matter of willpower and choice, while DEX is absolutely not. And that the GAME ALREADY GIVES A MECHANIC EQUAL FOR BOTH - PREPARATION!

actually i feel the game already provides a mechanic for both... the die roll and believe that in both cases the stats will matter. i just do not see the merit in also insisting the players cannot make choices that can either improve or reduce the odds of success.

You also ignore or do not believe that a character ought to roleplay his stats.

Did you not think either of my edgar examples were in line with the stats? i thought they were both good examples of it.

In the cases of mental/mind stats, that involves roleplaying them at the level they are on the page most of the time. Otherwise, why do they have these stats?? I contend it makes no sense to play an 8 PRE character like a 13 PRE character with anything at all approaching regularity.

They have the stats to determine the BASE mechanical point for the resolution. its establishes that if they have an 8, they start with a roll of 11-, not a roll of 17-, not a roll of 13-, but an 11-. They start with the same base chance as someone else with an 11 or a 9 or a 10.

From that base chance, their CHOICES will affect that likelihood.

I fully admit that the "this is heroic, a must-do" is a bit of a double-standard, but that is a "problem" with the genre. Take that one up with the writers of yore! :)

Again, i dont really see the need to enforce a vague sense of "entenuating circumstances" or "only if dire" counter to this. The mechanics handle themselves, i habdle everything else and it works fine.

It would depend somewhat on the player. Some players are not (to stick with this singular example) PRE-savvy. They simply can't turn in such performances. I've known plenty of guys like this. If they play a 20-PRE character, I'm only going to ding them for poor roleplaying if they just make a roll and don't want to try. Otherwise, I'm going to be sympathetic - after all this is a fantasy heroic game!

i have those too. in my current game i have a guy whose character is social skills out the wazoo and when i put the player in a social skill scene, he botches it mightily. aS HIS gM, i know his character is better than that. I know i cannot roleplay the conversation and hand him leading questions and openings and expect he, the player, will catch the hints and take the advantages. So the technique i use is to dialog the conversation, not roleplay it. I summarize what she says, not have her say it out... i have him give me generral or even specific instructions on what his character is trying to do, NOT HOW HIS CHARACTER IS DOING IT. (Just like i would ask a player what he was trying to do as in "hit the bad guy" or "hack the computer for data files" and NOT ask the player to describe the combat moves or the programs used. )

Even so, i can answere the question i asked.

You cannot? Ok.

No. But you ignore the range of choices, including not to use their PRE at all or to use their PRE improperly. By saying "I'm going to try to orate as best I can, mustering up my courage, and telling her what a powerful empress she is," they have made their action, their choice, even if it is less eloquent than someone who actually is eloquent.

I dont ignore the range of choices, i present two and ask how you would handle them. its really quite simple.

Depending on the player and circumstance. In this circumstance, and if the player were working at this hard (which means if they naturally speak as in the latter example above I am absolutely NOT giving a bonus), yes. In this circumstance, if the player were casting about pitifulyl and trying but inept, I'd be pretty likely to give a bonus. In this circumstance, if they don't give a crap, I'll demerit.

So it epends on the player's emotional state? if they are trying, bonus, if they are not, no bonus or maybe a demerit. Its the player-angst-level or player-strain-meter and not the choice made that determines the difference between bonus-irrelevent-penalty?

and here some people think i am invalidating stats by letting the choices matter a whit!

:-)

dataweaver

Apr 3rd, '04, 12:08 AM

How about this: for players with low intelligence or savvy, let the GM make an INT or PRE roll (respectively) on the character's behalf any time that the player's choice is, in the GM's opinion, stupid or crass. On a successful roll, he gives the player the option to reconsider his choice, giving hints as to why the player's choice might be inappropriate and possibly even suggesting a better alternative if the roll went especially well. The inverse - requiring a roll any time the player comes up with a brilliant idea that the character probably wouldn't have thought of - doesn't work nearly as well; in these cases, a better alternative is to take the player aside and advise him about his poor roleplaying.

caris

Apr 3rd, '04, 04:20 AM

Tesuji – I find it interesting that you seem to be arguing sides of the argument here. In the example you gave, for the two possible choices you posited you did not require any sort of skill or INT check, but for the choice that Hugh suggested you than required a skill or INT check. Why? The apparent reason would be that because in your two choices Jimmy is not doing anything out of line for his character’s INT, but in Hugh’s he would be. To phrase differently Jimmy in your examples is playing his character’s INT so is not being penalized by being forced to a game mechanic to deal with the situation, where as in Hugh’s because he is not playing in his character’s INT he is being penalized by being forced to rely on the game mechanic. Yet, you seem to be implying that every time a social interaction comes up, you base the result on the die roll. If you abstract all aspects of character interaction and all results are ultimately based on what I roll, why bother putting any effort into being entertaining or “getting” into character at all?

In your example, assuming that Jimmy took actions to convey to me that Edgar is a lot more impressed and to an extent intimidated by his surroundings and the situation than Adarick the 21 PRE courtier was. I would not require a roll at all. The queen would swayed by my interpretation of her reaction to his presentation and choice of tactic. In your example, I would not give any modifier to the PRE roll or the skill check because it wouldn’t be the final decider in the situation. Just as if the situation were reversed, and if I were playing the Queen appealing to Edgar for his aid in saving the Kingdom, I wouldn’t expect Jimmy to base his decision to help or not solely on how well the Queen rolled on her Persuasion skill check. I would certainly appeal to Jimmy to use the result of the skill roll as a way of determining the Queen’s presentation, or comply with a request from Jimmy for a skill roll to help him in formulating his decision.

I’m not sure if it is your intention, but you are coming off like a person I used to game with. He would build a female character and give them persuasion, seduction, etc. and than attempt to use them on other PCs like some sort of mind control. To paraphrase a situation that actually happened: “My character, who has been insulting your character all game day, couldn’t carry any food with her, because I succeeded on my unmodified seduction roll Caris your character is so turned on by her he will give her some of his food.” I was never so glad that I had already established my PC’s non-heterosexuality with the GM before a campaign started.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 3rd, '04, 05:21 AM

In the rather blatent case you describe, about two sentences in i would ask the player to make an int check (assuming the character did not have a more appropriate skill) and would see a failure as indicating that the character was getting his geopolitical facts wrong. It would be assumed the character was not as eloquent at the discourse as the player was speaking... whereas in the case I listed, since the dialog was kept to simple terms there would not be such a problem.

And that is the key difference. In your example, the player is role playing his character well. He has played to the character's limnitations, not tried to achieve a better result than the character could have achieved by imposing his own, superior, personal qualities. Edgar can't deliver a political dissertation. His player likely cannot fight effectively with a greatsword.

These highlight just what i mean... the first makes a bad choice and gets a penalty. The second makes a good choice and keeps it within his character's capabilities.... he gets a bonus.

You keep commenting on choice. Let's also be aware that our 23 PRE 18 INT PLAYER made a choice to design a 5 INT 5 PRE CHARACTER. If he refuises to differentiate between his own abilities and those of the character, he is not accepting the remifications of that choice. The player who tries the "Get yer bony backside out there and help" approach and whines how "Edgar would never really say that" as he's being hauled of to the dungeon has accepted the consequences of his actions.

The one you mention (do you have players who actually do this or is this just a wild outlandish example?) is a case where the decision is not bad but a poor choice for the character.

To your () question, if the question is "Have I encountered such players", yes, absolutely. Do I game with them? No, they tend not to last long when their character's limitations are actually enforced. I do recall, some years back, a player who insisted his 1/2 orc fighter would know precisely how to man a large seacraft because he, the player, had this knowledge. Thuis, he should descriobe what the 1/2 orc does, and it should have the correct results, notwithstanding our 1/2 orc friend had no clue what the correct course of action would be.

As for Xp awards, i never base Xp on performance, so frankly all three would come out with the same XP. In my game, the benefits of good decisions vs bad decisions is the results they create in the game, period. A side benefit of that is a definite fostering of having the choices effects represented in game as opposed to an atitude of "maybe i will just reward him later with an out of game Xp bonus."

Ahhh...so my choices as a player have no effect in growing my character in the game. So when a player ignores psych lim's because it's the right choice for the situation, how does that get addressed? Of course, there's the ultimate xp sanction - you just aren't invited any more and your character earns no more xp as a result.

tesuji

Apr 3rd, '04, 07:34 AM

[/QUOTE]

Tesuji – I find it interesting that you seem to be arguing sides of the argument here. In the example you gave, for the two possible choices you posited you did not require any sort of skill or INT check, but for the choice that Hugh suggested you than required a skill or INT check. Why?

Example: Player says ",y character brushes his teeth." i say OK requiring no roll. The action the player described was well within his capabilities and thus needed no roll. I believe under the skill section in HERo it goes into not requiring rolls for such things. The two examples i gave were both well within the capabilities of and fairly good examples of IMO a low int low pre character. So no roll was needed to make sure the character said what the player wanted him to say.

Hugh's example was not such a case. So a roll weas neded to see if the character had the facts right. His player made a poor choice, he decided to base his action on a speel requiring good recollection of facts. Think of this as the mental equivalent of (to put it in comvat terms so it might be more recognizable here) a player running a balster who has multiple levels oto offset range penalties who chooses to fly up to point blank range with a brick. Now thats not choosing a tact which plays to his strong suit and he will likely fare worse than the guy who chose one which did. (He will likely get ounched.)

Hugh Neilson

Apr 3rd, '04, 08:17 AM

Example: Player says ",y character brushes his teeth." i say OK requiring no roll. The action the player described was well within his capabilities and thus needed no roll. I believe under the skill section in HERo it goes into not requiring rolls for such things. The two examples i gave were both well within the capabilities of and fairly good examples of IMO a low int low pre character. So no roll was needed to make sure the character said what the player wanted him to say.

Hugh's example was not such a case. So a roll weas neded to see if the character had the facts right. His player made a poor choice, he decided to base his action on a speel requiring good recollection of facts. Think of this as the mental equivalent of (to put it in comvat terms so it might be more recognizable here) a player running a balster who has multiple levels oto offset range penalties who chooses to fly up to point blank range with a brick. Now thats not choosing a tact which plays to his strong suit and he will likely fare worse than the guy who chose one which did. (He will likely get ounched.)[/QUOTE]

I think we're on the same page here. We may differ as to the specific bonuses/penalties involved in any given situation, but that's always a subjective judgement call issue.

Have to admit I think the combat analogy muddies the water, however. First, combat always requires rolls. Second, although the Blaster has chosen an approach which may not play to his strengths, he has chosen an approach which is well within the character's capabilities. He can fly, and he did. Not a smart maneuver, but one wel within his physical and mental capabilities to undertake.

Now, if he had "Fears melee combat" as a disadvantage, I would have a problem with his choice of tactic, and would possibly require a roll. He is now trying to play the character outside its abilities and conception.

tesuji

Apr 3rd, '04, 02:36 PM

I think we're on the same page here. We may differ as to the specific bonuses/penalties involved in any given situation, but that's always a subjective judgement call issue.

Have to admit I think the combat analogy muddies the water, however. First, combat always requires rolls. Second, although the Blaster has chosen an approach which may not play to his strengths, he has chosen an approach which is well within the character's capabilities. He can fly, and he did. Not a smart maneuver, but one wel within his physical and mental capabilities to undertake.

Now, if he had "Fears melee combat" as a disadvantage, I would have a problem with his choice of tactic, and would possibly require a roll. He is now trying to play the character outside its abilities and conception.

I use the combat anaolgy because of tweo reasons... first in my experience hero guys tend to get combat examples and tend to accept a lot of detailed tactical choices as acceptable... i do not think i have ever heard a Gm start to balk when, for the umpteenth time, the hero maneuvers so as to be able to knockback the villain into a wall instead of into the open road in HERo. The presumtpion of " i ought to be able to milk the tactical emphasis of the system to its utmost" seems a given. Yet, have an average PRE and try to talk you way out of s situation and suddenly the "well he is metagaming evil evil EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!" chants begin.

There are two DIFFERENT DISCREET and SEPARATE things being discussed here.

One is... "is the action the player describing within his character's range of capabilities." Whether thats a movement inches measure or a geopolitical thesis from a half-wit, thats an issue of "does he succeed" in the HOW. In most cases, a die roll can determine whether or not Edgar remembers the geopolitical laundry list or not.

The other is... "is it a good choice, a good thing to do, and will this choice help or hinder the thing you are trying to do." Within the scenario, the player, whether he is using his strong suit or his weak suit, should have meaningful decisions to make and should not be told by the GM (or not told and just have it done to him in secret) that his choices wont matter. OK, to cover my bases, insert "in the vast majority of cases." Good choices which improve the chance of success and bad choices which hurt the cnance of success can be done WITHIN the character's limitations.

of course, if your GM believes that good choices will just get you your stats and bad choices will get you decapitated... you might well just do whatever little you need to get to the stats rolls... after all, you can only hurt your case.

but, at its very simplest level, whether your pre is 5 or 10 or 15 or 90, in my games, you will have choices, meaningful choices, and those choices when resolving the social encounter can adjust the chance of success upward or downward. if you always choose the right choices and keep them within character, you will always get a better chance than if, in the same circumstance, you made worse choices.

The guy with 5 more pre, making the same choices, is even more likely to succeed.

meaningful choices... simple enough really.

zornwil

Apr 3rd, '04, 09:20 PM

I am speaking about CHOICES. If my character has a lower dex, i can still try and possibly succeed at dextrous things. At the point that you hit impossibilities ("cannot set or brace") we are not talking choices and odds but simply restrictions. having an 8 PRE does not restrict you from making better choices.

Bah, now I think you're nitpicking for the sake of it or deliberately ignoring what I wrote.

I will repost - "The PRE-deprived person may be able to do the same, trying to use INT or other compensatory factors, but where those lack or are irrelevant, he can do little more " - where did I leave out his choices?

IOW, so far, we are on the same page - the lower PRE character may prepare, may use skills, use his INT, all to boost effectively his PRE. Yes, I have not disagreed with that. IN FACT I STATED IT IN THE PRECISE SECTION YOU QUOTED! Pardon my shouting but really!

aren't 8 dex, 8 int, 8 pre the typical stats? Average person around oage 223 has 8's.

To my knowledge, the "average person" is not so tactically gifted - again, on a consistent basis, which is the CRUX of our seeming disagreement - as you described.

And in my experience, across two coasts and three different groups, players did not dwell on tactics to the extent you seem to paint if they had 10 INT - let alone 8 INT - characters.

I will add, for a tasty tangent, those 2 points from "average NPC human" to "average PC" factor in somewhat to the degree to which the PC has flexibility - after all, I'm not going to let the point-shaving pass for NOTHING. But it's a marginal point at best so, surely, I grant the point well enough that if you like we can equate 8 and 10 as the die roll is the same (though personally, I think 8 versus 10, given the definitions from the book, is a GREAT example of how points matter even if the die roll does not).

whyb should i assume that anything my "non-superhero" friend sitting across the table from me can figure out based on his own average guy intellect that his 8's average guy statted hero cannot... making exception for specific skills such as computing knowledge and the like?

8s are not infrimed or retarded or crippled... they are average guy... and even average guys can state their cases well sometimes.

Where did I say that would not happen "sometimes"?

ie not do better than any average guy could?

Other than hubirs, what leads you to believe that you would always earn a +1?

An average person? I'm sure they wouldn't. Other than getting into the truly picayune and mundane argument of what lattitude I give an 8 PRE PC versus a 10 PRE PC, we're still on here. (Incidentally, none of this argument so far is academic to me - we have an 8 INT PC in our group)

Our discussion kicked off from the point that we have a player who knows how to play a 13 PRE all the time and does so whenever he feels the need. Or, rather, that is the implication that I reacted to and tried to specifically point out prior to your example, and I still stand by the point that if you as GM will give a player +1 to his PRE every (or most of the) time he waxes eloquently, then you are encouraging that player to metagame - particularly and "criminally" (so to speak, i.e., against the rules of RPGing) when he is doing so in defiance of his character - whom he saw fit to buy with an 8 but play with a 13 whenever it pleases him.

What i would do, is almost always when you make good choices, you would see benefits and almost always when you made bad choices, you would see penalties.

We're still discussing choices instead of acting and discussing PRE? Indeed, we are spot on still!

I would want you, as my player, to always come away knowing that your choices matter, that your decisions affect the outcome, and never ever to walk away with the notion that your own efforts are irrelevent and you might have well had just sat back and rolled dice.

I really have never seen a benefit to the bad names thing.

I have no clue what you mean by this last sentence. I didn't say to call someone a metagamer, but I am stating and I will stand by that it is metagaming to consistently play a character in a way that is more convenient to being successful in the game than the way you constructed the character.

uhhh... well, so much for flavor text. i probably should have skipped the ironic part and just given the queen's stats, right?

BTW, what part of ironic leads you to equate that with success?

Specifically, it sounds like a plot twist where the low-PRE character saves the day. A common heroic-fiction device, and one where we expect our PC to suddenly surprise us.

So are you saying that...
if his friends are in peril, this is a dire circumstance and he can earn a bonus for his choices (and presumably a penalty)...
but...
if his friends were not and this was just a conversation while they are off buying supplies and he meets the queen, then he would NOT be getting a bonus (or penalty) for his choices?

No, not at all, I suppose I'll have to apologize as my point must have been poorly made.

Look, this game is all about - and IMNSHO ONLY about - heroic fantasy/story-telling. In the crunch, we can accept one to rise above oneself. But in the mundane, we expect the fool to be the fool, the shy to be the shy, the brave to be the brave, the cowardly to be the cowardly, etc.. Not every moment, and not enforcably per incident, but on the whole, certainly.

So I believe a GM ought to be more willing to grant bonuses to enable those big dramatic moments than in those more mundane steps along the way.

me, i see the bonus or penalty for choices as a given, regardless of dire or not dire... all the extra factors do is influence urgency and perhaps poigniancy.

Are you saying that you feel the second edgar example to be an example of high PRE?

HighER PRE. Yes. At least for many gamers I have met. :) I'd say the majority of gamers I've met can write as you wrote, but around half can actually speak as you wrote that. (Very roughly, my gut feel)

However, now that I've reread (see my note below), I can see that both of these could come from an 8 PRE character - though not being there to see the player acting it out, I can't tell if that's quite true, as the second example you gave could have been delivered with moving sentiment or hesitant stammering. If the former, and if I didn't know of the character's abilities, I'd assume he were an above-average PRE and a low INT. If the latter, again not knowing the character's ability, I'd assume he were average or worse PRE and average or better INT.

actually i feel the game already provides a mechanic for both... the die roll and believe that in both cases the stats will matter. i just do not see the merit in also insisting the players cannot make choices that can either improve or reduce the odds of success.

Again, there has been no restriction on the player's CHOICES from my end.

Did you not think either of my edgar examples were in line with the stats? i thought they were both good examples of it.

Actually, I went back just now, and I don't feel like correcting the above (feeling sick still, thought I was better, now sick again - ah hell I'll go back up and correct anything above (in THIS post I mean)), but let me say that actually your second example was in fact in character for a player in the crunch. Whether I gave a + or not for it would really depend - innately I don't know that I would. I was reacting more from a hasty reading and your comment of adding +1, and I apologize.

So stepping back, would I give a bonus? Only if it was in keeping with the queen's character to be touched by such. If not, no.

Would I give the first version a demerit? Probably not.

However, now that I've reread (and again please accept my sincere apology) , the reactions to both would be different somewhat regardless of the die roll. The first version will carry no favor to it in response, at least not intrinsically. The second version will at least get the queen to discuss the matter (barring utter failure - sometimes it's fun to let whimsy occur - or barring the queen's character standing well to the contrary) and allow the character some more thinking time.

They have the stats to determine the BASE mechanical point for the resolution. its establishes that if they have an 8, they start with a roll of 11-, not a roll of 17-, not a roll of 13-, but an 11-. They start with the same base chance as someone else with an 11 or a 9 or a 10.

From that base chance, their CHOICES will affect that likelihood.

Again, i dont really see the need to enforce a vague sense of "entenuating circumstances" or "only if dire" counter to this. The mechanics handle themselves, i habdle everything else and it works fine.

Personally, I think if you do not allow for extenuating or dire circumstances to affect some chances (again, if the player is making an attempt), you are missing half the point of heroic fiction. But that's your business.

i have those too. in my current game i have a guy whose character is social skills out the wazoo and when i put the player in a social skill scene, he botches it mightily. aS HIS gM, i know his character is better than that. I know i cannot roleplay the conversation and hand him leading questions and openings and expect he, the player, will catch the hints and take the advantages. So the technique i use is to dialog the conversation, not roleplay it. I summarize what she says, not have her say it out... i have him give me generral or even specific instructions on what his character is trying to do, NOT HOW HIS CHARACTER IS DOING IT. (Just like i would ask a player what he was trying to do as in "hit the bad guy" or "hack the computer for data files" and NOT ask the player to describe the combat moves or the programs used. )

Even so, i can answere the question i asked.

You cannot? Ok.

Well, let's be fair here, I did anyway.

But the ISSUE AT HAND is that your example is not the real issue here. The real issue here is: do you allow a person who is a smooth talker to take an 8 PRE, with no Conversation Skill, get a bonus for his normal smooth talking most every time he plays his character? I would certainly hope not. Yet your answers to date seem to have stubbornly dug in and, rather than addressed that head-on, insisted by this moment-in-time example, "it's okay!"

I dont ignore the range of choices, i present two and ask how you would handle them. its really quite simple.

Well, your two choices both related, I believe, to the players ACTING ability, NOT to a conscious ability to speak one way or the other. Again, I don't know this player playing Edgar. YOU do.

It's much like saying that in your DEX example the player can only move forward or hang back. If he only had those two choices, and his INT were 10 or better, surely going forward would be appropriate each and every time. If his INT were 8, I'd hope to see the PC screw up once in a while, but I wouldn't expect it much and wouldn't presume much as to where to draw the line.

So it epends on the player's emotional state? if they are trying, bonus, if they are not, no bonus or maybe a demerit. Its the player-angst-level or player-strain-meter and not the choice made that determines the difference between bonus-irrelevent-penalty?

and here some people think i am invalidating stats by letting the choices matter a whit!

:-)

You really don't think what a player puts in matters? So if the guy just says "whatever, sure, fine" you count that as good RPGing as "I, uh, well, I try to persuade him by, um, flattering him, right? And then I try to...uh...talk about his family!?" Or the same as the player saying, "oh, hang on, hang on, let me get this thing out of my bag! oh, yeah - here - (he pulls out a stuffed rabbit) - okay, I touch his face like this (putting his hand to a cheek) and - WATCH THIS! - I then deftly move my hand down to his toe and tickle it, a sign of affection among his people, I know, 'cause my character lived there" - using his INT and as a player also being rather clever and demonstrative.

Naturally in each case we have to adjust a little for the people we know and love. ;)

Anyway, THAT is what I am talking about. Absolutely, I will bonus or demerit accordingly.

Vorsch

Apr 3rd, '04, 09:30 PM

Players should play there characteristics, if you want to be persuasive buy high presence, otherwise dont.

Its a roleplaying issue, build the character the way you in tend to play him

Hugh Neilson

Apr 4th, '04, 06:13 AM

Our discussion kicked off from the point that we have a player who knows how to play a 13 PRE all the time and does so whenever he feels the need. Or, rather, that is the implication that I reacted to and tried to specifically point out prior to your example, and I still stand by the point that if you as GM will give a player +1 to his PRE every (or most of the) time he waxes eloquently, then you are encouraging that player to metagame - particularly and "criminally" (so to speak, i.e., against the rules of RPGing) when he is doing so in defiance of his character - whom he saw fit to buy with an 8 but play with a 13 whenever it pleases him.

************************************************** ******

I have no clue what you mean by this last sentence. I didn't say to call someone a metagamer, but I am stating and I will stand by that it is metagaming to consistently play a character in a way that is more convenient to being successful in the game than the way you constructed the character.

************************************************** ********

HighER PRE. Yes. At least for many gamers I have met. :) I'd say the majority of gamers I've met can write as you wrote, but around half can actually speak as you wrote that. (Very roughly, my gut feel)

However, now that I've reread (see my note below), I can see that both of these could come from an 8 PRE character - though not being there to see the player acting it out, I can't tell if that's quite true, as the second example you gave could have been delivered with moving sentiment or hesitant stammering. If the former, and if I didn't know of the character's abilities, I'd assume he were an above-average PRE and a low INT. If the latter, again not knowing the character's ability, I'd assume he were average or worse PRE and average or better INT.

************************************************** ********

But the ISSUE AT HAND is that your example is not the real issue here. The real issue here is: do you allow a person who is a smooth talker to take an 8 PRE, with no Conversation Skill, get a bonus for his normal smooth talking most every time he plays his character? I would certainly hope not. Yet your answers to date seem to have stubbornly dug in and, rather than addressed that head-on, insisted by this moment-in-time example, "it's okay!"

Well, your two choices both related, I believe, to the players ACTING ability, NOT to a conscious ability to speak one way or the other. Again, I don't know this player playing Edgar. YOU do.

I've sliced up Zornwil's post above - apologies if that takes it out of context. I agree with everything said above. And yes, like Zornwil (I believe) I have a problem with a player who sells back 5 points of PRE and them plays him as eloquent and persuasive, expecting to offset the drawbacks of his character design CHOICE by role playing the character as something he is not. If your character has a 5 PRE because he is shy, I expect him to be played as shy. If he has a penalty to interaction skills because he is gruff and abrasive (a disadvantage), I expect him to be played as gruff and abrasive. In both cases, the character obtained points for accepting a limitation - now PLAY the limitation. A character's drawbacks are every bit as much a part of the character as his strengths. So make wise tactocal choices - let the 23 PRE act as spokesperson and avoid that role as much as possible. But don't expect you can role play your way to the same advantages as a 23 PRE character when the guy who spent thoise extra 18 points isn't there to negotiate for you. He doesn't get +8 STR and 3 levels in HTH when you're not there in combat!

I'll also add one further muddying factor to the water. So far, we're talking about player characters. If Edgar the Simple (PC) can get +3 to his roll (to pick a number out of the air)( by choosing his words with care, how does Igor the Dullard (an NPC of the same point level as Edgar) obtain a similar bonus? He has the same stats. He paid the same points. He is a "major NPC", not a Mook. He should have al the same advantages as Edgar. If Edgar can get a bonus for carefully choosing his words, Igor should be entitled to the same bonus. Now, most of the people I game with will look at the dice and say "A FOUR - wow, Igor really rose above himself and gave an impassioned speech!" But Edgar can also roll a four. PLUS, he can get the added GM largesse of a bonus for PLAYER eloquence. Should the players assess bonuses fore GM eloquence in assessing an NPC's success chances?

The simple fact is, by constantly orating in an effort to get those bonuses, the player is not playing his 5 PRE. As Zornwil has said, extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. For Edgar to reach inside and overcome his shyness - this once - because the chips are down and he'll overcome his fears to help his friends, so be it. If Edgar is able to overcome his shyness every time, it's about time Edgar bought off his disadvantage by putting some xp into presence. Only being limited when it isn't a limitation doesn't strike me as being a limitation at all. [No points for selling back your presence and buying it back "only when alone" either, to use an absurd example]

Polaris1

Apr 5th, '04, 09:13 PM

zornwil

Apr 5th, '04, 09:52 PM

Guys,

I am new here so I am jumping in after reading this thread with some trepidation. I am unconvinced that HERO would work very well with fewer stats (although I do think that COM should be canned and replaced with an appropriate Talent and/or Perk and/or Disadvantage(s)).

That said, part of the problem seems to be that a lot of you have completely lost sight of the fact that Intelligence in HERO has nothing to do with your real world intelligence. Because of that, I would strongly object if the DM tried to penalize me for "poor roleplaying" because my Int 8 scientist (a character type that page 23 of the HERO main book says is perfectly valid) comes up with a brilliant idea. That is because in HERO Intelligence measures how quickly you dredge up information you already have but it does not measure your cognition (your ability to learn new information or how fast you learn new information). The fact that neither Knowledge nor Science skills are Int based should be a dead giveaway.

However, IMHO, a lot of people (frankly including me) think that intelligence should mean cognition (because that is what intelligence means IRL) but in HERO it does not and before players are penalized, the GM should remember that.

AFAICT in the HERO system, the best measure of Cognition (the ability to learn new information fast and well) is your skill levels (especially Overall Skill Levels) and IMHO a "highly intelligent" character should invest in lots of Skill Levels (esp Overall Skill Levels) rather than the INT characteristic per se. Of course that brings up the issue that for it's price INT is basically worthless but that is another (tangential) topic.

-Polaris

Well, you needn't have felt so much trepidation, it's a fair point, although there is some contention still on just to what degree INT means cognition (given that cognitive skills are INT-based to find the answer at all, though you get +s for preparation/time spent). Nonetheless, I essentially agree, so long as we throw in as the book mentions (and your post did make me look it up) that it is also the "processing" of thought, how well one uses the knowledge one has, so speed, yes, but also the way in which it is processed, which is necessarily fuzzier, so that is where we get into cognitive ability and hence I imagine why we always see INT now as the basis for all such skills whereas in pre-5th there were some skills left as 11/less (no char. modifier). That does also therefore allow for some creeping in of the question of how you apply your knowledge, not just how quickly.

Polaris1

Apr 5th, '04, 10:42 PM

Zornwil,

According to my copy of the main rulebook, Science and Knowledge skills (the classic skills of cognitive learning btw) are still 11- "statless" skills. Yes, you are given the option (for a cost of one CP and one extra per level) of making them stat based and while the suggested stat is INT it is not required.

My point is this: Although I am new to the HERO boards, I have played the HERO system off and on for some time, and when it comes to HERO, I tend to be a game mechanical "purist". By that I mean that in HERO, if the game mechanics don't support the notion of a certain property belonging to a certain power (such as cognition belong to the INT characteristic) then it doesn't. Period. No matter how much we think it should; it simply does not. IMHO that is the logical conclusion from effect based reasoning.

Classically Intelligence (which I will call cognative Intelligence just to be clear) represents how fast you learn/master new information. Given that definition (which seems to be the one most psychologists and psychiatrists can agree on), then Overall Skill Levels are the proper measure of cognative Intelligence not the HERO INT score. [That's also because cognative intelligence does in fact help you learn any skill although you might be naturally bad at it....a fact familiar to almost any teacher and Military Drill Instructor.]

That's why I cringe when I hear about GMs "punishing" players with INT 8 characters for showing Intelligence in the game....even when the game disagrees with what those GMs are calling INT!

FWIW, I think that Intelligence simply needs to be reexamined because AFAICT there is no point in taking it past a 13 or even an 8(!!) in many (even most) cases. Of course, let's admit here and now that in any system, you will find things that are simply not done well....and let's everyone admit that skills (and by extension Intelligence which is intimately connected with learning and thus skills) is one such area in HERO.

-Polaris

zornwil

Apr 6th, '04, 09:51 PM

Zornwil,

According to my copy of the main rulebook, Science and Knowledge skills (the classic skills of cognitive learning btw) are still 11- "statless" skills. Yes, you are given the option (for a cost of one CP and one extra per level) of making them stat based and while the suggested stat is INT it is not required.

Whoops, sorry, yes!

BTW, though, just to be clear, that +1 CP and +1/level simply makes those consistent with other INT-based skills. In any case, though, yes, quite right!

My point is this: Although I am new to the HERO boards, I have played the HERO system off and on for some time, and when it comes to HERO, I tend to be a game mechanical "purist". By that I mean that in HERO, if the game mechanics don't support the notion of a certain property belonging to a certain power (such as cognition belong to the INT characteristic) then it doesn't. Period. No matter how much we think it should; it simply does not. IMHO that is the logical conclusion from effect based reasoning.

Classically Intelligence (which I will call cognative Intelligence just to be clear) represents how fast you learn/master new information. Given that definition (which seems to be the one most psychologists and psychiatrists can agree on), then Overall Skill Levels are the proper measure of cognative Intelligence not the HERO INT score. [That's also because cognative intelligence does in fact help you learn any skill although you might be naturally bad at it....a fact familiar to almost any teacher and Military Drill Instructor.]

That's why I cringe when I hear about GMs "punishing" players with INT 8 characters for showing Intelligence in the game....even when the game disagrees with what those GMs are calling INT!

FWIW, I think that Intelligence simply needs to be reexamined because AFAICT there is no point in taking it past a 13 or even an 8(!!) in many (even most) cases. Of course, let's admit here and now that in any system, you will find things that are simply not done well....and let's everyone admit that skills (and by extension Intelligence which is intimately connected with learning and thus skills) is one such area in HERO.

-Polaris

You're forgetting PER rolls. That is one of the leading causes for inflated INTs.

However, MANY skills depend on INT and if you're running a detective or such other types, you'll necessarily need an INT much better than 13 for anything but a fairly mundane game.

And this is setting aside the game in which I have 2 PCs engaged in an INT war, both with INTs in excess of 100!

Polaris1

Apr 6th, '04, 10:50 PM

Whoops, sorry, yes!

BTW, though, just to be clear, that +1 CP and +1/level simply makes those consistent with other INT-based skills. In any case, though, yes, quite right!

Except it doesn't even do that. According to page 30 of the main book, you can base it off of any characteristic. It just says that Knowledge and Science skills are usually based on INT if you pay the extra. That IMHO pretty much shoots down the idea that INT has anything to do with Cognition in HERO.

You're forgetting PER rolls. That is one of the leading causes for inflated INTs.

However, MANY skills depend on INT and if you're running a detective or such other types, you'll necessarily need an INT much better than 13 for anything but a fairly mundane game.

And this is setting aside the game in which I have 2 PCs engaged in an INT war, both with INTs in excess of 100!

Actually I am forgetting no such thing.

1. Extra PER only costs 3pts per +1 for all your sense groups. This is much cheaper than buying INT (which will cost you 5 points for the same +1).

2. You can get a +5pt skill level that applies to all INT based rolls regardless and because you can change it as a zero-phase action (which is essentially free for this purpose), it is at least as good as buying the INT....especially since you can upgrade for a mere 3 points per level to.....

3. General Non-Combat Skill Levels which gives you the same +1 to any skill and any non-combat attribute roll....and for a mere two points more per level you can upgrade to....

4. Overall Skill Levels which gives you all the advantages above including great PER rolls and can actually be used as OCV and/or DCV in combat!

I mean no offense, but if you are buying more than a 13 INT in HERO (and arguable more than an 8(!!) ), then you don't know what you are doing. [I find the uselessness of INT to be objectionable in HERO....one of the system's few warts....goes along with the sub-standard (IMHO) skill system.]

-Polaris

caris

Apr 6th, '04, 11:33 PM

Gary

Apr 7th, '04, 12:13 AM

Except it doesn't even do that. According to page 30 of the main book, you can base it off of any characteristic. It just says that Knowledge and Science skills are usually based on INT if you pay the extra. That IMHO pretty much shoots down the idea that INT has anything to do with Cognition in HERO.

Caris covered this one.

Actually I am forgetting no such thing.

1. Extra PER only costs 3pts per +1 for all your sense groups. This is much cheaper than buying INT (which will cost you 5 points for the same +1).

It's only cheaper than Int if you don't have any Int based skills. If you have Int based skills, then Int becomes the better buy.

2. You can get a +5pt skill level that applies to all INT based rolls regardless and because you can change it as a zero-phase action (which is essentially free for this purpose), it is at least as good as buying the INT....especially since you can upgrade for a mere 3 points per level to.....

But you can only use that skill level for one skill at a time. Often it's important to be able to use multiple skills at the same time as complementary skills to the primary skill. Int allows all Int based skills to get the bonus at the same time. And of course you don't get any Perception Roll bonus with a 5 pt skill level.

3. General Non-Combat Skill Levels which gives you the same +1 to any skill and any non-combat attribute roll....and for a mere two points more per level you can upgrade to....

It depends on how many skills you have. It's certainly not efficient for scientific or magician type characters who don't have many non-Int based skills. And this level of skill roll still doesn't add to perception rolls and can't be used for multiple skills simultaneously.

4. Overall Skill Levels which gives you all the advantages above including great PER rolls and can actually be used as OCV and/or DCV in combat!

This is better, but very expensive. For the cost of that single overall level, you can purchase +10 int which gives you +2 to all Int based skills and +2 to all perception rolls. There are many characters where the Int is a better buy.

I mean no offense, but if you are buying more than a 13 INT in HERO (and arguable more than an 8(!!) ), then you don't know what you are doing. [I find the uselessness of INT to be objectionable in HERO....one of the system's few warts....goes along with the sub-standard (IMHO) skill system.]

-Polaris

That comment would be a surprise to my gaming group and every other gaming group I've been a part of. Int is actually an excellent purchase for certain character types, and certainly not "useless".

Polaris1

Apr 7th, '04, 12:42 AM

Gary

Apr 7th, '04, 12:55 AM

Guys,

1. INT in Hero has nothing (or at least very little) to do with what we call Intelligence in real life, i.e. it has nothing to do with cognition. If it were than all Knowledge and Science skills would be based on INT.....and they aren't.

Caris already covered this one.

2. I would say that your players, Gary, don't in fact know what the hell they are doing. That is especially true in Heroic (rather than Super-Heroic) campaigns where Normal Characteristic Maximima apply. Sure you can get a 13- Per roll just with INT....but really that isn't especially good. I also note that changing skill levels is a zero phase action which means you can in fact use those skill levels in two seperate skills in rapid succession.....and besides getting the complementary skills even with a high INT is chancy at best. I have almost as good a chance with a 12- roll with a 13 INT as you will with a 13- roll with an 18 INT.

1) You're being very rude and insulting. Please stop

2) I'm getting a 13- perception roll and 13- Int skill rolls with that 18 Int. You're getting only 12- Perception roll and 13- Int skill rolls for a 13 Int and +1 Int skill rolls, for the same price. I have the better deal by far.

3) 12- is a 74% chance. 13- is a 84% chance. A very significant difference. And certainly there are going to be cases where the GM is going to impose penalties to the roll, either because it's an opposed action, or because the action is considered more difficult than normal.

4) We're talking about the general case for Int, not the NCM case. If you wanted to refer to a NCM campaign, you should have said so from the start.

3. (This especially applies to Heroic Campaigns) There is no intrinsic limitation to Overall Skill Levels. Thus you have a built in defense, offense, perception, and skills for a bargin basement price. This is especially true for INTs above 20 where you are paying 10 points for a +1 Per and +1 to all INT rolls while I am getting the same thing....and so much more....with an Overall Skill Level for exactly the same number of points.

We're not talking about NCM campaigns. We're talking about the general case. And some character types do better with +2 Int rolls and +2 Perception rolls than +1 overall.

Don't take my word on it....try it out and see. You will find that INT is especially useless at low point totals....and this is something I found out the hard way. [Once you go Overall Skill Level for skills, you will never go back...trust me ;) ]

-Polaris

Many of us here are experienced veterans with many years of play. We've created and played dozens of characters. Int is not a useless skill, and I wonder at your actual experience if you think it is.

Polaris1

Apr 7th, '04, 01:34 AM

Caris already covered this one.

No he didn't. Let me explain in more detail. Let's say that I want to build a "supra-genious" Professor that is immensely skilled in say.....23 science skills and 23 knowledge skills

So what is the better build?

1. Increasing your Int as high as you can afford (say 38 in a super-heroic game) which would cost you 28 points for the INT plus another 92 for the science and knowledge skills plus another 6 for the scientist and scholar skill enhancers? That would be a total of 136 points. Your science and knowledge skills are now at a 17-

OR

2. Buy down your Int to an 8 for -2 points, only pay 1 point per skill (for 46 points) plus the skill enhancers for another 6. So far that is 52 points. Now buy 6 Overall Skill levels for 60 points. You have now spent 112 points actually saving you 24 points! Let's go ahead and put 4 of those into +2 Int Rolls (which includes perception) which still leaves me with a savings of 20 points! My guy also has a his science and knowledge skills at a 17- and actually learns them better . Indeed this is the classic definition of intelligence! My guy learns new science skills faster which indeed is the [b]classic definition of cognitive intelligence. In addition, he has a PER score of 19- (better than your guy) and has six Overall Combat Levels to boot!

Clearly the second guy is the "smarter" character because he has learned more for the same effort (the classic definition of cognitive Intelligence). That should pretty much put the kybosh on any notion that INT in HERO has anything to do with cognitive intelligence.

EDIT: Fixed example to correctly show how the science and knowledge skills show that INT (in HERO) is not cognitive. Messed up my math (and thus my example) the first time....sorry. It works now.

1) You're being very rude and insulting. Please stop

Right back at you. If you (and others) are going to insult players for "being out of character" when it is clear you don't really know what the INT stat means in HERO, then any grief you get from me leave me totally unmoved.

2) I'm getting a 13- perception roll and 13- Int skill rolls with that 18 Int. You're getting only 12- Perception roll and 13- Int skill rolls for a 13 Int and +1 Int skill rolls, for the same price. I have the better deal by far.

Au Contraire. Look at the above example. It is a damning condemation of the INT stat. Compare the guy with an INT of 8 and a Overall Skill level to the guy with an INT of 18. The guy with an INT of 8 has a 12- PER roll (just one less than the guy with 18 INT), and has the same 12- vice 13- (which is NOT that significant...your numbers prove it) for INT Skills and has a +1 to every other characteristic and skill roll outside of INT. In addition to that, he has an Overall Combat level.

Tell me again who got the better deal?

3) 12- is a 74% chance. 13- is a 84% chance. A very significant difference. And certainly there are going to be cases where the GM is going to impose penalties to the roll, either because it's an opposed action, or because the action is considered more difficult than normal.

That is a 9% difference which is almost statistical noise in a 3d6 system (I have played enough of HERO and GURPS to know). +/- 1 is not that big a deal in a 3d6 system. Actually when penalties are imposed, they both are almost equally unlikely once you go below +/- one standard deviation.

4) We're talking about the general case for Int, not the NCM case. If you wanted to refer to a NCM campaign, you should have said so from the start.

No, you have to include this case. We are talking about the HERO system as a whole and Normal Characteristic Maxima are a part of that which means my point needs to be considered....especially for settings like Fantasy HERO and Star HERO where INT is particularly worthless.

We're not talking about NCM campaigns. We're talking about the general case. And some character types do better with +2 Int rolls and +2 Perception rolls than +1 overall.

See my above example. The discrepency becomes even MORE pronounced the more skills (especially INT skills) you buy.

Many of us here are experienced veterans with many years of play. We've created and played dozens of characters. Int is not a useless skill, and I wonder at your actual experience if you think it is.

I first played HERO back in 1984 so I have more experience than you might believe. You just have some blind spots. Try building skill based characters with 13 Ints and as many OSLs as you can afford......TRY it before you tell me that I am wrong....because I'm not (and I have fairly extensive personal experience that backs me on this).

-Polaris

caris

Apr 7th, '04, 03:48 AM

Ok, I mentioned the description of Knowledge and Science skills correct, so that we did not have people bringing GMs with KS’s based on CON or STR.

Polaris, your example does show a cost saving, but it does not show why the cost savings exist. Not all tasks take no time or 0 phase. Your character in the above example, if he had used his skill levels as CV during an attack, would only have an 13- (at best) for his per roll if asked for one by his GM before his next action, since you may not abort to reassigning skill levels. The character might not even have the 13- if the GM feels to enforce the advice in the FAQ that skill levels not be set to a “default”, but must be assigned actively. Things get more troublesome when the GM declares some actions must take a certain amount of time regardless of skill level or time reduction do to success. For example, dismantling a bomb, might take a minimum of 3 phases, simply because it takes that long to get to the proper area within the bomb without setting it off. During that entire time the character would not be able to reassign his skill levels. You may be able to use the levels for your complimentary skills for a single task, but the GM might rule with the FAQ advice not to allow that precedent.

So while the character may have some of the bonuses that we associate with cognitive intelligence, but not all of the ones we associate with classical intelligence, primarily multi-tasking.

Gary

Apr 7th, '04, 03:49 AM

No he didn't. Let me explain in more detail. Let's say that I want to build a "supra-genious" Professor that is immensely skilled in say.....23 science skills and 23 knowledge skills

So what is the better build?

1. Increasing your Int as high as you can afford (say 38 in a super-heroic game) which would cost you 28 points for the INT plus another 92 for the science and knowledge skills plus another 6 for the scientist and scholar skill enhancers? That would be a total of 136 points. Your science and knowledge skills are now at a 17-

OR

2. Buy down your Int to an 8 for -2 points, only pay 1 point per skill (for 46 points) plus the skill enhancers for another 6. So far that is 52 points. Now buy 6 Overall Skill levels for 60 points. You have now spent 112 points actually saving you 24 points! Let's go ahead and put 4 of those into +2 Int Rolls (which includes perception) which still leaves me with a savings of 20 points! My guy also has a his science and knowledge skills at a 17- and actually learns them better . Indeed this is the classic definition of intelligence! My guy learns new science skills faster which indeed is the [b]classic definition of cognitive intelligence. In addition, he has a PER score of 19- (better than your guy) and has six Overall Combat Levels to boot!

Clearly the second guy is the "smarter" character because he has learned more for the same effort (the classic definition of cognitive Intelligence). That should pretty much put the kybosh on any notion that INT in HERO has anything to do with cognitive intelligence.

EDIT: Fixed example to correctly show how the science and knowledge skills show that INT (in HERO) is not cognitive. Messed up my math (and thus my example) the first time....sorry. It works now.

In your cherry picked example, number 2 is the better deal. Of course that's an extreme case with 46 KS and SS skills. Not bloody likely in a typical 350 pt campaign.

Let's take a more likely example. 15 Intellect skills. The standard 3/2 skills such as computer programming, deduction, and concealment.

1) Buy up Int to 38. Total cost 28+45 or 73 pts. Player 1 has 17- with all his Intellect skills, and 17- perception roll.

1) Buy down Int to 8, and buy 3 overall levels. Total cost -2+30+45=73 pts. Player 2 has 14- with his Intellect skills and 14- perception rolls.

Now which is the better deal? My computer programmer is going to hack your program far more often than you will be able to protect it. A 17- will generally crush a 14- in a skill vs skill contest.

Incidentally, you can lower your Int to 3 following your "logic" and trade that in for 1/2 overall level. And +2 to Perception rolls costs 6 pts, not 4 as in your example.

Right back at you. If you (and others) are going to insult players for "being out of character" when it is clear you don't really know what the INT stat means in HERO, then any grief you get from me leave me totally unmoved.

Int is the stat associated with such skills as Deduction and Inventor. Those are as good an example of cognitive abilities as you can get. And you claim that Int has nothing to do with cognitive abilities? And then you have the nerve to lecture me about this??? :rolleyes:

Au Contraire. Look at the above example. It is a damning condemation of the INT stat. Compare the guy with an INT of 8 and a Overall Skill level to the guy with an INT of 18. The guy with an INT of 8 has a 12- PER roll (just one less than the guy with 18 INT), and has the same 12- vice 13- (which is NOT that significant...your numbers prove it) for INT Skills and has a +1 to every other characteristic and skill roll outside of INT. In addition to that, he has an Overall Combat level.

Tell me again who got the better deal?

My guy has 13- Int rolls and Perception rolls. You have 12- with one or the other. It could be a problem if you're trying to Conceal yourself and something happens. The Int 18 guy Conceals himself on a 13- and has a 13- roll to perceive the event. The level guy has a 12- to Conceal himself, and only a 11- to spot the event. The level guy is clearly worse off.

That is a 9% difference which is almost statistical noise in a 3d6 system (I have played enough of HERO and GURPS to know). +/- 1 is not that big a deal in a 3d6 system. Actually when penalties are imposed, they both are almost equally unlikely once you go below +/- one standard deviation.

It's 10%, or 9.7% if you want to be exact. Hardly "statistical noise". +/-1 is a huge deal in a 3d6 system when you're near the middle. It's only at the ends that it ceases to mean much. Elementary mathematics.

No, you have to include this case. We are talking about the HERO system as a whole and Normal Characteristic Maxima are a part of that which means my point needs to be considered....especially for settings like Fantasy HERO and Star HERO where INT is particularly worthless.

You were arguing the general case in your first post. You did not in any way, shape, or form mention NCM. And even in a NCM campaign, buying Int up to 18 can be efficient if you have a number of Intellect skills.

See my above example. The discrepency becomes even MORE pronounced the more skills (especially INT skills) you buy.

And becomes LESS pronounced with less KS/SS and more regular Intellect skills.

I first played HERO back in 1984 so I have more experience than you might believe. You just have some blind spots. Try building skill based characters with 13 Ints and as many OSLs as you can afford......TRY it before you tell me that I am wrong....because I'm not (and I have fairly extensive personal experience that backs me on this).

-Polaris

The high overall level schtick may work in certain limited cases such as 46 KS/SS as in your example, but doesn't work in many cases.

I wonder about your experience when you claim that 10% is "statistical noise". :rolleyes:

Hugh Neilson

Apr 7th, '04, 05:27 AM

That comment would be a surprise to my gaming group and every other gaming group I've been a part of. Int is actually an excellent purchase for certain character types, and certainly not "useless".

While I concur, there is a catch here. Build a "pure combat" game, and INT becomes much less valuable. Allow the character some of the comic bok Inteligence abilities, and we're getting somewhere.

Comic book superscientists seem able to decipher virtually any alien technology in a very short period of time, where real world researchers would take years, or even lifetimes. Why? Because the comic book superscientist has vast inteligence - he understands and works out these new concepts infinitely faster. And Hero inteligence is about how fast the character thinks, remember?

Let's compare. In this corner, we have the Earthly Scientist. He's one of the finest in the field Int 18, and SS: Field of Expertise, INT roll, +6, so he has a 19- roll. Well pair him off against Richard Reed, SuperScientist. Richard has INT 48, and the same science skill (along wioth many others) on an INT roll, so he also has a 19- roll.

Now, let's show them some new Skreell technology - far beyond Earth's achievements. Mr. Scientist:

"Vhy this is many years ahead off our research! It's incredible! I could spend a lifetime studying it unt not effen scratch ze zurface!!"

Richard?

"It's certainly well ahead of anything here on Earth. Let's see...this looks like the fuel guage - it seems to run on a subatomic particle fusion generator - I've never gotten that off the theory page. I think if we flip this swicth, set that dial and pull this lever..."

vrrrrooooommmm

"Anyone up for a quick jaunt to Betelgeuse?"

ES: "Amazinnk, Dr. Reed! Simply amazink!"

zornwil

Apr 7th, '04, 09:38 AM

Except it doesn't even do that. According to page 30 of the main book, you can base it off of any characteristic. It just says that Knowledge and Science skills are usually based on INT if you pay the extra. That IMHO pretty much shoots down the idea that INT has anything to do with Cognition in HERO.

First, I granted your point.

Second, however, if you want to dive into "how things are done", you can't just dismiss the "usually" anymore than I can just dismiss that Sciences and Knowledges are General.

Third, the idea is hardly shot down considering that the exercise of INT-based skills is cognitive in nature.

Actually I am forgetting no such thing.

1. Extra PER only costs 3pts per +1 for all your sense groups. This is much cheaper than buying INT (which will cost you 5 points for the same +1).

2. You can get a +5pt skill level that applies to all INT based rolls regardless and because you can change it as a zero-phase action (which is essentially free for this purpose), it is at least as good as buying the INT....especially since you can upgrade for a mere 3 points per level to.....

3. General Non-Combat Skill Levels which gives you the same +1 to any skill and any non-combat attribute roll....and for a mere two points more per level you can upgrade to....

4. Overall Skill Levels which gives you all the advantages above including great PER rolls and can actually be used as OCV and/or DCV in combat!

I mean no offense, but if you are buying more than a 13 INT in HERO (and arguable more than an 8(!!) ), then you don't know what you are doing. [I find the uselessness of INT to be objectionable in HERO....one of the system's few warts....goes along with the sub-standard (IMHO) skill system.]

-Polaris

I'll be sure to tell the 3 players how have been playing 20 years who have INTs > 13 that they're doing it wrong. :rolleyes:

I'd respond more but clearly you and Gary are going at it and Gary can make the case fairly and well as to why one would buy a larger INT - even aside from the point that INT is a characteristic may buy up as this is a ROLE-PLAYING game and that is an important aspect in and of itself, and INT rolls do matter.

Polaris1

Apr 7th, '04, 11:01 AM

Zornwil,

I have the "nerve" to tell three players they are doing it wrong because they are. Period.

INT has nothing (or very little) to do with cognition. Even multitasking is quite well done (using your Reed Richards example) with Overall Skill Levels....and the person with an OSL learns faster than a person with a High INT.

Besides, I will not let you all get away with Superheroic stats all the time because in general you can't buy Superheroic stats without paying double. When you hit the characteristic Maximima you are definately better off with the OSLs.

As for the 12- or 13-, that makes the most difference near the peak of the bell curve. When modifiers get tossed in, this difference matters less and less....and complementary skills aren't that great....and OSL boy can try to get them too.

Point is that INT in HERO does not correspond will (or at all) to RL Intelligence and even the main book says you can have a GENIUS who has an INT of 10....which is why the idea that some of you want to punish INT 8 characters for having 'brilliant' ideas rankles.

Now, having said all of that, the rest of you have made some good points. If you had a lot of INT skills I perhaps can see getting your INT up to an 18, but really that would be about the limit. I have played both and for skills, skill levels are IMX almost always better (especially overall ones). That's because INT is too granular in HERO (which has been discussed elsewhere) because the difference between an INT of 3 (normal Human min) and an INT of 18 (normal human Max) is only the difference between a 10- and a 13- and that isn't a lot when you consider that it is supposed to represent the difference between an IQ of 30 and an IQ of 180.....which is yet more more reason why HERO INT has nothing (or at least very little) to do with RL IQ.

-Polaris

Hugh Neilson

Apr 7th, '04, 11:49 AM

I have the "nerve" to tell three players they are doing it wrong because they are. Period.

Point 1: Buying up INT is within the rules. Buying skill levels is within the rules. I therefore have difficulty stating either is "wrong".

INT has nothing (or very little) to do with cognition. Even multitasking is quite well done (using your Reed Richards example) with Overall Skill Levels....and the person with an OSL learns faster than a person with a High INT.

OK, we have a complex scientific problem. It involves chemistry, physics and simple processing speed. Therefore, make a Physics roll (the primary issue) with a complementary Chemistry and INT roll. You get a +1 bonus for every two points you make the CHEM or INT roll by. Because the task is so huge, complex and difficult, you have a -12 to the roll.

Richard: "I roll three 11's. With my 19- rolls, derived entirely from INT, I get a 4 point bonus from each of my Chemistry and INT rolls. That makes my roll for Physics a modified 3. Easy success."

Scientist: "Vell, I vill put my seffen leffels in Physics. I have 12- in INT and Chem, and a 19- in Physics. I too rolled three 11's. I get no bonus from either complementary roll, so I got an 11. I cannot understand it. Thank goodness ve haff Richard Reed here!"

Besides, I will not let you all get away with Superheroic stats all the time because in general you can't buy Superheroic stats without paying double. When you hit the characteristic Maximima you are definately better off with the OSLs.

Normal humans have normal human processing speed. How will your 75+75 character buy 56 INT based skills and a stack of OSL's?

As for the 12- or 13-, that makes the most difference near the peak of the bell curve. When modifiers get tossed in, this difference matters less and less....and complementary skills aren't that great....and OSL boy can try to get them too.

OSL's still get allocated to only one task at a time. Much like the Multipower question in the FAQ, I would not allow a player to switch and use these multiple times in a phase.

Point is that INT in HERO does not correspond will (or at all) to RL Intelligence and even the main book says you can have a GENIUS who has an INT of 10....which is why the idea that some of you want to punish INT 8 characters for having 'brilliant' ideas rankles.

INT is about processing speed. I won't punish him for having brilliant ideas. But it should take him longer to get there than it takes someone with higher INT. An 8 INT scientist may spend his whole life on a project that our comic book superscientist can accomplish in a day.

Now, having said all of that, the rest of you have made some good points. If you had a lot of INT skills I perhaps can see getting your INT up to an 18, but really that would be about the limit. I have played both and for skills, skill levels are IMX almost always better (especially overall ones). That's because INT is too granular in HERO (which has been discussed elsewhere) because the difference between an INT of 3 (normal Human min) and an INT of 18 (normal human Max) is only the difference between a 10- and a 13- and that isn't a lot when you consider that it is supposed to represent the difference between an IQ of 30 and an IQ of 180.....which is yet more more reason why HERO INT has nothing (or at least very little) to do with RL IQ.

Actually, not everyone who is a scientist has a high IQ. IQ does not measure every facet of intelligence. MENSA has members from all walks of life. High IQ does not equal high "mental skilled" job. But people with a high IQ do, in fact, process quicker. [Disclaimer: intro psych over 15 years ago.]

A 10- is a 50% chance. A 13-, as Gary noted, is 83.8%. That's a pretty big difference. Mr 10- roll drops the ball three times as often as Mr. 13-. Which one would you like doing your surgery? :jawdrop: 11- closes the gap a bit, and that's an 8 INT.

18 INT is 4x as smart as 8 INT. 20 INT is about 5 or six times as smart. [doubles every 5]. 0 to 20 is a factor of 16. That seems pretty broad to me. How many IQ points constitutes "twice as smart"?

Polaris1

Apr 7th, '04, 12:09 PM

Point 1: Buying up INT is within the rules. Buying skill levels is within the rules. I therefore have difficulty stating either is "wrong".

Clarification: What is "wrong" was what they were calling INT in HERO. INT has very little (if anything) to do with classic intelligence by the admission of the main book. Thus punishing a player because the DM has the wrong definition of INT in hero is WRONG.

OK, we have a complex scientific problem. It involves chemistry, physics and simple processing speed. Therefore, make a Physics roll (the primary issue) with a complementary Chemistry and INT roll. You get a +1 bonus for every two points you make the CHEM or INT roll by. Because the task is so huge, complex and difficult, you have a -12 to the roll.

Richard: "I roll three 11's. With my 19- rolls, derived entirely from INT, I get a 4 point bonus from each of my Chemistry and INT rolls. That makes my roll for Physics a modified 3. Easy success."

Scientist: "Vell, I vill put my seffen leffels in Physics. I have 12- in INT and Chem, and a 19- in Physics. I too rolled three 11's. I get no bonus from either complementary roll, so I got an 11. I cannot understand it. Thank goodness ve haff Richard Reed here!"

That is a contrived example and it is by no means clear in the main book (since changing skill levels is a zero phase action) that you can not in fact change them within the phase for all three. If you can (and I would argue that Rules As Written you can), then Scientist makes the check with ease too.

Besides, skill checks are almost always long actions which certainly means you will get the OSLs to all three skills.

Normal humans have normal human processing speed. How will your 75+75 character buy 56 INT based skills and a stack of OSL's?

Scale to taste. The principle remains that same. The point is that OSLs do more, period.

OSL's still get allocated to only one task at a time. Much like the Multipower question in the FAQ, I would not allow a player to switch and use these multiple times in a phase.

But it doesn't say that anywhere in the Rules As Written. You use them for one roll at a time, but you can still change them within your phase for free (see above).

INT is about processing speed. I won't punish him for having brilliant ideas. But it should take him longer to get there than it takes someone with higher INT. An 8 INT scientist may spend his whole life on a project that our comic book superscientist can accomplish in a day.

Which is defined how? Really, mental processing speed and cognition should go together. There I agree. The problem in HERO is that they don't (or at least not very well).

Actually, not everyone who is a scientist has a high IQ. IQ does not measure every facet of intelligence. MENSA has members from all walks of life. High IQ does not equal high "mental skilled" job. But people with a high IQ do, in fact, process quicker. [Disclaimer: intro psych over 15 years ago.]

Have you worked at many physics departments? I assure you that any scientist that earns a PHD does have a very high IQ (probably at least Genius Minus). Many don't have a lot of common sense, and scientists like people anywhere are a remarkably diverse bunch, but IQ is universal. It has to be because otherwise you simply could not learn and use the massive amounts of information needed in new and creative ways (another staple of classic intelligence btw). I agree such people process information quicker, but that is not the whole story....or even more than a tiny part of it.

A 10- is a 50% chance. A 13-, as Gary noted, is 83.8%. That's a pretty big difference. Mr 10- roll drops the ball three times as often as Mr. 13-. Which one would you like doing your surgery? :jawdrop: 11- closes the gap a bit, and that's an 8 INT.

Except that for very easy or very difficult tasks, this three point difference is not so great. Even more, the guy with a 3 INT can with 3x the training be just as good as the guy with an 18 INT. If INT were analogous to IQ, then this would flat out be a gross violation of 'realism'......a person that has a low IQ in real life is often unable to grasp higher concepts (such as symbolic math) regardless of how long you train them and even if they can, they in general are no where as good.....and they take far more than 3x to learn.

18 INT is 4x as smart as 8 INT. 20 INT is about 5 or six times as smart. [doubles every 5]. 0 to 20 is a factor of 16. That seems pretty broad to me. How many IQ points constitutes "twice as smart"?

Actually this is pretty pitiful when you consider that it is supposed to cover the range of all normal humans. At the risk of being unpopular here, Intelligence and Skills are both something that GURPS or even (gasp!) d20 do much better than HERO.

-Polaris

Gary

Apr 7th, '04, 12:31 PM

Clarification: What is "wrong" was what they were calling INT in HERO. INT has very little (if anything) to do with classic intelligence by the admission of the main book. Thus punishing a player because the DM has the wrong definition of INT in hero is WRONG.

There are 28 Int based skills in the book. That suggests strongly that there is a link between Int and classic intelligence. Some such as Deduction are the poster child for high intelligence.

That is a contrived example and it is by no means clear in the main book (since changing skill levels is a zero phase action) that you can not in fact change them within the phase for all three. If you can (and I would argue that Rules As Written you can), then Scientist makes the check with ease too.

The rules on page 233 clearly state that Skill Levels, once shifted, last until the character's next phase. So each Skill Level can only be used only once per phase. That's the Rules As Written.

Besides, skill checks are almost always long actions which certainly means you will get the OSLs to all three skills.

How the heck can you use the OSL for 3 skills if you need to use them simultaneously? If a skill takes 1 minute to use, that OSL has to be assigned to it for the full minute. You can't simply apply the OSL for one phase and then declare that you get the bonus for the full minute!

Scale to taste. The principle remains that same. The point is that OSLs do more, period.

For certain character types they do more. For others they do less. The Int based hacker is going to easily break into the computer system that Mr. OSL programmed.

But it doesn't say that anywhere in the Rules As Written. You use them for one roll at a time, but you can still change them within your phase for free (see above).

See above. Once a Skill Level is assigned, it's allocated until the character's next phase. Right in the rules.

Which is defined how? Really, mental processing speed and cognition should go together. There I agree. The problem in HERO is that they don't (or at least not very well).

Why not? My detective with a 18 Int has a 13- Deduction roll. Your dunce with an 8 Int has a 11- Deduction roll. The 18 Int is clearly superior to the 8 Int.

Have you worked at many physics departments? I assure you that any scientist that earns a PHD does have a very high IQ (probably at least Genius Minus). Many don't have a lot of common sense, and scientists like people anywhere are a remarkably diverse bunch, but IQ is universal. It has to be because otherwise you simply could not learn and use the massive amounts of information needed in new and creative ways (another staple of classic intelligence btw). I agree such people process information quicker, but that is not the whole story....or even more than a tiny part of it.

Most scientists in real life have only a handful of science skills, and maybe a few familiarities outside their specialty. They are not a good example when dealing with comic book scientists.

Except that for very easy or very difficult tasks, this three point difference is not so great. Even more, the guy with a 3 INT can with 3x the training be just as good as the guy with an 18 INT. If INT were analogous to IQ, then this would flat out be a gross violation of 'realism'......a person that has a low IQ in real life is often unable to grasp higher concepts (such as symbolic math) regardless of how long you train them and even if they can, they in general are no where as good.....and they take far more than 3x to learn.

Are you kidding me? The 3 Int has 10- and the 18 Int has 13-. A very difficult task may have a -3 penalty. The 3 Int has a 7- roll (16%), and the 18 Int has a 10- roll (50%). You have to start getting into ridiculous penalties such as -6 or greater before the 3 pt difference starts not mattering.

Actually this is pretty pitiful when you consider that it is supposed to cover the range of all normal humans. At the risk of being unpopular here, Intelligence and Skills are both something that GURPS or even (gasp!) d20 do much better than HERO.

-Polaris

That's your opinion which is fine with you. Just don't try and declare it as fact.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 7th, '04, 04:49 PM

...

Nope, Gary pretty much covered it all. :whistle:

zornwil

Apr 7th, '04, 06:25 PM

Zornwil,

I have the "nerve" to tell three players they are doing it wrong because they are. Period.

INT has nothing (or very little) to do with cognition.

I referred to 3 veteran players who have PCs in a current game (let alone other games they've run) with INT >13. By the way, to be clear, that was not in reference to the cognition argument. Given the proximity of the two sentences, though separated, I wasn't sure if you were mixing those.

As to your point, if you can't see what Gary's written, what degree Hugh has colluded, and if you don't have the sense to figure out to take it seriously enough to study it (these guys are numbers and rules heavyweights - Gary more on the numbers, Hugh a little stronger IMHO on the "orthodox" way of playing the game)...well I'm not sure what to add except to suggest you are being stubborn, for whatever reason. I also think you should review HERO materials a lot more. The notion that any INT > 13 is wasted is simply wrong - and THAT was your contention.

Even multitasking is quite well done (using your Reed Richards example)

What Reed Richards example? If it's from me, it was done a long time ago, don't recall it, sorry.

with Overall Skill Levels....and the person with an OSL learns faster than a person with a High INT.

How does a person with an OSL "learn faster" in game terms?

A person with Cramming (which is INT-based) will learn faster. A Scientist or Scholar will pick up related skills faster (cheaper) and so I can see that as well.

Besides, I will not let you all get away with Superheroic stats all the time because in general you can't buy Superheroic stats without paying double. When you hit the characteristic Maximima you are definately better off with the OSLs.

Okay, but NCM is not standard in superheroic games. Perhaps this is in part where you ought to reconsider your numbers/approach.

Anyway, in that event, surely, but that was not the condition you defined at the outset.

As for the 12- or 13-, that makes the most difference near the peak of the bell curve. When modifiers get tossed in, this difference matters less and less....and complementary skills aren't that great....and OSL boy can try to get them too.

Point is that INT in HERO does not correspond will (or at all) to RL Intelligence and even the main book says you can have a GENIUS who has an INT of 10....which is why the idea that some of you want to punish INT 8 characters for having 'brilliant' ideas rankles.

I've yet to fundamentally disagree with you on the cognition issue but you should recognize that the correlation in fact CAN and often IS employed via INT, whether by game system or usage which the game system supports. Basing Knowledge and Science skills on INT IF one does that virtually declares the association. And in fact the book points out that INT and knowledge are not "necessarily" related. However, I do see the point and see that INT Is not at all necessarily related to knowledge. I don't insist on that as such, and don't think good GMs should.

Regardless, though, I think it CAN well follow to reel in an INT 8 character who commonly or effortlessly has brilliant ideas - if those brilliant ideas are in combat or time-stressed situations. As you stated, INT is the acuity of thought, the speed of processing and relating information. An INT 8 Scientist can write his great treatise, surely, but it's going to take him a while, particularly as whenever he grapples with harder concepts he faces a steeper learning challenge.

Now, having said all of that, the rest of you have made some good points. If you had a lot of INT skills I perhaps can see getting your INT up to an 18, but really that would be about the limit. I have played both and for skills, skill levels are IMX almost always better (especially overall ones). That's because INT is too granular in HERO (which has been discussed elsewhere) because the difference between an INT of 3 (normal Human min) and an INT of 18 (normal human Max) is only the difference between a 10- and a 13- and that isn't a lot when you consider that it is supposed to represent the difference between an IQ of 30 and an IQ of 180.....which is yet more more reason why HERO INT has nothing (or at least very little) to do with RL IQ.

-Polaris

Regarding the use of INT (and some of this bears on cognitive skills), bear in mind that INT rolls are also used for memory and knowledge not specifically represented by a Skill, according to the book.

I think the fundamental issue is that HERO is a toolkit. As such, it declares INT only for its most fundamental mechanic - the rapid application of knowledge. Yet as many other systems do use INT as a knowledge basis and given that even HERO uses it as such in the absence of specific knowledge skills/background, the typical game thus employs INT as such in HERO. Furthermore, the HERO books, which should be considered canonical for character design, typically grant "smarter" characters higher INT.

So HERO does skirt the issue. But I would claim, at the risk of being an apologist, that this is a strength rather than a weakness of the system - INT may have its own SFX, just as any other element should. So one may purchase a high INT, a series of knowledges and skills, and apply a Limitation to all but 10 of the INT, "Not usable in Actions < 1 week except to remember specific facts" (or whatever) to simulate the slow-thinking scholar.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 8th, '04, 05:30 AM

(these guys are numbers and rules heavyweights - Gary more on the numbers, Hugh a little stronger IMHO on the "orthodox" way of playing the game)...well I'm not sure what to add except to suggest you are being stubborn, for whatever reason. I also think you should review HERO materials a lot more. The notion that any INT > 13 is wasted is simply wrong - and THAT was your contention.

I'd agree Gary has me on numbers. I'm not sure I'd claim any superiority on the rules, but I'm pleased to be considered in that weight class.

As for INT >13 being useless, that's up to the players and GM. If the former don't use it, or the latter doesn't allow it to be used, it's useless. Of course a 15d6 EB in a game that centers around politics is a dead waste of points too.

[/QUOTE]What Reed Richards example? If it's from me, it was done a long time ago, don't recall it, sorry. [/QUOTE]

My hypothetical Supers guy was Richard Reed. Polaris1 may think I'm dyslexic.

But I would claim, at the risk of being an apologist, that this is a strength rather than a weakness of the system - INT may have its own SFX, just as any other element should.

One man's flaw is another man's feature.

mr_azrad

Apr 8th, '04, 05:41 AM

since you may not abort to reassigning skill levels

I don't want to get involved in this arguement and I am not taking sides (I think everyone has some good points). I just want to clear one thing up: according to FRED you can abort to reassign CSL's.

Hugh Neilson

Apr 8th, '04, 08:26 AM

I don't want to get involved in this arguement and I am not taking sides (I think everyone has some good points). I just want to clear one thing up: according to FRED you can abort to reassign CSL's.
Just a clarification Caris. Can you abort to assign skill levels, or is it a prerequisite that you must abort to assign skill levels in a defensive fashion? I believe the latter is correct, but I don't have the books with me.

Assuming my recollection is correct, you could abort to put OSL's to DCV, or to Block and put levels in OCV, but not (say) to put them in Deduction.

Polaris1

Apr 8th, '04, 09:43 AM

Just a clarification Caris. Can you abort to assign skill levels, or is it a prerequisite that you must abort to assign skill levels in a defensive fashion? I believe the latter is correct, but I don't have the books with me.

Assuming my recollection is correct, you could abort to put OSL's to DCV, or to Block and put levels in OCV, but not (say) to put them in Deduction.

It's not. I just looked it up on page 237 of the main rule book. You can generally only abort to do a defensive action (but even that is not hard and fast per the main book), but there is no specification that assigning the skill levels themselves have to be in DCV whatsoever. Thus if you suddenly wanted (or needed) to 'block', you could indeed put all your OSLs into Deduction or (for that matter) Perception.

Good Catch Mr. Azrad! OSLs are often (IMX anyway) just that good.

Everyone, sorry if I have come across as cantankerous....and the discussion of the usefullness of INT is getting IMO dangerously extra-topical. I simply think that INT should probably either be renamed or it should have a greater effect on skills (like making them cost less for starters.....skills IMHO cost too much in HERO...but admittedly that is another discussion and I am not trying to cause even more grief). BTW, thanks for making take another look at INT. I have modified my position based on what a lot of you have said. I *still* think INT does NOT stand for cognition and I still think that high Ints are generally pretty wasteful, but you all have convinced me that an INT of 18 or occassionally 23 can be worthwhile.....occassionally.

-Polaris

zornwil

Apr 8th, '04, 12:00 PM

I'd agree Gary has me on numbers. I'm not sure I'd claim any superiority on the rules, but I'm pleased to be considered in that weight class.

I wanted to carefully stay away from who was a better "rules lawyer" and was expressing that in my observation you're stronger at the orthodox interpretations/usages of the rules as HERO relates them. That's a very fine line, but I tried to draw it as both you and Gary are extremely good at rules lawyering (in a good way).

As for INT >13 being useless, that's up to the players and GM. If the former don't use it, or the latter doesn't allow it to be used, it's useless. Of course a 15d6 EB in a game that centers around politics is a dead waste of points too.

What Reed Richards example? If it's from me, it was done a long time ago, don't recall it, sorry.

My hypothetical Supers guy was Richard Reed. Polaris1 may think I'm dyslexic.

One man's flaw is another man's feature.

I agree with all that, re the usefulness (or not) of INT.

By the way, I did look back after and saw your Richard Reed - I take it he's Mr. Fabulous of the Fabulous Four? :D

zornwil

Apr 8th, '04, 12:10 PM

It's not. I just looked it up on page 237 of the main rule book. You can generally only abort to do a defensive action (but even that is not hard and fast per the main book), but there is no specification that assigning the skill levels themselves have to be in DCV whatsoever. Thus if you suddenly wanted (or needed) to 'block', you could indeed put all your OSLs into Deduction or (for that matter) Perception.

Good Catch Mr. Azrad! OSLs are often (IMX anyway) just that good.

Everyone, sorry if I have come across as cantankerous....and the discussion of the usefullness of INT is getting IMO dangerously extra-topical. I simply think that INT should probably either be renamed or it should have a greater effect on skills (like making them cost less for starters.....skills IMHO cost too much in HERO...but admittedly that is another discussion and I am not trying to cause even more grief). BTW, thanks for making take another look at INT. I have modified my position based on what a lot of you have said. I *still* think INT does NOT stand for cognition and I still think that high Ints are generally pretty wasteful, but you all have convinced me that an INT of 18 or occassionally 23 can be worthwhile.....occassionally.

-Polaris

Back at ya, it was a good discussion, and I thought you raised good issues, including the whole "what is INT" thing which is very worthwhile. If I appeared cantankerous, either, it was just the heat of the moment.

And by the way, welcome to the board. :)

Mentor

Apr 8th, '04, 12:16 PM

Caris already covered this one.

1) You're being very rude and insulting. Please stop

2) I'm getting a 13- perception roll and 13- Int skill rolls with that 18 Int. You're getting only 12- Perception roll and 13- Int skill rolls for a 13 Int and +1 Int skill rolls, for the same price. I have the better deal by far.

3) 12- is a 74% chance. 13- is a 84% chance. A very significant difference. And certainly there are going to be cases where the GM is going to impose penalties to the roll, either because it's an opposed action, or because the action is considered more difficult than normal.

4) We're talking about the general case for Int, not the NCM case. If you wanted to refer to a NCM campaign, you should have said so from the start.

We're not talking about NCM campaigns. We're talking about the general case. And some character types do better with +2 Int rolls and +2 Perception rolls than +1 overall.

Many of us here are experienced veterans with many years of play. We've created and played dozens of characters. Int is not a useless skill, and I wonder at your actual experience if you think it is.
I must agree with Gary on this point.

Our campaign is very heavily science and skill loaded, so a high INT is definitely not wasted. The average score is 18 and the high score is 28 (a Nobel Prize winning scientist) . In addition to Gary's correct per centages on the rolls, the liklihood of statistically successful complementary skill rolls on the main roll is increased by the INT score while leaving the Overall Levels free to do something else, like raising your DCV in case someone wants to violently prevent your use of those INT skills. (Whoosh. It missed. Whew.)

I have never regretted the points spent on a high INT and often wished my character concepts for average INT PCs didn't prevent buying everyone a higher INT.

Gary

Apr 8th, '04, 12:43 PM

Everyone, sorry if I have come across as cantankerous....and the discussion of the usefullness of INT is getting IMO dangerously extra-topical. I simply think that INT should probably either be renamed or it should have a greater effect on skills (like making them cost less for starters.....skills IMHO cost too much in HERO...but admittedly that is another discussion and I am not trying to cause even more grief). BTW, thanks for making take another look at INT. I have modified my position based on what a lot of you have said. I *still* think INT does NOT stand for cognition and I still think that high Ints are generally pretty wasteful, but you all have convinced me that an INT of 18 or occassionally 23 can be worthwhile.....occassionally.

-Polaris

Ok, Peace. :)

The optimum Int level really depends on a lot of factors. The most important is how often you want to succeed, and whether the GM routinely gives penalties toward those rolls. And whether Opposed skill checks occur often.

A 23 Int gives a 14- to Intellect skills. This is fine most times. However, if the GM routinely throws penalties at -2 or more, the 14- may not be enough. You may want to increase it to a 16- or 17- which means 33 or 38 Int. Also, that perception roll helps. If the other guy has just made his stealth roll by 5, you're going to have a -5 to your roll to spot him.

That being said, I agree that some extreme skill monkeys with 40+ science and knowledge skills may be better off with a low Int and lots of OSLs. But not typical characters. And not if the GM routinely allows for complementary skill rolls.

Polaris1

Apr 8th, '04, 12:45 PM

Guys,

I will concede that when you have multiple INT Based Skill and INT rolls including PER rolls that happen at once, then indeed INT is better in that one case than skill levels. However, I have to ask and please be honest....just how often do such situations come up, really?

In my experience, it is almost never (esp if the GM seldom if ever gives out complementary skills....so relying on GM fiat is a mistake while you always get your skill levels).

Furthermore, another thing that makes me severely doubt that INT is cognition in HERO is this:

Game Mechanically you are almost always better off buying OSLs (especially!) at character creation because of the great cost per level. This insures that you get a good number when you need them most.

OTOH, I find that INT is something best bought after play begins (because it is so cheap). That seems the exact opposite of "reality" (always a dangerous term in an RPG) because in "reality" INT is the underlying mental ability and skills are things you improve on with experience.

I am critical of the HERO skill system btw (and by extension INT) because of the granularity of the system. If you look at the INT target numbers as population percentiles, you will quickly see what I mean. If you are in the 90th percentile which is an INT of 20 which is normal human maximum by HERO standards....yet we all know that this simply isn't so! Likewise an INT of 3 is only in the what.....40 %ile range which is isn't even considered "mentally redarded". IMHO just one more reason why INT is not cognition in HERO IMHO.

-Polaris

mr_azrad

Apr 8th, '04, 12:53 PM

Polaris- I think you've shown that INT is a little too expensive for what you get ... maybe in your games you should reduce the price say 3 INT for 2 character points or something....

lemming

Apr 8th, '04, 12:54 PM

In my experience, it is almost never (esp if the GM seldom if ever gives out complementary skills....so relying on GM fiat is a mistake while you always get your skill levels).
Ah. I've always played under GMs that would use complementary skills. Often with two or three skills.

caris

Apr 8th, '04, 01:20 PM

I don't want to get involved in this arguement and I am not taking sides (I think everyone has some good points). I just want to clear one thing up: according to FRED you can abort to reassign CSL's.

I'm sorry, but I did not see where in FRED that was explicitly stated. There is a vague implication that they might be possible to be reassigned on page 35 under the description of Combat Skill Levels, but the statement is that CSLs after an attack "stay as they are until his next Phase begins or he Aborts to a defensive Action." The FAQ clairifies that as CSLs can be assigned to DCV or to the OCV of a block. I consider CSLs a seperate and distinct item from Skill Levels, and 10 pt Skill Levels being used as CSLs as being specific exceptions to the general rules applicable to Skill Levels.

Polaris1

Apr 8th, '04, 01:24 PM

Mr. Azrad,

That may be but HERO tends to avoid dividing things by three (at least for stats). The thing is that while INT is overpriced, it isn't overpriced by that much! Because of that reducing the cost to 1/2 would be too great a reduction IMHO.

However....idea here....if we wanted to make INT reflect cognition (i.e. learning better), it might be a good idea to do this:

You get INT/2 bonus points that can be used only for buying skills (and some talents with the GM's consent). This would reflect the fact that IRL a highly intelligent person not only thinks faster but learns more during the same period of time (a phenomena quite evident in highly intensive learning environments such as military academies and basic training...indeed any Drill Sergeant will tell you that intelligent recruits learn not only faster but MORE than their fellow recruits....and the difference can be quite noticable).

How's that for an idea?

-Polaris

[The fact that the bonus points are highly restricted makes INT effectively cost what you suggested IMHO.]

mr_azrad

Apr 8th, '04, 02:44 PM

I'm sorry, but I did not see where in FRED that was explicitly stated. There is a vague implication that they might be possible to be reassigned on page 35 under the description of Combat Skill Levels, but the statement is that CSLs after an attack "stay as they are until his next Phase begins or he Aborts to a defensive Action." The FAQ clairifies that as CSLs can be assigned to DCV or to the OCV of a block. I consider CSLs a seperate and distinct item from Skill Levels, and 10 pt Skill Levels being used as CSLs as being specific exceptions to the general rules applicable to Skill Levels.

I understand what you are saying. But in the example you and Polaris were discussing, Polaris's fictional character had 6 overall skill levels. Even if he had them assigned to a science skill, if attacked he could abort and reapply them to his DCV (although he might have to start his science "project" over).

mr_azrad

Apr 8th, '04, 02:52 PM

You get INT/2 bonus points that can be used only for buying skills (and some talents with the GM's consent). This would reflect the fact that IRL a highly intelligent person not only thinks faster but learns more during the same period of time (a phenomena quite evident in highly intensive learning environments such as military academies and basic training...indeed any Drill Sergeant will tell you that intelligent recruits learn not only faster but MORE than their fellow recruits....and the difference can be quite noticable).

How's that for an idea?

-Polaris

[The fact that the bonus points are highly restricted makes INT effectively cost what you suggested IMHO.]

That is a pretty serious change to the system. I guess it would solve some of the problems with INT. Personally I never liked the idea of Overall Skill Levels though. I mean what special effect represents the ability to transfer mastery from breakfall to biology to acting to shooting a rifle?

Andrew Cermak

Apr 8th, '04, 03:39 PM

That is a pretty serious change to the system. I guess it would solve some of the problems with INT. Personally I never liked the idea of Overall Skill Levels though. I mean what special effect represents the ability to transfer mastery from breakfall to biology to acting to shooting a rifle?

A brainjack that allows the character to "upload" skill sets, overwriting what was uploaded previously;

A shapeshifter who can subtly alter his body to enhance his physical skills and even subtly alter his brain to narrowly enhance mental faculties;

Hyper-Concentration; "I succeed at whatever I set my mind to;"

I'm sure there are many others.

mr_azrad

Apr 8th, '04, 03:48 PM

A shapeshifter who can subtly alter his body to enhance his physical skills and even subtly alter his brain to narrowly enhance mental faculties;

Hyper-Concentration; "I succeed at whatever I set my mind to;"

mhmfhasfsdmsaldhasdmn (<---- thats me eating my words)

caris

Apr 8th, '04, 03:48 PM

It's not. I just looked it up on page 237 of the main rule book. You can generally only abort to do a defensive action (but even that is not hard and fast per the main book), but there is no specification that assigning the skill levels themselves have to be in DCV whatsoever. Thus if you suddenly wanted (or needed) to 'block', you could indeed put all your OSLs into Deduction or (for that matter) Perception.

I'm sorry, page 236 is quite explicit. You may only Abort to protect yourself generally, but with GM permision may Abort to protect others. What exactly on page 236 makes you think you may Abort to a non-Defensive action?

The FAQ does state that the CSLs can only be assigned to DCV or the OCV for a Block or Missile Deflection. Since so far I have only seen evidence that CSLs may be reassigned, I would expect that OSLs would only be reassigned as acting as a CSL.

I would also point out that according to page 35, under the description for CSLs, OSLs may only be used as a CSLs in a phase where they are used for nothing else. Therefore the flexibility of the OSLs are not quite as high as you imply.

The example I sited was not for engaging in a Defensive Action, but to make an Action That Takes No Time at the GM's request i. e. a PER roll. Unless the player is going to meta-game to Abort to Block for no reason he would not be able to reassign those levels. Even if a GM would allow the character to Abort to reassigning his skill levels as you suggested, the character would have now loss his next Phase Action because you always loose your next Phase when you Abort.

Polaris1

Apr 8th, '04, 11:55 PM

I'm sorry, page 236 is quite explicit. You may only Abort to protect yourself generally, but with GM permision may Abort to protect others. What exactly on page 236 makes you think you may Abort to a non-Defensive action?

Because the language is unclear. It says that you ordinarily can only abort to defend yourself. It goes on to say that you may optionally be allowed to abort to defend others. It goes on to say further on that cases where you can and can not abort are always up to DM discretion.

The only thing that is explicitly forbidden in an abort is an attack action. That is a far cry from what you are claiming.

The FAQ does state that the CSLs can only be assigned to DCV or the OCV for a Block or Missile Deflection. Since so far I have only seen evidence that CSLs may be reassigned, I would expect that OSLs would only be reassigned as acting as a CSL.

The FAQ is not "rules as written". FAQ stands for "frequently asked questions". It is NOT errata and should not be viewed as such.

Also changing skill levels (or combat levels) is always a zero phase action. Using an OSL as Perception would certainly be considered "defensive" if you were being attacked by an invisible creature! I can think of other skill rolls or attribute rolls that could also be used "defensively" this way.

I would also point out that according to page 35, under the description for CSLs, OSLs may only be used as a CSLs in a phase where they are used for nothing else. Therefore the flexibility of the OSLs are not quite as high as you imply.

Yes, but an ABORT is a new phase which means all bets are off.

The example I sited was not for engaging in a Defensive Action, but to make an Action That Takes No Time at the GM's request i. e. a PER roll. Unless the player is going to meta-game to Abort to Block for no reason he would not be able to reassign those levels. Even if a GM would allow the character to Abort to reassigning his skill levels as you suggested, the character would have now loss his next Phase Action because you always loose your next Phase when you Abort.

Right, this has it's price but rules as written it can technically be done....as long as the skill roll or attribute roll is "defensive" in nature (such as the PER roll to see the invisible opponent).

-Polaris

caris

Apr 9th, '04, 03:48 AM

Because the language is unclear. It says that you ordinarily can only abort to defend yourself. It goes on to say that you may optionally be allowed to abort to defend others. It goes on to say further on that cases where you can and can not abort are always up to DM discretion.

The only thing that is explicitly forbidden in an abort is an attack action. That is a far cry from what you are claiming.

And the only things explicitly allowed are actions to protect yourself. Which is a far cry from what you are claiming. A great deal of your arguement is based on an extremely favorable interpretation of the rules. The only example given after the comment on GM discretion, is the GM refusing to allow a person to achieve OIHID, which in this case is effectively turning on a defensive power, is to show another OIHID where the GM refused to allow the character to abort to the same defensive action due to the nature of the OIHID.

The FAQ is not "rules as written". FAQ stands for "frequently asked questions". It is NOT errata and should not be viewed as such.

The FAQ is a clairification of the "rules as written", and should be treated as the "official" interpretation of the rules, since presumably all written material will follow the reasoning of the FAQ clairification.

Also changing skill levels (or combat levels) is always a zero phase action. Using an OSL as Perception would certainly be considered "defensive" if you were being attacked by an invisible creature! I can think of other skill rolls or attribute rolls that could also be used "defensively" this way.

Yes, a PER roll in that situation would only be a defensive action if your character is already aware or suspect that an invisible creature is present, otherwise it would be just meta-gaming. We are back to my example where the GM is asking for a PER roll an Action Which Takes No Time, a completely different game mechanic than the Half-Phase Action PER roll. If the GM is asking you to make a PER roll it is to notice something that may or may not be happening. Presumably, you are not aware of this until you actually succeed in the PER roll.

Yes, but an ABORT is a new phase which means all bets are off.

Yes, but I find it interesting that only CSLs are explicitly stated as being able to changed in relation to an Abort, and that SLs do not mention it at all. If it was considered necessary to mention this ability for CSLs why not mention it for SLs?

Right, this has it's price but rules as written it can technically be done....as long as the skill roll or attribute roll is "defensive" in nature (such as the PER roll to see the invisible opponent).

No, I don't see that at all. The rules as written always allow a GM discretion to violate them if he feels it is appropriate anywhere. The rules as written allow the GM to give a character full DCV against an attack that they can not pervceive at all if the GM chooses, but that is not technically the same as the rules allow you to have full DCV against an attack you can not perceive. I see nothing in the section you quote that is anything other than an explicit statement that a GM does [i]not[/] have to allow all possible Aborts that a player may want to make.