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

[levi]

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

Some goals of a re-design...

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

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

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

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

[Klaus Mogensen]

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

- Klaus

[nexus]

Wouldn't villains be Antagonists?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

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

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

[nexus]

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

[Chris Goodwin]

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

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

[Vulcan]

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

[Jhamin]

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

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

[Zeropoint]

Wouldn't villains be Antagonists?

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

[levi]

Wouldn't villains be Antagonists?

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

[levi]

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

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

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

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

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

All things I think HERO could benefit from.

[Captain Obvious]

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

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

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

[Hugh Neilson]

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

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

All things I think HERO could benefit from.

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

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

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

[Chris Goodwin]

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

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

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

[levi]

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

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

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

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

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

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