Perks And Talents Issues

[SSgt Baloo]

in nearly all of my campaigns I have tried to encourage the players to, when it suits character concept, buy vehicles, followers and/or bases. They were almost universally reluctant to pay points for something that, if severely damaged or destroyed, would mean they had payed good points for something useless to them.

What worked for me was to reduce the cost of these perks when they were not for combat use. The fast transport used by the supers to get to the action could be bought for half the cost listed in the book. Conversely, if the fast transport/base/follower was armed in any way (GM's call) the cost was normal (1 pt. for five).

I'm not suggesting that this be the official way to do things. Rather, I'm just pointing out that since HERO is a toolkit, you don't have to spell things out in excruciating detail so the Rules Lawyers™ won't get the better of the GM.

What I would like to see, is a "House Rules" supplement that not only goes into detail as to how one might customize the rules to suit a particular genre, style of play, etc., but gives examples, many of which have already been spelled out in various parts of this forum.

RE: the cost of vehicles, bases and followers, I suggest that disadvantages be permitted (but not required) to reduce the points that a particular base, vehicle, or follower costs.

[BobGreenwade]

in nearly all of my campaigns I have tried to encourage the players to, when it suits character concept, buy vehicles, followers and/or bases. They were almost universally reluctant to pay points for something that, if severely damaged or destroyed, would mean they had payed good points for something useless to them.

They didn't have any repair facilities???

[PhilFleischmann]

While it would be nice to think that players with build everything to concept, in my experience a carrot to help players towards building in concept helps (Except for the patend Big Stick of GM Says No).

Right. And while we all like to build to our concepts, those concepts are influenced by the system we build them with. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." If the system doesn't reward you for disads, your concepts will stop having them.

And this is true for all aspects of the system, not just Perks and Talents.

And it's even true for other systems.

Building characters is like an engineering problem: There's the ideal concept want, and the constraints of the materials and tools available. The materials and tools available will dictate the concept that you implement.

[Hugh Neilson]

Phil, that's a great analogy, and I agree with the point 100%.

It goes beyond the game system. If I, as a GM, pick on some concepts and reward others, the former will disappear and the latter will multiply. If the GM treats "Unluck" as an excuse to make the character ineffective and the player miserable or bored, surprise - no one will take Unluck.

It's amazing how some GM's will bemoan the fact that their players won't play certain types of characters, but can't figure out it's because of the way their style demotivates those characters. The GM who wants all his players to "play heroic characters", then takes advantage of any character's moral codes to trample them in play, for example, or GM's who never let the PC's interaction skills, reconnaissance powers or unusual knowledge skills have any impact in play, then complain that all their players build two dimensional combat monsters. The GM works actively to take away perks, then wonders why no one buys them.

I'd like to see 6e's section on GMing focus in on making sure the characters get the benefits of their points spent, as well as suffering appropriately and in a manner than adds to the game from their limitations and disadvantages.

[SSgt Baloo]

Right. And while we all like to build to our concepts, those concepts are influenced by the system we build them with. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." If the system doesn't reward you for disads, your concepts will stop having them.

And this is true for all aspects of the system, not just Perks and Talents.

And it's even true for other systems.

Building characters is like an engineering problem: There's the ideal concept want, and the constraints of the materials and tools available. The materials and tools available will dictate the concept that you implement.

They didn't have any repair facilities???

Not so much, but most players figured it was easier to buy more movement powers than a vehicle. One of the other GMs believed that since you only spent 1/5 points on a Vehicle, Base, or Follower (VBF) that it was only worth the points you spent, as if it were a power. Supercars were routinely hotwired and made off with, secret bases might as well have been listed in the Yellow Pages under "Chumps", and followers might as well have been feeble DNPCs, so often were they captured as part of the introductory "hook" to an adventure.

I used incentives to get the players to buy these things with their own points and only gradually did they learn that it didn't necessarily follow that I would treat VBFs as unlucky focuses that magically got targeted each and every session. The last campaign I ran had one of the best PC characters I've ever GM-ed for, an aviator whose best power was his fast and durable airplane.

[nexus]

I'd just like to say that I agree that keeping disads for VBF's is a good idea. Yes, they can abused but the process like approving disads for a character. I'd also agreed that is Disads are moved to the "Hero Point" scheme the effect should be consistent but I am not fond of that particular change, honestly.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd just like to say that I agree that keeping disads for VBF's is a good idea. Yes, they can abused but the process like approving disads for a character. I'd also agreed that is Disads are moved to the "Hero Point" scheme the effect should be consistent but I am not fond of that particular change, honestly.

I'm not a fan of that change myself (in addition to other issues, I find it hard to reconcile with limitations saving points, rather than granting HP when they come up, and then we get to sellbacks vs disadvantages...), but clearly the system needs to be consistent.

[nexus]

I've found (and this is strictly anecdotal, IME, etc) that in games with per occurrence awards for Disadvantages and Limitations they become rarer. They don't vanish but characters generally have less. I think this is due to the overall reward being more spread out and GMs probably being wary of allowing too many drawbacks as they provide a direct and immediate in game resource (Hero Points) continuously over the life of the character.

IMO and preference, characters tend to be defined more by their limits and drawbacks particularly in Generic Effects Based systems like Hero System so a change that would make character sheets like more similar (IMO) wouldn't be a change I could get on board with. That's just a preference and I admit, I do like "complicated" character sheets. I hope I haven't gotten too far off topic.

[JmOz]

I've found (and this is strictly anecdotal, IME, etc) that in games with per occurrence awards for Disadvantages and Limitations they become rarer. They don't vanish but characters generally have less. I think this is due to the overall reward being more spread out and GMs probably being wary of allowing too many drawbacks as they provide a direct and immediate in game resource (Hero Points) continuously over the life of the character.

IMO and preference, characters tend to be defined more by their limits and drawbacks particularly in Generic Effects Based systems like Hero System so a change that would make character sheets like more similar (IMO) wouldn't be a change I could get on board with. That's just a preference and I admit, I do like "complicated" character sheets. I hope I haven't gotten too far off topic.

You have not gone off topic at all IMO

I am torn I can see a reson to go to the occurence awards route, but I am also of the "If it is not broken don't fix it" mentality, our drawback system works well so change for changes sake is not a great Idea IMO

[Markdoc]

I'm not a fan of that change myself (in addition to other issues, I find it hard to reconcile with limitations saving points, rather than granting HP when they come up, and then we get to sellbacks vs disadvantages...), but clearly the system needs to be consistent.

Add me into the camp of those who think removing points for Disads and going to Hero points is a terrible idea. It's a very metagamey approach that I cordially detest.

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Something just came up in the Powers A-E thread that warrants moving here -- a new Talent making the character harder to perceive, based on Change Environment (hence the original placing of the idea), primarily for use by characters who are smaller than normal but available to others as well.

The general rule would require a new Combat Effect for Change Environment, giving a -1 to all PER Rolls for 5 points (reflecting similar costs in Enhanced Senses). Then the character gets something like:

Imperceptibility: Change Environment, -1 to all PER Rolls, 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Inherent (+1/4) (12 Active Points); Always On (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2). Total cost: 6 points.

Thus, being harder to perceive costs 6 points per -1 to others' PER Rolls. The Size Template for being Tiny (9 inches tall) has six levels of this, for a cost of 36 points. Yes, this is a good deal more than the 20 points currently paid for +6 to Concealment, Self Only and +6 to Stealth; but it affects all attempts to perceive the character, not just his ability to be concealed and stealthy.

(If desired, a -1/4 Limitation could be added for Not Versus Mental Or Mystical Senses, bringing the cost per -1 to 5 points.)

(And thanks to Chris and Klaus for some feedback on the original idea.)

The PER modifiers from being very small don't automatically trigger a PER Roll. I.e., they don't serve as a "poor man's Invisibility", only coming into play when the character is trying to not be seen. Change Environment is usually built to force a (PER in this case) Roll. I would object to a Talent to represent being really small causing both PER penaltys and triggering a PER Roll.

Also, Shrinking PER bonuses by definition don't affect things like Mental Senses/Powers, Danger Sense, and IIRC Combat Sense.

In one of the more general threads, Steve throws out the idea of better describing what should cost points and what should be free. I'd say that, in a typical 20th century North American game, a passport should be free. Call it an "everyman Perk".

But if your game is set in a war-torn, impoverished third world country, I'd say the character with a passport allowing entry to the United States has a considerable benefit not shared by the typical character, and should pay something (possible more than 1 point, maybe not) for the privilege. Just as I would say a concealed weapons permit costs nothing in the game of "United States of Texas", where all persons over age 12 are required to own and carry a firearm by law, or in a typical Wild West game.

I agree. I consider minor things like that to be like the "Free Literacy" that usually comes with Languages in many game genres (IIRC -- all, with the exception of Fantasy is typical).

I view the full Perks list like the 1 point for Literacy. It's there if it's needed for a particular game. If it's not needed, then don't spend the points on them.

[SteveZilla]

The first license to practice one's profession should probably be a freebie. Now, if someone has both a license to practice law and one to practice medicine, that's gotta be worth something.

I just had a thought: Why wouldn't the Everyman Profession Skill (any PS, really) grant -- at least in an "understood" way -- the License to Practice that profession?

EDIT: Scooped by others earlier.

Skip's actually right -- while it may seem sensible on the surface to include a license to practice a profession with a PS, it doesn't hold up to either reality or the source fiction. I recall at least two occasions in fiction where a doctor has lost his license to practice, without losing his skills.

I would think that would be handled by an appropriate Social Limitation (like Disbarred)?

[SteveZilla]

... and followers might as well have been feeble DNPCs, so often were they captured as part of the introductory "hook" to an adventure.

Sounds like the Followers/DNPCs there had contracted Aquaman Syndrome.

[BobGreenwade]

The PER modifiers from being very small don't automatically trigger a PER Roll. I.e., they don't serve as a "poor man's Invisibility", only coming into play when the character is trying to not be seen. Change Environment is usually built to force a (PER in this case) Roll. I would object to a Talent to represent being really small causing both PER penaltys and triggering a PER Roll.

Good point, though this can be covered with a further Limitation.

Also, Shrinking PER bonuses by definition don't affect things like Mental Senses/Powers, Danger Sense, and IIRC Combat Sense.

This, too, can be covered with a Limitation, redefining some of those Senses (I don't think any PER Roll Modifiers currently apply to Danger Sense, though I could be wrong) or by rebuilding it to only apply to those Sense Groups that do apply.

[AnotherSkip]

I just had a thought: Why wouldn't the Everyman Profession Skill (any PS, really) grant -- at least in an "understood" way -- the License to Practice that profession?

EDIT: Scooped by others earlier.
I would think that would be handled by an appropriate Social Limitation (like Disbarred)?

actually since there are whole departments in various governments as well as reams of law that deal specifically with this issue i would say it is a large enough concern that no you can't just get those perks for free. but they can be taken away (admitedly with some difficulty) (though I would probably give a LIm AND allow the points to be respent.)