rules design Could Rules for Hero Gaming System Be Getting To Complicated?

[Chris Goodwin]

8 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Many of us older players who've been doing this since First Edition do this as second nature. I've got 40+ years of Hero to draw on and I think you have similar experience. I can do Hero without a book. But it doesn't come naturally to newer players, it has to be learned.

 

True.  But...

 

6e2 has a number of pregen characters in the HERO System Genre By Genre section.  6e1 has multiple sets of Characteristics guidelines by power levels on pages 35 and 48.  And then there's us, here at the boards and on the Discord server. 

 

And there's a ton more information available in the other supporting books. Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero for 6th edition alone.  Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete.

 

A person new to 5th edition is going to be in exactly the same place as a person new to 6th edition with respect to expectations of where stats should be.  In this regard, reducing the amount of math by eliminating Figured Characteristics is reducing the mental load.  I can't comprehend how the opposite could be true.

[pawsplay]

11 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

In what way?  It reduces at least a dozen arithmetical operations. 

 

Arithmetic is easy. It's decisions that are hard. A question I would pose is, if CON is how healthy you are, why do I then also have to decide how much damage I can take, how much endurance I have, and how tough I am, separately from my Constitution? What does DEX represent, if it's completely divorced from combat ability? If I'm creating a fighter for a fantasy campaign, how much PD and ED should I have? These might seem like second nature to long-time players, but to the novice, we've gone from a system where you have eights traits to decide, and a few things to calculate, to one in which you have sixteen or so, including a vestigial OMCV for many characters. The current system is what you get when you keep refining something to appeal to an expert user base who are comfortable with odd legacy items.

Splitting off SPD, in order to get rid of decimal purchases for that one trait, and because it doesn't necessarily have a strong relationship with DEX, was a good idea.

[Grailknight]

8 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

True.  But...

 

6e2 has a number of pregen characters in the HERO System Genre By Genre section.  6e1 has multiple sets of Characteristics guidelines by power levels on pages 35 and 48.  And then there's us, here at the boards and on the Discord server. 

 

And there's a ton more information available in the other supporting books. Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero for 6th edition alone.  Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete.

 

A person new to 5th edition is going to be in exactly the same place as a person new to 6th edition with respect to expectations of where stats should be.  In this regard, reducing the amount of math by eliminating Figured Characteristics is reducing the mental load.  I can't comprehend how the opposite could be true.

 

Hero's best resource is its community, both the Discord and these boards, but that's not how new players are introduced to the game. Without a wider circulation of the printed source material, newbies don't have easy access to those examples to learn from. The source material itself isn't inadequate, it's just not commonly available. There's nothing but word of mouth out there to attract newbies. This topic made me realize that we don't even have a Discord invite link on these boards or vice versa.

[Chris Goodwin]

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

Hero's best resource is its community, both the Discord and these boards, but that's not how new players are introduced to the game. Without a wider circulation of the printed source material, newbies don't have easy access to those examples to learn from. The source material itself isn't inadequate, it's just not commonly available. There's nothing but word of mouth out there to attract newbies. This topic made me realize that we don't even have a Discord invite link on these boards or vice versa.

 

You're right in that there's nothing but word of mouth out there, but that word of "mouth" is now spread electronically. 

 

I feel comfortable saying that there is no person getting into the HERO System who doesn't have access to either an experienced player -- otherwise whose mouth is the "word of" coming from? -- or the Internet in some way.  I'm happy to be proven wrong. 

 

And any person creating a character intended for actual play in a game is going to have a GM who is going to look their characters over, check their stats for viability and whether they meet the campaign guidelines, and advise them where they don't. 
 

And if they do?  If they happen to create a character that somehow slips through? 

 

The world dies in nuclear fire --

 

No, it does not.  Nor does the patient die on the table.  Nor do the Gaming Police show up and haul everyone away to Gaming Prison. 

 

We admit that we made a mistake, and we fix it. 

 

My first two Champions characters were made using just the rulebook, without reference to a GM or an existing game.  I'm fairly certain they weren't viable in play, mainly because I didn't have a clue where the stats, including the Figured Characteristics, came in relative to any particular set of campaign guidelines.  In my defense, they weren't intended to be; they were me playing with the character creation mechanics in order to learn them.  (I'm pretty sure Feline came to about 180 total points -- this was third edition).  I showed them to my friend, who by then had been playing Champions for a couple of years, and he told me -- nicely, in case anyone was wondering -- why they wouldn't be viable.  My third character was as viable as a character could be that was created using only the third edition corebook and none of the supplements, which everyone else in the group had...

 

Figured Characteristics aren't an automatic protection from non viable characters, nor do they allow you to disclaim decision making for each one.  (Unless you've gone full Goodman School of Character Efficiency, and have built your characters with way-out-of-any-coherent-concept levels of STR, DEX, and CON, but if you're that person then nothing in any part of this discussion applies to you.)  You're still looking at them to decide whether the 8 base ED from your 38 CON is enough or whether you need more. 

 

I'll tell you what eliminating Figured Characteristics did do: it made it so that we don't need 28 DEX or 38 CON to hit the minmax breakpoints on CV's or Figured Characteristics, which means we build to concept rather than arms race, with housewives or grad students gaining energy powers and 25 STR and 23 DEX.  SPD 4 and DEX 15 are viable in play in a 375 point Champions game. 

[Chris Goodwin]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

This topic made me realize that we don't even have a Discord invite link on these boards or vice versa.

 

Here's the Discord:

https://discord.gg/HcUJvJH

[LoneWolf]

In most cases secondary stats were bought up from the figured values.   I have never had a character with a 20 STR that only had 4 PD.  Even REC had to be bought up.   A character with a 20 STR and 20 Con had 8 REC.  Even at 2 SP a heroic character will use 10 END per turn (4 for STR and at least 1 for movement).  If they have 3 or higher SPD they will burn even more.   If they have a 4 SPD they will burn through their 40 END about 30 seconds.   Going up to 10 REC means you last an extra turn or so.  That is assuming they have nothing else using END. 

 

Figured stats are kind of like minimum wage, they give you something, but not enough to survive.  You still need to buy them up from the starting values, so how is that any quicker or less mental effort?  Too me adding +6 REC takes the same amount of mental effort as adding +2.   
 

[unclevlad]

10 hours ago, pawsplay said:

 

Arithmetic is easy. It's decisions that are hard. A question I would pose is, if CON is how healthy you are, why do I then also have to decide how much damage I can take, how much endurance I have, and how tough I am, separately from my Constitution? What does DEX represent, if it's completely divorced from combat ability? If I'm creating a fighter for a fantasy campaign, how much PD and ED should I have? These might seem like second nature to long-time players, but to the novice, we've gone from a system where you have eights traits to decide, and a few things to calculate, to one in which you have sixteen or so, including a vestigial OMCV for many characters. The current system is what you get when you keep refining something to appeal to an expert user base who are comfortable with odd legacy items.

Splitting off SPD, in order to get rid of decimal purchases for that one trait, and because it doesn't necessarily have a strong relationship with DEX, was a good idea.

 

Doesn't "healthy" represent more than durable?  Someone in excellent health is generally better able to fight off disease, for example.  Also, being healthy doesn't necessarily imply "can run all day" or "takes a licking and keeps on ticking."  Mechanically, CON is the generally static, unchanging value;  its major role is strictly as the threshold value for getting stunned.  END and STUN are the dynamic values.  

 

DEX represents many things, but it can also be completely separate from combat value.  Simone Biles has an excellent DEX...but, I suspect, terrible OCV, at least.  

 

The amount of PD and ED is an open question, but that's got nothing to do with figured characteristics.  Also, note:  the system was back-hacked for fantasy.  The original target was supers.

[Doc Democracy]

16 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

In most cases secondary stats were bought up from the figured values.   I have never had a character with a 20 STR that only had 4 PD.  Even REC had to be bought up.   A character with a 20 STR and 20 Con had 8 REC.  Even at 2 SP a heroic character will use 10 END per turn (4 for STR and at least 1 for movement).  If they have 3 or higher SPD they will burn even more.   If they have a 4 SPD they will burn through their 40 END about 30 seconds.   Going up to 10 REC means you last an extra turn or so.  That is assuming they have nothing else using END. 

 

Figured stats are kind of like minimum wage, they give you something, but not enough to survive.  You still need to buy them up from the starting values, so how is that any quicker or less mental effort?  Too me adding +6 REC takes the same amount of mental effort as adding +2.   
 

 

You made me go back and look at ancient character sheets that I have kept for decades! 🙂

 

What I found was that, in my group at least - I have no other reference - that secondary characteristics were indeed bought up, but only after we had bought up primary characteristics to the point that one secondary had already been bought down drastically and a second had reached an acceptable point and the gains from buying primaries could no longer be realised because the system forbade you buying down more than one secondary.  It shows that the designers had already seen that primaries were too good a deal and that the astute player would ramp up CON and STR until every possible secondary had been bought down, exploiting the value in that relationship.

 

The reason, in my group, that secondaries were bought up was because, after a certain point, the rules prevented us exploiting buying them down...

 

I tend to avoid these conversations because I am a characteristic extremist, well out of alignment with most others on the boards.  However, what Chris said resonated with me
 

17 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

My first two Champions characters were made using just the rulebook, without reference to a GM or an existing game.  I'm fairly certain they weren't viable in play, mainly because I didn't have a clue where the stats, including the Figured Characteristics, came in relative to any particular set of campaign guidelines.  In my defense, they weren't intended to be; they were me playing with the character creation mechanics in order to learn them.  (I'm pretty sure Feline came to about 180 total points -- this was third edition).  I showed them to my friend, who by then had been playing Champions for a couple of years, and he told me -- nicely, in case anyone was wondering -- why they wouldn't be viable.  My third character was as viable as a character could be that was created using only the third edition corebook and none of the supplements, which everyone else in the group had...

 

We had no access to anyone else, we had to learn it among ourselves and, like Chris, our first characters both players and GM were not viable in combat - they failed in multiple ways as we found out what worked, what didn't and settled on values for baselines in the game that the figured characteristics did not help very much at all beyond giving us vague suggestions that characters with a high con might be expected to have higher ED (but not PD) higher REC and much higher END than baseline characters. 

 

Unlike Chris, those unviabe characters were indeed supposed to be played, and they were.  We learned by making those mistakes and changing how we did things. 

 

Doc

 

[Doc Democracy]

18 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

Here's the Discord:

https://discord.gg/HcUJvJH

 

Ach - I have tried Discord so many times and bounced off it every time.  It feels chaotic to me and cannot understand its value over a forum like this.  I guess I am old now and cannot get my head round these new-fangled things.  😞 The shame is that the community is so small now that the spread cross different platforms dilutes the community further.

[Duke Bushido]

21 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

And if they do?  If they happen to create a character that somehow slips through? 

 

The world dies in nuclear fire --

 

No, it does not.  Nor does the patient die on the table.  Nor do the Gaming Police show up and haul everyone away to Gaming Prison. 

 

We admit that we made a mistake, and we fix it. 

 

 

 

 

Well, there's nothing I can add after that.

 

Thank you, Sir.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I was always more focused on the character i was trying to make rather than ruthless efficiency, so I built bricks with 13 DEX and energy projectors with 11 CON.  Was it the best possible build with secondary characteristics?  No, but it fit the character design I had, no matter what the breakpoints were.  This guy wasn't especially durable no matter how many points of END I'd get for free, so he had a low CON.  But I admit that I was an outlier in this.

[Chris Goodwin]

I think if everyone's making their characters at about the same level of efficiency, it's more fun than when one person is minmaxed within an inch of their life, and even moreso than when it's everyone but you minmaxed.

[Duke Bushido]

Yep.

 

Most or my characters were like Christopher's:  not particularly "effective" except dor their particular Schtick.

 

They all ended up with solid Endurance and often higher ED than PD, though, just because I thoight Constitution-- the over well robustness and wellness of a character- was a hallmark of the broad-shouldered, square-jawed, chiseled,cheeks HERO type.  We disnt even use the Stunning rules for the first few years: the high CON was just part of a HERO concept for me.

 

Heck, I _still_ do that.

 

 

[Sketchpad]

20 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I was always more focused on the character i was trying to make rather than ruthless efficiency, so I built bricks with 13 DEX and energy projectors with 11 CON.  Was it the best possible build with secondary characteristics?  No, but it fit the character design I had, no matter what the breakpoints were.  This guy wasn't especially durable no matter how many points of END I'd get for free, so he had a low CON.  But I admit that I was an outlier in this.

 

19 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Yep.

 

Most or my characters were like Christopher's:  not particularly "effective" except dor their particular Schtick.

 

They all ended up with solid Endurance and often higher ED than PD, though, just because I thoight Constitution-- the over well robustness and wellness of a character- was a hallmark of the broad-shouldered, square-jawed, chiseled,cheeks HERO type.  We disnt even use the Stunning rules for the first few years: the high CON was just part of a HERO concept for me.

 

Heck, I _still_ do that.

 

 

 

Completely agree with the above. For me it was all about making the concept work within the world and always has been. I had a player that would min/max the hell out his characters for my games, and then get a bit burnt when I took advantage of their "point saving limitations." Kind of funny when I think back on it. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/9/2023 at 8:25 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I was always more focused on the character i was trying to make rather than ruthless efficiency, so I built bricks with 13 DEX and energy projectors with 11 CON.  Was it the best possible build with secondary characteristics?  No, but it fit the character design I had, no matter what the breakpoints were.  This guy wasn't especially durable no matter how many points of END I'd get for free, so he had a low CON.  But I admit that I was an outlier in this.

 

On 12/9/2023 at 9:24 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Yep.

 

Most or my characters were like Christopher's:  not particularly "effective" except dor their particular Schtick.

 

They all ended up with solid Endurance and often higher ED than PD, though, just because I thoight Constitution-- the over well robustness and wellness of a character- was a hallmark of the broad-shouldered, square-jawed, chiseled,cheeks HERO type.  We disnt even use the Stunning rules for the first few years: the high CON was just part of a HERO concept for me.

 

Heck, I _still_ do that.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

 

Completely agree with the above. For me it was all about making the concept work within the world and always has been. I had a player that would min/max the hell out his characters for my games, and then get a bit burnt when I took advantage of their "point saving limitations." Kind of funny when I think back on it. 

 

Our group has typically focused more on concept than min-max.  At the same time, most players don't like discovering their character is "the weakest link" in game.  Hero presents itself as "build the character you want". This should come with "and your concept will be playable in the game".  When certain concepts have a significant efficiency advantage (or disadvantage), players' ability to play the concept they want is eroded.

 

Better balance does not harm players who build to concept, does it?

[LoneWolf]

A good concept is great, but that should not mean your character cannot be effective.   A good concept should not hamstring your character in every way.  Building in an exploitable weakness into a character is fine but making a character that cannot accomplish what he needs to is not.  While players should be able to play the character they want, that character is part of a team and should be able to carry their weight.   If your characters concept is that they are totally incompetent at combat maybe that concept should be used for a DNPC instead of a PC.

 

All too often I see people who focus on concept before efficiency fail to actually achieve the concept.  When you concept is a charismatic swashbuckler that can charm anyone and your skill with swords consists of WF blades and 2 3 point skill levels that is not a swashbuckler.  Having the social skills and talents to talk your way out of trouble is great, but don’t totally neglect combat.

 

Another thing I see is that players focusing on concept often cannot afford everything there concept should have.   This is really common with newer players, or those with limited system mastery.  Often they waste points on something that can be built more efficiently leaving them too few points to purchase the rest of the abilities their concept includes.  Often by rewriting the character more efficiently they can actually get closer to their concept. 

 

Building a good character is an art.  It requires balancing out what you want vs that which is needed by the game. 

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Better balance does not harm players who build to concept, does it?

 

There's areas where it can.

 

1.  The concept is implicitly fairly flexible.  Say the concept is "weather control."  OK.  Blast (or RKA), electrical.  Maybe Cold-based, too, maybe with RedPen.  Change Environment...wind speed, temperature, visibility, laying down an ice sheet might be movement impairment.  And most of these are AoE, so building everything in as 1 power might be VERY expensive.  Maybe an MP...but at least you're throwing in the slot costs.  You'd also be limited to what you could do at one time.  Likely some extra senses...partially penetrative on sight group, to see through fog or snow or the like.  

 

2.  Related but not quite the same...where you're looking at an expensive power that's somewhat outside the norm.  The Change Environment above.  Or, when you need to use 2 fairly expensive powers together...Mind Scan + Telepathy, for example.  Drop the scan, you lose the mental lock, so you need to have both active at the same time.  Clairsentience and Teleport is another.  The concept is something like the Correspondence Mage...distance is an illusion.  Well, that Clairsent is gonna need Targeting, and maybe a few other things...gets pricey fast.  And you've got to keep it up while you teleport.

 

3.  The concept in the source material makes SERIOUS use of authorial fiat.  Lots of low-defense martial arts types never get hit.  Well...in game, a 7- attack roll still succeeds 1 time in 6, so the defenses can't be SO low that the character gets clobbered when it happens, because it will happen.  Decently regularly.  

 

4.  The concept doesn't translate very well to phased combat.  Speedsters, high mobility types generally.  Someone who can lay the smack and move away...that's hard to balance.  

 

I'm sure I haven't exhausted the list...

[Ninja-Bear]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:36 AM, Chris Goodwin said:

 

True.  But...

 

6e2 has a number of pregen characters in the HERO System Genre By Genre section.  6e1 has multiple sets of Characteristics guidelines by power levels on pages 35 and 48.  And then there's us, here at the boards and on the Discord server. 

 

And there's a ton more information available in the other supporting books. Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero for 6th edition alone.  Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete.

 

A person new to 5th edition is going to be in exactly the same place as a person new to 6th edition with respect to expectations of where stats should be.  In this regard, reducing the amount of math by eliminating Figured Characteristics is reducing the mental load.  I can't comprehend how the opposite could be true.

I don’t think though you are looking at this from a newcomer’s eye. Iirc you started out with Champions no? Then picked up other games, Heroic but used Champions as a base, then played and mixed and matched? Correct all before 4th Ed? So Champions we can all agree is simpler Pre-4th due to having less Powers and options. However that face you base on which to add different rules of say Justice Inc. in other words you understood say how to hit and how to calculate OCV and DCV before throwing on the Hit location Chart of say Fantasy. You don’t learn everything at once. And even so Justice Inc. has less options than what is currently available now. And to the fact that now to play a campaign, it’s considered that you have to create a game whole cloth.  There is way more information to sort through now a days than before. And yes we have the good all ‘net. Still how much of agreement do we have on this board?  So as a new player, you need to sort and value what advice is applicable to your situation. FWIW Indo think the rules are getting in the way.

[unclevlad]

8 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I don’t think though you are looking at this from a newcomer’s eye. Iirc you started out with Champions no? Then picked up other games, Heroic but used Champions as a base, then played and mixed and matched? Correct all before 4th Ed? So Champions we can all agree is simpler Pre-4th due to having less Powers and options. However that face you base on which to add different rules of say Justice Inc. in other words you understood say how to hit and how to calculate OCV and DCV before throwing on the Hit location Chart of say Fantasy. You don’t learn everything at once. And even so Justice Inc. has less options than what is currently available now. And to the fact that now to play a campaign, it’s considered that you have to create a game whole cloth.  There is way more information to sort through now a days than before. And yes we have the good all ‘net. Still how much of agreement do we have on this board?  So as a new player, you need to sort and value what advice is applicable to your situation. FWIW Indo think the rules are getting in the way.

 

Yeah, I think we've made this point, but it's worth repeating.  5E somewhat, and 6E *definitely*, is VERY hard to take in initially.  I was cross-checking the Mind Scan point above?  So I have the PDF open.  The Mind Scan text takes up 5 pages.  That counts the tables, but not the illustration.  In Champions Complete, it's about a page and a half.  Some of that is layout-related...the 6E book has excessive margins that cramp its text columns, for example.  Particularly the outer page edge, where the chapter number is located.  But that sheer Wall Of Text is intimidating, and makes finding some things very difficult.

[Rich McGee]

7 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Yeah, I think we've made this point, but it's worth repeating.  5E somewhat, and 6E *definitely*, is VERY hard to take in initially. 

My POV:  I started with 1st ed, played keep-up all the way through 4th, and then just stopped buying core rules.  I didn't bounce off 5th, but 4th did what I wanted from the game and did it just as well while also being familiar.  I've borrowed friends' copies of 6th and I definitely did bounce off of that. 

 

That's me as a somewhat lapsed veteran with almost half a century of gaming behind me.  What a high school kid encountering 6th or even 5th for the first time is going to feel I can only guess at, but on average I bet it doesn't go over well without significant outside help.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Rich McGee

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree, again, that the presentation could be less intimidating.  That's what the Champions Begins project was about: presenting the rules in a simple, easily digestible form that even younger, less literate players could enjoy.  But then, D&D has a pretty intimidating set of rules as well, its just almost everyone who learns, learns with and from someone who already knows how to play.

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Better balance does not harm players who build to concept, does it?

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

There's areas where it can.

 

1.  The concept is implicitly fairly flexible.  Say the concept is "weather control."  OK.  Blast (or RKA), electrical.  Maybe Cold-based, too, maybe with RedPen.  Change Environment...wind speed, temperature, visibility, laying down an ice sheet might be movement impairment.  And most of these are AoE, so building everything in as 1 power might be VERY expensive.  Maybe an MP...but at least you're throwing in the slot costs.  You'd also be limited to what you could do at one time.  Likely some extra senses...partially penetrative on sight group, to see through fog or snow or the like.  

 

2.  Related but not quite the same...where you're looking at an expensive power that's somewhat outside the norm.  The Change Environment above.  Or, when you need to use 2 fairly expensive powers together...Mind Scan + Telepathy, for example.  Drop the scan, you lose the mental lock, so you need to have both active at the same time.  Clairsentience and Teleport is another.  The concept is something like the Correspondence Mage...distance is an illusion.  Well, that Clairsent is gonna need Targeting, and maybe a few other things...gets pricey fast.  And you've got to keep it up while you teleport.

 

3.  The concept in the source material makes SERIOUS use of authorial fiat.  Lots of low-defense martial arts types never get hit.  Well...in game, a 7- attack roll still succeeds 1 time in 6, so the defenses can't be SO low that the character gets clobbered when it happens, because it will happen.  Decently regularly.  

 

4.  The concept doesn't translate very well to phased combat.  Speedsters, high mobility types generally.  Someone who can lay the smack and move away...that's hard to balance.  

 

I'm sure I haven't exhausted the list...

 

So, basically, when you want a concept that will make your character excessively powerful for the game, and dwarf the other characters.  I can live with that not being attainable.

 

1.   Lots of comic book characters have weather powers, using one effect at a time.  Your concept of a weather-based character can be achieved.  The concept of a character who can do many things at the same time making the other PCs irrelevant and crushing the opposition should not be achievable.

 

2.   So my concept is that I can attack them from a distance/from hiding, they cannot retaliate and I always win.  Again, no thanks.

 

3.   This is where we see constructs like Combat Luck which simulate that Author Fiat.  Pre-4e, we used to use a similar concept built around Damage Reduction.

 

4.   Again, where the concept is "my character cannot be beaten", the concept is unsuitable for the game.  Often, "I attack then move far away" is readily countered with "I go inside a building"; "I go somewhere he can't see and wait to ambush him" or "my sole goal in life was not to knock him out - I leave in the other direction (with the loot I stole) while he's way far away".

 

If your "concept" is "my character is more powerful than the other PCs", then I think you have missed the point of a cooperative RPG.

[unclevlad]

Gee, I love how you translate what I said into "my character must be more powerful than yours."   

 

Several of the concepts I mentioned, like the speedster, are well known in comics.  If your concept is a comic book speedster, you can't do it.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well I think there might be a false dichotomy being promoted here of either you are really tightly built with every point squeezed to its limit to make the most efficient and effective character possible... or you make a concept character that is a hapless clod incompetent in every way.  I see it more as a combination of elements.  You can have a fairly effective conceptual character and a conceptual efficient character.  

 

The character who builds in less efficient portions (such as the 10 CON mentalist) might not have quite as many points to spend on everything but its not crippling, either.  And a tight concept might be more effective than the super efficient build simply because it is tight and works well as a package.  And of course, there's the effect of role playing, where even if a character isn't the most powerful combat machine imaginable, they have other aspects and the game is about more than beating up the next bad guy.  I mean, ideally.

 

And then there's the GM who has the power to make things right.  A good GM is not like a computer game, they can adjust the encounters, setting, events, and circumstances to give the "weaker character" a chance to shine and be useful or important even in the combat they may not excel in.

 

Quote

If your concept is a comic book speedster, you can't do it.

 

Well, let's put it this way: if your concept is the full potential of a comic book speedster when logically followed through to their natural consequences and the way they are on occasion depicted... nobody has that many points and you cannot build that character.

 

But you can build a speedster that acts much like a comic book speedster in most of their encounters.  No, there's no chance anyone can shoot their freeze ray gun faster than the Flash can dodge it.  No, Mirror Master could not reach over and push buttons on his wrist before the Flash could run around the world seven times, eat a pizza, and read a book, then stop the button pushing.

 

And both of those things happen in the comics: the freeze ray goes off before Flash acts, Mirror Master pushes his silly buttons before the Flash can stop him.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Hugh Neilson]

 

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well I think there might be a false dichotomy being promoted here of either you are really tightly built with every point squeezed to its limit to make the most efficient and effective character possible... or you make a concept character that is a hapless clod incompetent in every way.  I see it more as a combination of elements.  You can have a fairly effective conceptual character and a conceptual efficient character.  

 

The character who builds in less efficient portions (such as the 10 CON mentalist) might not have quite as many points to spend on everything but its not crippling, either.  And a tight concept might be more effective than the super efficient build simply because it is tight and works well as a package.  And of course, there's the effect of role playing, where even if a character isn't the most powerful combat machine imaginable, they have other aspects and the game is about more than beating up the next bad guy.  I mean, ideally.

 

And then there's the GM who has the power to make things right.  A good GM is not like a computer game, they can adjust the encounters, setting, events, and circumstances to give the "weaker character" a chance to shine and be useful or important even in the combat they may not excel in.

 

I think all that is being asserted is that the system (or the GM) should not penalize certain concepts by forcing that concept to be incompetent.  The classic example has been a "trained human" in Supers. When the typical character whose concept has nothing to do with being super-tough, or super-agile, or super-fast, can have a 23 STR, 28 CON, 26 DEX and 5-6 SPD, but we look to that "highly trained normal" and say "well, he can't have more than a 20 STR, 20 CON, 20 DEX and 4 SPD - and even that is pushing it", we forced that character to be underpowered compared to other concepts - especially in pre-6e when DEX was essential to CV.

 

Either the game needs to be structured to allow a character within the "normal human" parameters to be a viable character - like they are in the source material - or we have to allow that such characters are not limited to "normal human" parameters.  Or we invalidate that concept.

 

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Gee, I love how you translate what I said into "my character must be more powerful than yours."   

 

Several of the concepts I mentioned, like the speedster, are well known in comics.  If your concept is a comic book speedster, you can't do it.  

 

Christopher says it well below.  All of those concepts appear in the comics and are not overpowered compared to their teammates or their opponents. Characters with those concepts also appear in Hero Games materials  Their concepts are compromised to the extent necessary to be balanced with other characters. The weather controller does not blast off with a combined attack holding 6 campaign-maximum DC powers at once. The speedster is not so fast that she can resolve the entire encounter before the other characters can blink.  Mentalist snipers get vetoed. "Normal humans" with no visible defenses get Combat Luck or similar abilities.  Why?  Because these constructs perform in-game in a manner comparable to the source material.

 

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well, let's put it this way: if your concept is the full potential of a comic book speedster when logically followed through to their natural consequences and the way they are on occasion depicted... nobody has that many points and you cannot build that character.

 

But you can build a speedster that acts much like a comic book speedster in most of their encounters.  No, there's no chance anyone can shoot their freeze ray gun faster than the Flash can dodge it.  No, Mirror Master could not reach over and push buttons on his wrist before the Flash could run around the world seven times, eat a pizza, and read a book, then stop the button pushing.

 

And both of those things happen in the comics: the freeze ray goes off before Flash acts, Mirror Master pushes his silly buttons before the Flash can stop him.

 

BINGO - and part of the game is concepts that are consistent with the source material.  That includes being challenged by threats that challenge them in the source material.

 

Back in the '70s, a lot of DC characters were written as nearly omnipotent, and a lot of their stories were not combat-focused. Instead, they had to use their skills to figure out how the Bad Guy was avoiding or neutralizing them, and the Bad Guy was then one-punched.  We could build a game like that, but it's not what most players envision from a Supers game.  They look more for '70s Marvel, which is where the genre evolved, where the Bad Guys are credible opponents in combat.