Characteristics Issues

[archermoo]

I've got a few comments, and some of these are going to be "me too" kinds of things, but I want to start by offering some thoughts on a way to get your intuitions going in regards to figured characteristics.

I snipped the actual argument because I'm not really responding to the points so much as the general take on the argument, as well as arguments that I've heard from others. And your post was convenient to respond to.

I can only speak for myself, but I want to say that I'm not in favour of removing the link between Primaries and Figureds because the Figureds are called Figureds. Or because I want to have Characteristics not do anything. I am in favour of it because I think that PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN, and Leaping should be normal Characteristics that are not modified by the purchase of a different Characteristic. Note, that list does not include everything that Characteristics do in the game. Nor does it only include things that are called Figured Characteristics in the game. It includes the things that are currently modified by the purchase of Characteristics that I don't think should be.

[dsatow]

Q: Should all characters start with 0 in all Characteristics?

Steve’s Thoughts: There’s some attraction to this idea. It would eliminate issues about selling things back or creating many types of non-human characters. To some extent it mirrors “HERO System logic” of not getting anything for free (though of course doing this would mean characters would have to have about +200 points to build themselves on just to get to “human standard” Characteristics and related abilities).

While in an absolute sense this appeals to me, I think it’s probably not necessary. Starting at 10s has been a part of every edition of the HERO System, and it tends to go along with the “dramatic simulation” aspect of the system. I don’t mind being a little humanocentric in this regard, either.
[dsatow]: I don't think its necessary and its probably too drastic a change for most people too. If you do really want to change it though, I would suggest that 0 be normal and that you do bonuses to show above normality and negatives to show below normality.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of negative Characteristics?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it would help the HERO System to get rid of the concept of “negative Characteristics,” at least insofar as any negative Characteristic still providing tangible, positive effects (e.g., negative STR, which still allows for lifting small amounts of weight). If we just say that 0 is as low as a Characteristic can go and define that as “no function at all” (can’t lift anything, can’t think for one’s self, can’t resist being controlled/influenced, whatever), it simplifies a lot of things, cuts text out of the book, and is I think more logical. It would require reworking the STR 1-5 lifting scale, and perhaps a special rule for Adjustment Powers, but that’s not difficult.
<snip>
[dsatow]: The concept of the no negative value would add to the complexity of the adjustment powers, which are already a complex and abused power type. I just see it as a large can of worms. I think negative values should be allowed but no negative effects beyond zero. A simple statement that when you are at 0 or negative the effects are the same, you are at a story level disablement and are unable to function.


Q: Should we change the HERO System so that “every point in a Characteristic matters” and to discourage people from buying Characteristics at “breakpoint” levels?

Steve’s Thoughts: Under the current (and all former) incarnations of the HERO System, the rules, which calculate Skill Rolls by dividing Characteristics by 5, tend to encourage people to buy Characteristics that end in 0, 3, 5, or 8 (with some differentiation for DEX due to CV calculations). Aside from bragging rights and offering some protection against negative Adjustment Powers, an INT of say, 14, is meaningless compared to 13 — it offers no additional game benefit. In fact, it’s not until 18 that any additional benefit is received (in the form of +1 to Skill Rolls). This has the effect of making a lot of characters look a little too much the same.
<snip>
[dsatow]: I've thought about that and personally, I think most of the breakpoints should be removed. The question is how without breaking game mechanics. As I have stated elsewhere, in a concept of homebrew variants, the idea I got to was that all stats use the 5=1d6 of power idea (extended, 3 pts =1/2d6, etc.) It increases the number of breakpoints and would work like this. If you have a skill using say int. An int of 13 would give you 2.5d6. Skills would add to your int dice. Targets would either be a challenge or a set number. Numbers set would be based on "body" done or total, though I like the "body" concept more.

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?

Steve’s Thoughts: I am strongly in favor of doing this and intend to implement this change unless I am persuaded otherwise by a particularly convincing argument. Figured Characteristics are not only contrary to the general spirit of the HERO system in my opinion, but they cause all sorts of mathematical problems and muddles. If we eliminate them and just use the standard starting values and costs (PD 2, ED 2, SPD 2, REC 4, END 20, STUN 20), then there’s no more worry about Limited SPD, no more concern about STR (or any other Characteristic) giving you too much benefit for its cost, no more No Figured Characteristics Limitation, and no need to dictate how many “Figureds” a character can sell back.
[dsatow]: I am in favor of it. I think it simplifies a lot of things.

However, making this change raises a couple of sub-issues:

Sub-Issue #1: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should the costs of any Characteristics be changed to compensate?

Steve’s Thoughts: My feeling on this is no, they should not. I think regardless of the side benefit of getting Figureds, each Primary Characteristic provides one or more valuable functions that justify its current cost. Some argument could perhaps be made for CON, since Skills aren’t based on it, but I think that “resistance to being Stunned” is worth 2 Character Points per point — if I change it I have to re-examine every character built in terms of offense and defense, and so do players.
[dsatow]: I agree in principal that it should not change, but if you do separate figured and normal, then I would just say get rid of CON all together and combine its ability with BODY. Generally there is a correlation there anyways.

Sub-Issue #2: If Figured Characteristics are removed, should characters be given more points for character creation?

Steve’s Thoughts: This one’s a little trickier. Let’s analyze some caase studies to get an idea of the mathemetical effects. I’ve chosen three: a brick; a high-end martial artist/athlete, and Pulp explorer Randall Irons.

<snip>

In light of these examples, assuming we want to keep characters at the same level of power and competence (and I think that’s a safe assumption), some increase in the starting points is going to be necessary. “How much more?” is the obvious follow-up question, and that’s something I’ll have to consider for each character classification.
[dsatow]: I think you are better off changing the starting values of the secondary characteristics for heros in much the same way you change the starting point costs. Then allow the players to buy down or up the values.

Examples (tweeking obviously will need to be done):
PD Normal(2) Hero(4) Superagent(8) Superhero(10) Galactic(20)
ED Normal(2) Hero(4) Superagent(8) Superhero(10) Galactic(20)
SPD Normal(2) Hero(3) Superagent(4) Superhero(5) Galactic(6)
REC Normal(4) Hero(6) Superagent(8) Superhero(10) Galactic(12)
END Normal(20) Hero(30) Superagent(40) Superhero(50) Galactic(60)
STUN Normal(20) Hero(30) Superagent(40) Superhero(50) Galactic(60)

Q: Should the cost of STR be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: Even assuming no other changes, I’m strongly opposed to increasing the cost of STR. To the extent there are problems with the cost of STR, I think that removing Figured Characteristics and Leaping from STR resolves them just fine.
[dsatow]: Also changing the cost breaks the 5 point = 1d6 damage ratio.

Q: Should Leaping be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should. The correlation between STR and Leaping is one of the few obvious remaining “Champions-isms” in the HERO System — it makes sense in a setting where characters often travel by leaping tall buildings. It makes no sense anywhere else and requires such jiggery-pokery as buying down the Leaping of elephants and giants. It makes more sense to start everyone with Leaping 2” and let them buy it up from there, with an optional “derive base Leaping from STR” rule for genres that need it.
[dsatow]: It breaks as many champion-isms not to detach it from strength. No other movement power is characteristic based.

Q: Should HTH damage be removed as something that’s factored from STR?

Steve’s Thoughts: While it might solve some difficulties, my thinking is that it should not. The correlation between raw force and damage is one most gamers can understand; it’s “gaming logical” even if it’s not necessarily “realistic.”
[dsatow]: I would not like this, it also sets up a damage scale which relates power to dice. Keep strength and damage as it currently is.

Q: Should the cost of DEX be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Even if we get rid of Figureds, it still provides enough bang to be worth 3 Character Points per point, and I don’t think an increase is necessary. If CV were removed from DEX (see below), then the cost of DEX would probably need to change.
[dsatow]: Question then would be what would it be changed to? It affects major combat skills and position on the speed chart. Personally, I'd keep it the same.

Q: Should DEX be split into two or more Characteristics?

Steve’s Thoughts: See my HEROglyphs column in DH #15 for a review of how this might work. Basically you split DEX into three Characteristics, each costing 1 Character Point per point, one for CV, one for DEX-based rolls, and one for SPD. This increases the granularity of the HERO System, making more precise character definition possible. However, adding more Characteristics clutters up the character sheet and increases the learning curve, and since it’s just replacing one thing (that can be Limited if necessary) with three things that basically have the same function, it doesn’t really streamline anything at all. I think DEX is fine as it is (though some other questions below discuss different aspects of it).
[dsatow]: I don't see any benefit from from the above you might want to reduce the cost of Dex. i think you are getting more pain than benefit.

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

Steve’s Thoughts: My current thinking is that it should not, though I haven’t completely abandoned the idea. There are definitely some arguments to be made in favor of this. First, logically there’s no real correlation between being nimble, agile, or deft, and being accurate with attacks and weapons. “Realistically,” accuracy is more a matter of training than anything, though natural aptitude can factor in. Second, making CV a Characteristic would allow characters to affect it with Adjustment Powers and the like. This would make building many powers and abilities easier in some ways. Third, decoupling CV would be consistent with decoupling Figureds in general, and Leaping from STR.

However, splitting off CV also poses some problems. It would mean adding one (or possibly two) Characteristics to the character sheet, and generally that seems undesireable to me. Second, by “gaming logic” dexterity and accuracy go together pretty well. Third, it would increase the percentage of their starting points that characters spend on Characteristics. Fourth, unless priced expensively (say, 5-8 points per +1 CV), doing this could easily lead to “CV inflation” in many games. Fifth, doing this might require changing the cost structure of Combat Skill Levels.
[dsatow]: Again, I think this opens a can of worms and is too great a change for most players to accept. It also smacks of 1st ed Marvel Superheroes where fighting was separated from agility. What you end up with was a character who was incredibly clumsy doing delicate kungfu martial arts.

Q: Should INT be “redefined”?

Steve’s Thoughts: Right now, INT in the HERO System is generally defined as the ability to perceive and react to problems and crisis situations quickly. If so, it could be better named, and it should probably factor into how SPD is calculated (see below). And there’s some question as to whether it should be the basis of so many Skills that seem to depend on intellect, memory, and reasoning power. Right now my thinking is we’d be better off to “redefine” it as being basically “thinking power,” and leave the idea of reacting to crises out, or at least only refer to it secondarily.
[dsatow]: Again I go to my own game design thoughts. I believe Int should be set as the Speed at which a character processes and retains information. Thus a 386 computer may have a low INT but its still capable of determining PI out to the Xth place. It just takes it quite a while. This concept also relates to the idea that people can't not learn (awk) to they learn just slowly.

If you keep figured characteristics, then I'd might add INT/10 to speed. I've always though the actions were too few per turn for low levels.

If you take away figured characteristics, just remember that there are a lot of people who act before they think.

Q: Should PER be removed as something that’s factored from INT?

Steve’s Thoughts: The arguments here are much the same as those for CV and DEX. Logically intelligence and being observant don’t necessarily have any close connection; many highly intelligent people are forgetful and unobservant, while many “stupid” people are keen observers. Since PER is so important in every genre and campaign, converting it to a separate Characteristic (which could then be Adjusted and the like) makes some sense.
[dsatow]: If you go with my definition of INT, it is still valid (see previous question).

Q: Should the cost of EGO be reduced to 1 Character Point per point?

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an interesting issue. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that EGO is somehow twice as valuable as STR, INT, or PRE. Furthermore, many, many heroes are supposed to be “strong-willed,” but at 2 Character Points per point of EGO few of them can really afford to be.

On the other hand, changing EGO to +1 point per point would make it veeeeerrrry easy for characters with Mental Powers to obtain outrageously high ECVs (though the counterbalance to that is that, in theory at least, many more characters would have higher ECVs than 3 because EGO’s now cheaper). The cost of EGO is really part of the way that Mental Powers are balanced in the HERO System, and my inclination is to keep things as they are. But perhaps adding a ‘Strong-Willed” Talent through which characters buy EGO only to make EGO Rolls would be a worthy addition to the rules.
[dsatow]: Personally, I think you need to up the value of the stat in the game. I see too many people with base EGO and PRE lately. PRE is easily corrected but not EGO without the introduction psionics. I would suggest using an ego roll to over-come fear and hesitation. You get presenced attacked, you can make an ego roll to overcome the fear at -1 per 5 of the effect over your base PRE. Since battling fear is emotionally draining, using EGO this way should cost 1 END per 5 points of EGO. This would only affect the delay portion of presence attacks and not the DCV portion, after all you are still afraid.

Q: Should ECV be removed as something that’s factored from EGO?

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “CV and DEX” question, above, for a general take on this issue; the benefits and problems are largely the same. However, I think that (a) tying ECV to EGO has even more “gaming logic” than tying CV to DEX, and (b) the clutter caused by an ECV Characteristic is even more cumbersome, since most characters use CV constantly but rarely use ECV. Even if CV gets split off from DEX my inclination at present is to keep ECV a part of EGO.
[dsatow]: See above.


Q: Should COM be removed as a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think that it should, and I intend to do so unless someone comes up with a good counterargument that I find convincing. COM doesn’t do anything at all in game terms, unlike all the other Characteristics. It can be fun, but it’s not worth cluttering up the character sheet. It makes more sense to eliminate it (and its annoying 1/2-point cost) and replace it with a Talent, Beautiful/Handsome, that’s defined as Interaction Skill bonuses in certain situations (and naturally there’d be a variant form called Ugly ).
[dsatow]: I think it would remove a lot of headaches. I would however suggest it not be a talent. Talents seem to be more an innate ability, almost a power but not quite. It would make beauty a PC or unPC thing to have. beauty is also very subjective. I would suggest just suggesting it be a way to buy PRE with a limitation only vs. the opposite sex.

Side note: In my game variant, the physical, mental, and social stats were divided into groups of three. Physical had Str, Dex, Body/Con. Mental had Will, Int, and Sanity. Social had Pre, Charm, and Popularity. The First stat in each was relative strength, the second was speed, and last was staying power. Thus you can have a strong willpower but at the edge of sanity like many of Arkham's finest residents. The social allow someone who could be very presenceful on stage but a jerk when met up close, and you ability to besmerch his character would be based on his popularity.

Q: Should PD and ED be combined into one Characteristic called DEF? If not, should objects be given separate PD and ED ratings?

Steve’s Thoughts: Combining PD and ED into one would certainly reduce the number of Characteristics and perhaps speed play a little. However, I think the Physical/Energy split has been a key element of the HERO System from its earliest incarnations, and don’t really see that changing to DEF is worth abandoning that. In light of that, at this point I favor giving objects separate PD and ED as well. That creates a little more detail, but it will make it easier to better simulate/define objects.
[dsatow]: I agree, it also makes it easier to define stuff like asbestos which has a high ED but poor PD.

Q: Should Mental Defense become a Characteristic?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t really think this is necessary, especially since it means adding one more Characteristic to HERO’s already long list, but it’s not beyond consideration.
[dsatow]: I disagree. I think it would help increase people to buy EGO. If you allow mental defense to add to PRE that would be even better.

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.
[dsatow]: Agreed. This is too big a can of worms.

Q: Should we eliminate END and the END cost for powers and abilities?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea is attractive in that it eliminates a big chunk of combat book-keeping — but I think it also removes a lot of ability to customize powers, magic systems, and the like. I think that gamers who don’t want to bother with END already just aren’t bothering with it, or build their characters so that it’s not an issue. A sidebar in the book about “eliminating END” is enough to deal with this issue, I’d say.
[dsatow]: I thought ever since 4th edition, END was fine.

Q: Should we make Size a Characteristic?

A: At first glance this may seem odd, but it’s not a wholly unattractive idea. If we use something like the Size Templates to define what each Size category gets (with Human-sized as a default, of course), we could then define Growth and Shrinking as adding/subtracting from that. It would also bring Vehicle and Base character sheets a little more in line with standard character sheets. If a character doesn’t want something from Size (like extra reach), he takes a Limitation on it. I’m not entirely sold on the idea, but I think it’s worth considering.
[dsatow]: Yes, the current model of buying everything individually is painful and most people I know stick to the old way with growth and shrinking 0 end always on.
__________________

[Enforcer84]

My objection to Figured Characteristics has nothing to do with cost breaks. Or even costs at all. It has to do with it limiting the characters that can be built. Or making it such that some characters can only be built using limited characteristics as part of their base build, which seems to be over complicated to me.

And you are wrong about the changes to EC having anything to do with it, at least for me. I've objected to the link between Figureds and Primaries since 10 or 15 minutes after I picked up the 1st edition rules. It just seemed so counter to everything else in the rules. "Build whatever you want, unless it comes down to your Characteristics, then you need to put your character together like WE say".

What concepts can you not make with the current Figured characteristics?

[Zane_Marlowe]

I can only speak for myself, but I want to say that I'm not in favour of removing the link between Primaries and Figureds because the Figureds are called Figureds. Or because I want to have Characteristics not do anything. I am in favour of it because I think that PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, STUN, and Leaping should be normal Characteristics that are not modified by the purchase of a different Characteristic. Note, that list does not include everything that Characteristics do in the game. Nor does it only include things that are called Figured Characteristics in the game. It includes the things that are currently modified by the purchase of Characteristics that I don't think should be.

That's fair enough, I think I was suggesting that if you think primary and figured characteristics could vary in opposition to one another realistically (see my last lengthy post above), then they could be reasonably divided, and if not, then they shouldn't.

It's just a decision procedure, but I do think some figured characteristics would (by that procedure) remain figured characteristics. It just seems intuitively right that for some things you couldn't be really "X" without also being at least somewhat "Y" as well.

[steamteck]

Just another cry for COM here.

My wife and I just played tonight and she made multiple COM rolls in several different scenes. One smoothing things out with the Police inspector. Making the NPC strong jawed hero feel protective of her character. Etc. I double cost every 5 points over 20 and cost COM 1 ans she still has thought it worth it to buy it up to 27.

[Hugh Neilson]

Just another cry for COM here.

My wife and I just played tonight and she made multiple COM rolls in several different scenes. One smoothing things out with the Police inspector. Making the NPC strong jawed hero feel protective of her character. Etc. I double cost every 5 points over 20 and cost COM 1 ans she still has thought it worth it to buy it up to 27.

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

[Chris Goodwin]

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

Very good point. We're talking about taking a part of the system out, and replacing it with something else. My preference is to avoid taking things out as much as possible. If we can make COM useful, wouldn't that be better?

[archermoo]

What concepts can you not make with the current Figured characteristics?

Casting it back into the statement that I made, without using limited characteristics you can't make a character that has a high strength but is no harder to physically damage than a normal person, nor recovers faster than a normal person.

There are SFX for being strong that don't make you harder to hurt physically, or make you recover faster or be harder to knock out. There are SFX for being agile that don't include you getting more actions than normal, etc.

Linking Characteristics together makes it much harder to do those things seperately. You have to use limited Characteristics, which by default means that those Characteristics are Powers, not Characteristics. Unlinking them means that you just need to buy all your Characteristics rather than counting on the system to make your choices for you.

[BobGreenwade]

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

Okay, count me as on board with this. (Though, as Steve's said, it's the logic of an argument that'll sway him rather than its popularity.)

[Balabanto]

I don't feel there's a need to change the characteristics. The problem with INT is that if you have too many pros from dover, only one person can be the smartest in the world and I run a game with 15 groups or more in it.

Figured characteristics are the same thing. I have to agree that removing them from the game after five editions is going to make all long time players say "Fnark? What the...?" or something similar. I know that the goal is to make the game more accessible to people who can't do math, but if that's the case, the Cost of CON needs to become 1. The Cost of BODY needs to become 1. The cost of EGO stays the same and DEX stays the same because they're active combat stats. I would actually argue for making the cost of EGO 3 because EGO attack is like buying the AVLD power for free for less points, and not all games have free play of Mental Defense. PRE and COM are likewise remaining at 1.

But, all those points that just dropped out of Regular now become part of your "Secondary" Characteristics. Lowering CON and BODY gives you a LITTLE more leeway, because those stats are now MUCH less useful. All Con does now is prevent you from being stunned. It doesn't give you REC, or END, or STUN, or anything, that's ALL it does. What this will do is change the design of EVERY single character in the game, because now massive defenses and low CON become far more plausible and feasible. If the average attack is 12d6, I don't care about my stun total, because the guy who has SUPER attacks, like Doctor Destroyer, is gonna stun me anyway, and that average villain who the PC's face on a daily basis is barely going to be able to hurt me at all. This may work in comic books, per se, but I don't think it really functions as well in a tabletop roleplaying game.

[James Gillen]

[*]I'd be okay with unifying CV and skills, making everything be based on CHA/5 or CHA/3 or whatever the end result is; I like 5 myself, because it's a nice round number for the system, but it's not ultra-important.

I like this idea.

Re: the stat block: Look at D&D3; while the important values are the stat bonuses, I think their masterstroke was in keeping the 3-18 range, deriving the important values directly from the 3-18 range, and keeping their stat block as is. Because of that, it still looks and feels like D&D, for all that implies. If they'd instead said "Okay, you mark down the important values instead, so a stat block looks like this: S +2, D -1, C +3, I +0, W -1, CH +4", they'd have had a revolt on their hands.

Which again, is why messing with things too much creates something that's based on Hero but is not Hero in the same way that True20 is not D20 but is obviously based on it. I like True20 a lot more than conventional D20, but if that's the direction one is (hypothetically) going in, be upfront about it.

JG

[James Gillen]

Also... if they're not based on "Primary" Characteristics anymore, then they're not FIGURED Characteristics, now are they? What are they going to be called?

JG

[rjcurrie]

Also... if they're not based on "Primary" Characteristics anymore, then they're not FIGURED Characteristics, now are they? What are they going to be called?

JG

How about we just have Characteristics and not call any of them Primary?

[Enforcer84]

Casting it back into the statement that I made, without using limited characteristics you can't make a character that has a high strength but is no harder to physically damage than a normal person, nor recovers faster than a normal person.

There are SFX for being strong that don't make you harder to hurt physically, or make you recover faster or be harder to knock out. There are SFX for being agile that don't include you getting more actions than normal, etc.

Linking Characteristics together makes it much harder to do those things seperately. You have to use limited Characteristics, which by default means that those Characteristics are Powers, not Characteristics. Unlinking them means that you just need to buy all your Characteristics rather than counting on the system to make your choices for you.

Sure you can. You buy STR with No figured Characteristics. Why is using limitations "cheating"*?
So a limited skill is a Power? or is that only Characteristics?





*My word not yours

[Markdoc]

What this says to me is that COM is as useful, or as useless, as the GM chooses to make it. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to write COM off as useless, but to provide tools for the GM to make it useful.

That to me would be a superior approach to the Perk so often suggested. In my games, it's used frequently. It can substitute for PRE in a variety of interaction skills - though obviously not all.

cheers, Mark