How Do You Handle Gear & Equipment in Heroic Games?

[Ninja-Bear]

@Duke Bushido, i absolutely agree that points in and of themselves don’t make the game.  However the games does uses points as a help to the GM, no? If a GM uses a prebuilt setting as the Western Shores as is from the book the problem is there. All I’m doing is showing context as to why someone would want points for equipment. 
 

FWIW, I would redo some of the magic spells in Western Shores to distinguish them from mundane equipment.
 

Also FWIW Markdoc had a pretty nest system of using Multipower for martial arts that was able to incorporate weapons into it.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Yes and a bow is paid for by money not points. Both spellcaster and archer could use it as is with a penalty. So the archer pays a point to be better with a bow. Spellcaster pays roughly 10 pts to do the same thing. And that’s fair?

 

Yes, it's fair. I've run several Fantasy Hero campaigns and with no shortage of mages among the PC's.  The points usually came from their relative STR, DEX and BODY and was considered a fair trade. Exact point for point equality is an unattainable ideal unless everyone runs the exact same character.

[Ninja-Bear]

5 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Yes, it's fair. I've run several Fantasy Hero campaigns and with no shortage of mages among the PC's.  The points usually came from their relative STR, DEX and BODY and was considered a fair trade. Exact point for point equality is an unattainable ideal unless everyone runs the exact same character.

I’m glad that your  group hasn’t had a problem. But you’re missing the point. Other people don’t considered it a fair trade hence the charging equipment. I do think that this is a group by group decision.

 

Just because you haven’t had a problem with it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem with it. Again I’m trying to provide context as to why some would charge for everything.

[Sketchpad]

Wouldn't the "Mages vs. Warrior" discrepancy be solved by introducing "Warrior Talents" to the mix? 

Mage A has Fireball (3d6 RKA, 5" AE Explosion) with a Real Cost of 30 points. They also have WF: Blades and carry a Short Sword.

Warrior B has Rapid Blade (+2d6 Autofire (5)) with a Real Cost of 30 points. They also have WF: Blades and carry a Short Sword. 

 

Points are the same. Swords were "bought" with coin, with abilities bought with points. Does this make more sense? Kind of having Occupation Tricks to replace "Class Abilities" in a classless system?

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Wouldn't the "Mages vs. Warrior" discrepancy be solved by introducing "Warrior Talents" to the mix? 

 

Well that was my mindset: both use talents to become more powerful; mages use talents to be able to learn to cast spells (the spells they buy or learn or find as loot).  That way they are both basically the same structure

[Ninja-Bear]

16 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Wouldn't the "Mages vs. Warrior" discrepancy be solved by introducing "Warrior Talents" to the mix? 

Mage A has Fireball (3d6 RKA, 5" AE Explosion) with a Real Cost of 30 points. They also have WF: Blades and carry a Short Sword.

Warrior B has Rapid Blade (+2d6 Autofire (5)) with a Real Cost of 30 points. They also have WF: Blades and carry a Short Sword. 

 

Points are the same. Swords were "bought" with coin, with abilities bought with points. Does this make more sense? Kind of having Occupation Tricks to replace "Class Abilities" in a classless system?

 

I was always curious to the mage perk magic system.

 

And perhaps I wasn’t being clear. I don’t mind if Mages pay for their spells if those spells are different and in some ways better than mundane equipment. (Note better not a nuke! 😁). So Fire Bolt affects ED. One thing I would do is strive to make sure most creatures in the world have less ED than PD unless said creature warrants a higher ED. I could see adding a +1 StunX to it too, its Fire. And maybe add the No Range Penalty Modifier. 

[MrAgdesh]

I’ve always charged for magical items that you wish to start play with but never for anything found. 
My players never abused anything they found by overuse. In fact, many of the items were given away or sacrificed to gods.

 

If a player wanted to make a found item integral to their character then I’d charge some points but that would require a reasonable justification (somehow becomes mystically/symbiotically tied to you, maybe an intelligent item etc)

[bluesguy]

In my Fantasy game if the players spend experience points on something then it is something that can't be taken away (at least for the long term).  The players have found all kinds of treasure (coins, gems, jewelry, equipment, merchandise,  etc.) and have used that to buy all kinds of things.  They have saved and pooled their wealth to have a ship built (something like a Viking longboat) and hired a crew.  They had a magic bell that summons air elementals to fill the sails with wind to improve the speed of the ship.  All of that wiped out their combined wealth.

 

I had another group that used their wealth to open an inn and some other businesses.  Magic items were even more rare in this campaign.

[Scott Ruggels]

On 11/25/2022 at 10:55 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

@Duke Bushido the biggest argument I’ve seen for paying points for equipment is to help balance out spellcasters versus fighters. There some lengthy debates on this so the very short version is a spellcaster pays for points to cast arcane bolt lets say a reasonable 5 pts and more than likely a skill roll so a minimum of 3 pts. Typically (and yes this is a sticking point) the arcane bolt does roughly the same damage as a bow. So the fighter gets to pay only 2 pts to be able to roughly that same thing a a spellcaster. Another area where I’ve seen (and looked at) is in Martial Art games. Way the rules are in a Heroic level game with a measly 1 pt investment (weapon element), a weapon wielder can outclass the Barehanded Master. 

 

 

Again, 20 year campaign, and I never cared/worries about balancing mages against fighters. That would have been dumb.  What I did do, was to balance "camera" or "spotlight time" So that each character got their turn in the spotlight, and contributed to the sessions. When I ran large groups, it was small teams of characters that got attention. This satisfied the players, a lot more, and other character were appreciative of having an Artillery Mage, or long range sniper in the party, and the mages were appreciative of party members that could trade3, and avoid having the party swindled, or ambushed, or otherwise disadvantaged, due to the Military/ Academic nature of mages in my old campaign. worrying about character balance may be something to worry about in Champions, but in Fantasy, it's far more situational.

The current campaign, which is a PBP on Discord, has no magic. So the players got free stuff from their employers. Mostly bronze tipped spears, and salvaged bows, but they had to pay a few silver for these  thick, gray wool, blankets, which most people wear as cloaks against the cold, and roll up into burritos under the carts of the caravan they are guarding, when it's not their shift. 

[Ninja-Bear]

6 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

Again, 20 year campaign, and I never cared/worries about balancing mages against fighters. That would have been dumb.  What I did do, was to balance "camera" or "spotlight time" So that each character got their turn in the spotlight, and contributed to the sessions. When I ran large groups, it was small teams of characters that got attention. This satisfied the players, a lot more, and other character were appreciative of having an Artillery Mage, or long range sniper in the party, and the mages were appreciative of party members that could trade3, and avoid having the party swindled, or ambushed, or otherwise disadvantaged, due to the Military/ Academic nature of mages in my old campaign. worrying about character balance may be something to worry about in Champions, but in Fantasy, it's far more situational.

The current campaign, which is a PBP on Discord, has no magic. So the players got free stuff from their employers. Mostly bronze tipped spears, and salvaged bows, but they had to pay a few silver for these  thick, gray wool, blankets, which most people wear as cloaks against the cold, and roll up into burritos under the carts of the caravan they are guarding, when it's not their shift. 

Not sure why balancing fighter versus mages is dumb when using a system that prides itself as being able to balance characters. I’m glad and doubt you ran a successful 20 year campaign. Nevertheless my point is that NOT ALL PEOPLE agree with how you (and everyone else that has similar sentiment,. From now on the you is a collective you) set it up.
 

I is amazing a frustrating that it seems that no one on here can actually look at the issue and go “hmmm, its not in my experience but I see where they’re coming from”. I am. I’ve never said said the “traditional way as in Mages pay for spells” is inherently wrong. I've used it myself.   Heck I didn’t even vote on the the thing. Yet for a game community thar claims “build your game to your vision” there’s been push back on this thread. My only intention when I first pointed out to Duke Bushido was that some people I’ve seen before think that the buying spell arraignment is unfairly taxing the Mage and I showed an actual example from a company product where that is mathematically shown, not someone's hypothetical idea. Sorry I got a little ranty there but still.    

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

Again, 20 year campaign, and I never cared/worries about balancing mages against fighters. That would have been dumb.  What I did do, was to balance "camera" or "spotlight time" So that each character got their turn in the spotlight, and contributed to the sessions.

 

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Not sure why balancing fighter versus mages is dumb when using a system that prides itself as being able to balance characters. I’m glad and doubt you ran a successful 20 year campaign. Nevertheless my point is that NOT ALL PEOPLE agree with how you (and everyone else that has similar sentiment,. From now on the you is a collective you) set it up.

 

There is an interesting dichotomy here, in my view.  There are various ways to view character points.

 

Of course, we start with "here is how we will balance PCs against one another - they all have the same resource to spend".  Point balance isn't perfect, but it's a starting point.

 

We also know that the value of many abilities differs between games.  A game focused on combat devalues non-combat skills and abilities.  There is little point buying interaction skills if a group's mantra is "role play it" and the success of such interactions will be judged by the GM's interpretation of how persuasive/charming/whatever the player is. Drill down to individual abilities and their utility becomes even a broader spread - Breathe Water in a seafaring pirates game seems a lot more useful than playing in a Dune campaign, and is essential if we are playing in Aquaman's Atlantis.

 

But there is another angle, which is where I think Scott ends up. As a player investing, say, 20-30 points in skills at trading, I am not going to be happy if the game revolves entirely around monster-hunting and dungeon-crawling.  As a GM, I will suggest that part of my job is to look at those 20 - 30 points and either figure out how I am going to build in game aspects that will allow those abilities to shine - to be worth their cost in-game - or to tell the player "really, based on the themes of this game, those abilities are not going to come up much - why don't we just call PS: Trader a background skill - no point cost, but if it comes up once or twice in the campaign, your character will be a master trader". 

 

We talk a lot about only saving points from limitations that truly limit, and not getting points for complications that don't cause issues.  We don't, in my opinion, look at the other side nearly as often - points spent need to carry in-game benefits commensurate with their spending.  The GM's job includes both sides of that equation.

 

By contrast, we've all heard some variant of the poor GM who runs a game for the Master Trader and the Artillery Mage that focuses entirely on close-quarters combat, frustrating both players because their abilities are almost never useful.

[Scott Ruggels]

I looked at points, not as balancing between characters, but as a balance between the characters and their opponents. Hero was great for setting up the opposition, and giving the party a challenge. Then it would be up to tactics and the dice to resolve the outcome.  In FH, balancing between 
 

Hugh gets it. In those years. I had a lot of characters cycle through, and the players were friends and I wanted to show them a good time.  So The give and take between players and GM made sure that the characters were danger worthy, but also had something to do, being appropriate for the direction that this party and the game around them was taking. Balancing between players is fine in Champions, but even then, depending on the villains, in some fights, one or two (or more) of the heroes may be ineffective.  In others, especially when using published villains, fight become a cake walk due to good tactics, die rolls, and a negative synergy between powers and defenses. In FH the damage, defenses and point totals are a lot lower, so, as I said, conflicts become a lot more situational.  So balance between characters is almost pointless, if with as few points as one has to spend to define one’s role in the party, a brace of skills, magic, or good stats is the basic choice players have to make.  I don’t play 6th Edition, so I am talking 100-150 points, depending on the sub-campaign.  

[Duke Bushido]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

. I’m glad and doubt you ran a successful 20 year campaign.

 

I do not want to go even further off topic, but I want to say that I believe it.  My Traveller-on-Champions game is still going, albeit every-other-month the last four years, but it is still going- we still have half (three) of the original players, and and,currently four "new guys".  There have been a lot of people drop out and drop in over the years- I mean, at this point, it is the RPG os Thesius, but it is still going-- and it started in the mid-nineties ('94, I think?).  And I live on the east coast. In the sticks, amongst the hicks.

 

I have no doubt that a good GM- who can both draw and do math on the fly, and fills his world with background, culture, and imagery, and operates on the west coast, in a city- could have a group going for way longer than I can.  I know just how wierd it is that I can find players _at all_ where I live, but I do.

 

In fairness, though: I had one group dwindle away (the Stateboro group) durning Covid, and another group ran through three six_month campaigns and drifted off one at a time (work, job changes, etc), but I have picked up the youth group....

 

I would think a guy willing to run a game where RPGs and comic books are still a happening thing would have no problem finding and retaining players.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

 

. My only intention when I first pointed out to Duke Bushido was that some people I’ve seen before think that the buying spell arraignment is unfairly taxing the Mage

 

Back on track:

 

I understand where you are coming from, but ultimately, he is getting what he paid for: he isnt going to snap a bowstring on his magic, and a thief isnt going to slide his magic from its sheath while he sleeps.  He doesnt have to do maintenance on his magic-  in short, he always has it.

 

A guy who buys "good with sword" doesnt get a guarantee that he will always have a sword, or that it is a good one, or that he gets to keep it.

 

And so on and so dorth, of course.e

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I showed an actual example from a company product where that is mathematically shown,

 

I will have to go back upstream and refresh my memory.  I am not doubting you; I am just old.

 

 

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Sorry I got a little ranty there but still.    

 

 

Eh.  It hapens.  It's pretty easy to overlook, since you arw generally a pretty good sport about most things. 

 

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm working up a Star Wars Hero game with my regular group.  I'm going to charge 1/5 the normal point cost for Vehicles (including ships), Followers (including droids) and special gear (including lightsabers for Jedi, other special gear like Mando's beskar armor and jet pack).  Normal weapons, armor, medical equipment, tools, etc., are at no point cost. 

[MrAgdesh]

Probably the only way that those Jedi could afford a lightsaber! 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Light Sabers are easy to build: they cut through anything, except other light sabers, and anything the plot requires them not to work against.  They are nearly instant kill, except when they aren't, and will easily harm anything the touch, but are safe for little kids to wave around in a crowded room.  See, easy!

[Duke Bushido]

Don't forget the power source, which needs replacing when it adds tension, but not before.  And the difficulty of locating a power source!  They run on pure plotonium.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

When I first saw Star Wars, I figured they ran on the force: only Jedi could use them, right?  Except then in the second movie, Han fires the thing up and I was so disappointed.  Its just a machine.

[Duke Bushido]

Right with you....  Kind of.  I also thought "oh; it's a Force thing.  Like compressed liquid force in a tube or something.  Got it.

 

When I saw Han Solo use it to slice open an arctic kangaroo, I though "well if anyone can do it, why aren't we making force fields out of this stuff?"

 

But, as you know, not a fan, and that idiosynchracy was just one among hundreds- like the ancient religion from way back whe-  well, except this guy.  Oh, and the ten thousand others that were doing there thing even after you were born.  Other than that, though, it's just a myth....)

 

But I digress.  I took the kids to see one of the newer ones where it was declared that they were oowered by crystals from the heart of A STAR!  A freakin' _star_!

 

So I began to wonder just how microscopic these necessarily hyper-densne star crystals were and how they hansle them and h-

 

Holy crap it's thw aize of a baseball and they are tossinf them around like hollow chocolates....

 

 

(Moving on beyond Lucas helped _a lot_, but not,nearly enough....)

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

I’m done with Star Wars. 

[Chris Goodwin]

My players enjoyed the first session of the Star Wars game, as did I.  I had an R6 astromech go off and do its own thing briefly, and also had an NPC wookiee pick up one stormtrooper and use him as a club on the one next to him.  The Grey Jedi player used Telekinesis on an unconscious trooper to shoot another one with his blaster.  And I had a couple of Star Wars sound board pages open, and had the R6 unit have a conversation with his owner, where I'd click a sound first, then say in English what the droid was saying.    Plus occasional blaster shots and TIE fighter overflights.

[Duke Bushido]

Glad it was a success!