Setting Up the Rules

[Aversill]

It seems to me that the guy running the game in Hero basically has to constantly lay down the law and that if he or she just says, "make something and we'll play an adventure," the whole thing will turn to chaos before the game even begins.  The game gives Stop and Caution signs, but there are so many hidden combinations that are damnably easy to find that if someone wants to exploit the rules, you'll pull your hair out constantly trying to put a stop to their exploitation that you'll have no energy left for designing the adventures (or do you just start a cheese competition).

 

This question is less about how official boundaries work, since I don't think those work very well (I'm thinking of AP limits, DC limits, no Stop powers, etc.), and more about what you do as a GM when players bring you the BS.  Do you just say, "no," followed by "because I said so?"  Do you have rules in your campaigns that, if followed, will prevent BS, and if so, how did you do it given the labyrinthine ruleset and the nigh infinite ways in which the rules can be exploited.

[Christougher]

I'll probably have more to add later, but the best followup to "No" is "Because it might be fun for you, but it won't be for anyone else."

 

Chris.

[IndianaJoe3]

I've also had good luck with, "I'm trying to run a [genre] game, and that [power/character concept] doesn't fit."

[Ndreare]

I have found that by telling the players the genre and target point ranges, things normally work out.

 

But when I do have trouble I normally just make it clear out would be inappropriate and a game baker for the particular game.

 

Some stop powers are very appropriate for some games such as the ability to see at a distance or eavesdrop on most fantasy. While others such as the a 5d6 killing may be only accessible in half your settings. Most players are reasonable and the ones that are not are normally not worth the headache.

[Aversill]

But what if that player isn't sure what you mean by "unfair for this genre or something."  It would seem to me that that would be a good thing for the genre books to do, but they're as open-ended as the 2 volume rule book as far as the rules go.  Take, for example, trigger.  I have no idea why every character doesn't have 8 active-point-maxed, DC-maxed offensive powers, all with the 1/4 point trigger ("when I say boo"), all ready to go off in a multipower when they enter combat.  Boo.  You get attacked 8 times.

 

You reply, "that would ruin the game," to which some player is likely to wonder, "well, how close to that line can I get without ruining the game," or worse, they've got a powerpool, but because restrictions aren't laid bare, you have to constantly spend your time adjudicating on the genre/fairness of every creation.  Sure, some players will get the picture and join the cause, but what about the other guy, the min/maxer or power-gamer?  Do you just tell them that Hero isn't the game for them? Do you encourage everyone to min/max and then go for broke?  Because the min/maxer will want a line and if you have to draw it for every power and advantage in the game... 

[IndianaJoe3]

But what if that player isn't sure what you mean by "unfair for this genre or something."  It would seem to me that that would be a good thing for the genre books to do, but they're as open-ended as the 2 volume rule book as far as the rules go.

 

 

It's a matter of setting expectations and what's appropriate. Conan, Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, and Rune Soldier Louie are very different even if they are all fantasy. Same with All-Star Superman and The Killing Joke - both are superhero stories, but very different.

 

 I have no idea why every character doesn't have 8 active-point-maxed, DC-maxed offensive powers, all with the 1/4 point trigger ("when I say boo"), all ready to go off in a multipower when they enter combat.  Boo.  You get attacked 8 times.

 

You reply, "that would ruin the game," to which some player is likely to wonder, "well, how close to that line can I get without ruining the game," or worse, they've got a powerpool, but because restrictions aren't laid bare, you have to constantly spend your time adjudicating on the genre/fairness of every creation.  Sure, some players will get the picture and join the cause, but what about the other guy, the min/maxer or power-gamer?  Do you just tell them that Hero isn't the game for them? Do you encourage everyone to min/max and then go for broke?  Because the min/maxer will want a line and if you have to draw it for every power and advantage in the game... 

 

The rules can't stop the player from abusing them - that's the GM's job. Some constructs might be perfectly reasonable in one form, but wildly abusive with only small changes. Some are abusive only in certain combinations, or if stacked multiple times.

[Vondy]

The first rule of Hero has always been, and always will be, communication. Not one-way communication, but a discussion. You define the genre, what elements do and don't work, what the target design range is, and both game-master and player expectations -- then you design characters. This is, incidentally, true of every endeavor you undertake in life. You don't start building/working until you have fully defined what the product/goal is supposed to be. Its up to you -- not the system -- to do the preliminary work.

[Aversill]

...undertake in life?

[bluesguy]

What I do is :

• Provide detailed guidance about the 'objective' measures within the campaign we are playing.  That means active points, characteristic norms (and ranges), allowable powers and power frameworks
• I have final approval of all character concepts and powers.  I will listen to a player but once I decide accept my decision.  I have changed my mind after a time and will work with the players at a later date.  I also let people know that for any 'big changes' I like to think about it for a while before implementing the change.
  • For instance one of my players wanted to have teleporting as a power.  He had a good reason for it and it was very consistent with his character concept.  I also don't particularly like teleporting because it really can make combat even more confusing for me as the GM :-) (a personal limitation on my part).  So as part of his character concept he got a non-combat teleport that let him teleport the whole team from place to place around the cities where they play.  Over time he saved enough points to buy combat teleporting and we talked it through.  Guess what?  I think I like the fact his character can combat teleport as much as he does.
  • Same player different game wanted his character to have a bunch of combat levels which would make him a better overall fighter than just about everyone else.  His character didn't have a fighter background.  Instead we went with him getting a bunch of unusual weapons and different combat skills with those select weapons.  It was less 'efficient' as far as a character build but a more accurate build for the character concept.
• Last but not least I will remind the players - "Anything your characters can learn to do the bad guys can as well."  Sometimes that stops them right away.  "Oh yeah it would be a bad idea to have a really massive mind scan and a mental killing attack."

[Aversill]

The spirit of this thing, though, is that I want to run a game, not second guess characters all the time.  I don't want to have to judge a power's appropriateness over and over again; I don't want to be one step ahead of the kind of rules lawyering that Hero invites; I want to tell a story.  Also, I expect that a player who hears no to X is going to try Y, and then Z until they get their character in scope.  But scope is a product of (every power x every advantage x every limitation)... that's just too much to have to constantly think about. 

 

Sadly, though, I think I've got my answer.  GM, do more work!  I don't like that answer.  I assume, then, that when players test this out, as I'm sure they do from time to time, they can't play? 

 

One of the problems I have with this is that I've got new players.  They don't know where these lines are.  There's 600 pages of rules.  Aside from the Stop signs, what do they have?  I don't want to make their characters for them, but Hero Builder allows them to get crazy powers really quickly.

[Christougher]

Don't rely on Hero Designer to enforce anything but point totals.  It won't enforce the type of balance or restriction you're looking for.  

 

You've got a good starting point if you already know the power levels and caps you want to enforce.  

 

As was said, discussion.  Set aside the first game session to discuss and build characters together.  Get everyone on the same page so they don't feel the need to break the game or the rules.  

 

Chris.

[sinanju]

The rules can't stop the player from abusing them - that's the GM's job. Some constructs might be perfectly reasonable in one form, but wildly abusive with only small changes. Some are abusive only in certain combinations, or if stacked multiple times.

 

This. I know I've posted about this before, but I've played with whole groups of power-gamers/rules lawyers. It requires a firm GM willing and able to enforce limits to make that work, but with a couple of exceptions (guys who did, in fact, end up presiding over complete chaos like B.A. in Knights of the Dinner Table) we made it work. The thing is, all of these guys were power gamers/rules lawyers, but if you were able to tell them "Yes, that's legal under the rules but you can't do it in my game (explanation of why was optional)" they might grumble a bit, but then they'd come up with something more reasonable...and then settle down to role-playing.

 

Champions is the most obvious example of this sort of thing, but it can be a problem in most rule sets. Ultimately, the rulebook is meaningless if the GM is unable or unwilling to set boundaries for his game and players.

[Scott Baker]

What sinanju said. (I was posting a similar note when his went up.)

[Aversill]

I'll say it again:  I want to run a game, not spend all my time adjudicating on rule calls.  I have a rule lawyer player.  Every incarnation of his character is bad.  It's just an infinite variety of junk.  Do I just keep vetoing his character over and over, five emails a day for weeks on end?  And what if asks, "what would I need to do here to make the character fromage-free?"

 

I don't want to have to say:  You can have levels, but only 3 and they can max at 5 points, and oh, Desolidification, yes, but it has to cost Endurance to maintain, but invisibility can be Endurance only to activate,  Change Environment is fine but max of Active 12, everything else max 45, you may not take knockback modifiers as limitations because we will not be using knockback unless a power has increased knockback in which case we will be using knockback, but then the 'not against knockback' limitation on clinging is worth double.  You can put stop powers in your power pool so long as the pool takes at least a day to change, but powers with charges or limited effect cannot be put into the power pool unless it is a common modifier for the pool itself....

 

I could go on.  Who wants to see five pages of that? 

 

And if you say, well, just use your intuition, I'll say "when?"  Every time the player puts a power into a power pool?  Character creation doesn't really end in Hero.

 

And I'll say why?  Given that the game has at least four obvious attempts to control this problem (real cost, active cost, DCs, stop and caution signs) and given that the rules are more than 500 pages, why can't I expect some support from the rules about what's fair and what's cheese?  If not in the original rules, then at the very least, in the genre books.  Why does that have to be me while I'm trying to run a game?  Damn, if I'm just going to run the game based on my intuition, why even have rules?  And by the way, some players want to know where the limit is, other players want to know that the limit is the same for everyone and not decided on a case by case basis.  The Fantasy Hero book is an additional some-odd hundred pages, it clears NONE OF THIS UP.  

 

But, as I said, I think I have the answer.  GMs have veto power.

 

Seriously, none of you have had a player ask where the line is so that they can make a fair character?  How do they react when you tell them that it's more of a feeling than a set of guidelines?

[Christougher]

I'll say it again:  I want to run a game, not spend all my time adjudicating on rule calls.  I have a rule lawyer player.  Every incarnation of his character is bad.  It's just an infinite variety of junk.  Do I just keep vetoing his character over and over, five emails a day for weeks on end?  And what if asks, "what would I need to do here to make the character fromage-free?"

 

Given that the game has at least four obvious attempts to control this problem (real cost, active cost, DCs, stop and caution signs) and given that the rules are more than 500 pages, why can't I expect some support from the rules about what's fair and what's cheese?  If not in the original rules, then at the very least, in the genre books.  Why does that have to be me while I'm trying to run a game?  Damn, if I'm just going to run the game based on my intuition, why even have rules?  And by the way, some players want to know where the limit is, other players want to know that the limit is the same for everyone and not decided on a case by case basis.  The Fantasy Hero book is an additional some-odd hundred pages, it clears NONE OF THIS UP.  

 

But, as I said, I think I have the answer.  GMs have veto power.

 

Seriously, none of you have had a player ask where the line is so that they can make a fair character?  How do they react when you tell them that it's more of a feeling than a set of guidelines?

 

Humor: If every incarnation of the character is bad and needs excessive vetting, maybe you need a better player.  Or possibly, put that to work for you.  It was already mentioned to tell them the same could be used against them. 

 

On the more serious side, maybe that player needs not to be given a VPP.  There are more than a few threads about controlling them/speeding up play with them.  One of the answers is to have a premade list of common "go to" powers submitted in writing along with the rest of the character.

 

And on the topic of other threads, I think what you're looking for is a Rule of X / Power Effectiveness rating for characters, for which there are also a ton of threads discussing.  My own personal rating is SPD*2 + OCV + DCs + DCV + (PD+ED)/4 + STUN/10.  You can peg the resulting number as a ballpark of the power level you want characters to be, and can easily point out that the PC who scores 80 is way out of bounds of the game where everyone else is 40.  Are the 42s and 43s too powerful?  Depends a lot on the game and the build.  It's not a perfect measure, but it's a good place to start.

 

Chris.

[Christougher]

why can't I expect some support from the rules about what's fair and what's cheese?  If not in the original rules, then at the very least, in the genre books.  

 

There was an article a while back on the most abusive, munchkined out 60 AP power.  The winner in the article was a vanilla 4d6 RKA (with the old 1d6-1 Stun multiple).  

 

The problem isn't necessarily the rules - *any* power can be abusive at a high enough degree.  My old group used to run an annual "Brute Tournament" with no limits, just to pull out all the stops and see just how bad it could be.  One of the biggest ones was Shin, who did a 100+d6 Double Knockback Movethrough.

 

And genre isn't it either.  A reasonable Lightsaber build (say 1.5d6 HKA NND Does Body, etc) works fine in a Star Wars game, but that same writeup would be a completely different story in a standard Fantasy game.  And even then, you can play a Star Wars game without Jedi around.  

 

It all depends on the flavor of the game you want to run.  And the rules can't really decide that for you.

 

Chris.

[Vondy]

The spirit of this thing, though, is that I want to run a game, not second guess characters all the time.  I don't want to have to judge a power's appropriateness over and over again; I don't want to be one step ahead of the kind of rules lawyering that Hero invites...

You have answered your own question. So, don't waste time criticizing honest answers you happen not to like. As for the amount of work involved, its a question of experience. The intuition you ask "when?" about is the art of the game, which takes patience and perseverance to learn. I can skim a character sheet and pretty much instantly know if something is problematic. And I can run fast combats in my sleep. But, I've been playing Hero regularly since 1990, and first met it in 1984. It didn't take thirty years to get there, of course, but it did take hard work learn the nuances and mind of the game. This is a game that relies on GM discretion and front-loads the work at the design-stage. And its really art rather than science. Either you want to develop your art, or you don't. If you don't, Hero isn't for you.

[Ndreare]

One option to consider is to use one of the published setting books such as Turakian Age or Valdorian age. Then all the baseline assumptions are already in place.

The magic system is already designed the assumed races are already in there and the assumed equipment values are already there.

As a further note Narosia is due to be out by Gen con. Narosia will be an all in one book so it may help here.

[Ndreare]

It seems like the tool kit build it your self nature of Hero that many of us love is also a source of frustration for many of the recent post I have seen.

[Steve]

Well, Hero is not the only system with rules lawyering. Just look at D&D over the years.

 

If you allow more choices, more options for abuse can occur. Flexibility is a tool for fun or a weapon for destruction.

[Vondy]

Seriously, none of you have had a player ask where the line is so that they can make a fair character?  How do they react when you tell them that it's more of a feeling than a set of guidelines?

Seriously, do you read our posts?

 

What part of sitting down to "define the genre, what elements do and don't work, what the target design range is, and both game-master and player expectations -- then you design characters" doesn't cover where the line for fair characters are for players? The point of the up-front discussion is making sure players understand what is and isn't appropriate for the game you are going to run. You still have to look their characters over, but proper communication ahead of time will eliminate 90% of the design issues that crop up -- allowing tweaks as opposed to giving a hard "no." The feeling, intuition, and art we are discussing is something the GM needs to set those guidelines for the players in his game. 

[Aversill]

I'm sorry, Vondy, but my beginning players don't have that intuition so your advice isn't very useful for me. I played 1st edition for about 8 years, but haven't played Hero since 91 or 92.  I have some of this intuition you're talking about, but its an enormous ruleset and I can't look at a character and immediately know that my game will be ruined if I allow the character to go as is.  Glad you can, but that doesn't really help me or my players.

 

The problem is that I'm asking what to do when the player doesn't stick to the agreed upon whatever but is subtly and continuously trying to get around the limits of the game or to stretch the limitations set up at the beginning of the game so as to make a character who is slightly more powerful than everyone else's.  I need to either handle the player mechanically, which is why I've posted this question, or I need to eject him from the game.  Intuition has already failed.  It is not the solution.  The player is trying to make a character who stretches the limits of what is wanted.  In a way, he probably already has the intuition you're thinking of, he's just trying to go a bit further than that, and being new, he's taking it too far. 

 

What I want, but what I don't think can exist, is a simple, 'you may do this and that, but not this or that' set of guidelines.  I was hoping to see what you all produce in your games so that I could model mine on that.  I have had one person recommend one.  Use of such guidelines do not seem to be that common and maybe for good reason, but as I've said, I either need one, or I need to eject the player.  I was hoping not to have to do the latter.

[Steve]

I've re-read through all the posts, and I can sympathize on the difficulties of having a rules lawyer/munchkin player. From a mechanistic POV, you can limit abilities by establishing ranges of CV, skill rolls, Base and Active Points and so on. I'm getting the impression that you have a player who looks at the list and goes, okay, how can I beat this GM, given this structure? Then the cheese begins being applied.

 

To that, there is no good answer. The player sounds like they want to beat the GM, not tell a story or roleplay. I think you'd run into the same problem with Exalted or D&D with this player.

 

Are the other players giving you as much trouble? It didn't sound like they were.

[Scott Baker]

@Aversill

 

I don't think what you are asking for exists. Every game, every group, are all different. As the GM, you have many options how to run the campaign, and you've been given a lot of advice in this thread. For your circumstances, that seems to mean doing things that you don't want to do (basically hand-holding new players). But, they need guidance, and that's part of the GM job (IHMO--I'm not very humble).

 

My advice for the rules-lawyer is that you will have to have a talk with them, and soon, about the kind of game you (and hopefully the players) have said you want to run. And during games, if they play, you'll have to make some judgement calls. A couple examples form the game I'm in currently: 1) when the rules-lawyering starts, we veto things that are too outlandish, or pulls the session off-course ("That may be in the rules, but I'm going to run it this way today. We can talk it over later to see how we want to handle this in the future."); 2) when players go off into too much analysis or "real life" nitpicking, we do something similar ("This is a super hero comic book. We know there are lots of communications satellites in orbit, but for the game the missile took out the satellite and cut off communications.")

 

Someone mentioned up-post that Communications is the key. True, but I'll throw in a little elbow-grease to get the campaign started as well.

[Aversill]

To Steve,

 

No.  The other players are generally fine.  But for most everyone I've either made their characters or they appreciate a kind of back and forth between players and the GM so they're not trying to push the envelope.  I do have limits, but the game seems to have as many ways to get around them as there are rules themselves.  So, that's where I'm at.  The standard things you'd monitor are not the points of contest. 

 

I think you're right when you say, "To that, there is no good answer."

 

To Scott,

 

Yeah, the other players are kind of livid.  The rules lawyer is actually ending up keeping himself safe and getting other people killed.