"Fixing" STRength

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Would you also allow the "high-STR Martial Artist" to buy up his DEF to brick levels? Would you allow a 60+ STR brick to buy scads of MA maneuvers?

 

IOW, it's GM controls that keep the Brick under control. Not game mechanics. The 60+ str brick only needs 3-5 maneuvers for maximum efficiency anyway.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

The most point-effective character I ever built was a martial artist in OIF power armor.

 

Powered Armor is already very efficient. An overall -1/2 limitation on most stats and powers saves tons of points. Especially if you allow them to have ECs as well. It's balanced by the fact that 10-20% of the time, the character won't have the armor and will be SOL.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

IOW, it's GM controls that keep the Brick under control. Not game mechanics. The 60+ str brick only needs 3-5 maneuvers for maximum efficiency anyway.

 

Powered Armor is already very efficient. An overall -1/2 limitation on most stats and powers saves tons of points. Especially if you allow them to have ECs as well. It's balanced by the fact that 10-20% of the time, the character won't have the armor and will be SOL.

 

It's GM controls that keep a lot of things under control in many game system.

 

Check this out:

 

2d6 Energy Blast

+1 NND

+1 Autofire x5 (it's more for unusual attacks, right?)

+1 0 END (it's more for Autofire, right?)

+1/2 1-hex AoE

 

So if I'm doing the math right, for 45 points, you have a 10d6 NND that hardly ever misses, since you're rolling the Autofire against a DCV 3 hex.

 

What's to prevent that, except GM control?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

It's GM controls that keep a lot of things under control in many game system.

 

Check this out:

 

2d6 Energy Blast

+1 NND

+1 Autofire x5 (it's more for unusual attacks, right?)

+1 0 END (it's more for Autofire, right?)

+1/2 1-hex AoE

 

So if I'm doing the math right, for 45 points, you have a 10d6 NND that hardly ever misses, since you're rolling the Autofire against a DCV 3 hex.

 

What's to prevent that, except GM control?

 

Your cost is wrong. It should be 50 pts.

 

And you're taking a +4 advantage power which is easily spotted. Not straight Str which most GMs allow as a matter of course.

 

Besides, my original statement was:

 

Str is too good currently, at least compared to martial art, unless the GM enforces dex/spd limits on the brick.

 

Why are you arguing with me since it's very apparent that you agree with my statement?

[Kristopher]

I'm arguing about whether it's worth worrying about, since I've not seen it become a problem, except in situations where other things are already bigger problems anyway.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

Your cost is wrong. It should be 50 pts.

 

And you're taking a +4 advantage power which is easily spotted. Not straight Str which most GMs allow as a matter of course.

 

Isn't it a +3.5 total advantage?

 

And I wouldn't say most GMs allow any character any amount of STR as a matter of course. But our experiences in that matter could be quite different.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Isn't it a +3.5 total advantage?

 

And I wouldn't say most GMs allow any character any amount of STR as a matter of course. But our experiences in that matter could be quite different.

 

Autofire nonstandard attacks are an additional +1 advantage. Thus it should be +1.5 for the autofire part of your construct.

 

And most GMs allow Str up to the damage cap of the campaign.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I'm arguing about whether it's worth worrying about, since I've not seen it become a problem, except in situations where other things are already bigger problems anyway.

 

I've seen Timber Wolf or Spiderman type "fast" bricks before. And they've generally been far more effective than "straight" martial artists.

[Kristopher]

Oh, additional +1. Right.

 

Would most GMs allow an energy projector to buy up his STR to brick levels? Would most GMs allow a martial artist to buy up his STR to the campaign DC max, given that his maneuvers would then put him over the cap?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Oh, additional +1. Right.

 

Would most GMs allow an energy projector to buy up his STR to brick levels? Would most GMs allow a martial artist to buy up his STR to the campaign DC max, given that his maneuvers would then put him over the cap?

 

If the EP has the points to buy up his str to brick levels, why not? That's 50 more points that he's not spending on dex/spd, skill levels, defenses, or extra dice on his attacks.

 

For the MA, it's his total dice that count, not the active points. So if he had Martial Strike for +2d6, most GMs would restrict him to 50 str in a 60 active point campaign.

[Kristopher]

Just more evidence that we're not playing the same game, I guess. I would only allow an EP to build his STR up to Brick level in a very-very-high-powered game.

[Gary]

Most 350 pt energy projectors have a fairly hard time affording themselves to begin with. If they dump 50 extra points into str, they'll be hurting.

[Javed]

Originally posted by Gary

 

And most GMs allow Str up to the damage cap of the campaign. [/b]

 

Might be true for games you've played in. It certainly hasn't been in the games I've played in. The GMs I play with (and myself when I'm GMing) tend to look at whole characters rather than single stats/powers.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Javed

Might be true for games you've played in. It certainly hasn't been in the games I've played in. The GMs I play with (and myself when I'm GMing) tend to look at whole characters rather than single stats/powers.

 

Why would a GM look any more closely at 60 str than a 12d6 EB?

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

Why would a GM look any more closely at 60 str than a 12d6 EB?

 

Because STR is a better buy.

 

Seriously, though, it's not a matter of more closely, just looking at everything, taken as a whole, closely. It's all about concept and SFX.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kintara

So this is a metagaming issue. Since Strength is common for heroes, it should be cheaper. I fail to see the logic of this. Does this logic prevail with every sort of common element? One could make a long list of things that play a common role in heroic gaming, but that doesn't justify a point break. The simulation of heroic badassosity is achieved already through higher character points than normal people. The cost is dependent on usefulness, not commonality. And while usefulness is dependent on the situation of the specific circumstances in a particular game, it isn't dependent upon METHOD, just RESULT. If you refute this, then I think you diminish the value of the system as a whole.

 

Ah, but what is "usefulness"?

 

Costing is a combination of simulating heroic fiction by allowing for certain commonly-held components to be "affordable" as well as balancing for effectivness. Otherwise you would not have cost breaks for ECs and, to a lesser extent, MPPs.

 

In other words, we encourage that which we desire PCs to have in some part by costing. Many people oppose recosting STR on a barely-vocalized but very real "but that would simply make it too hard for me to have a higher-STR character".

 

Similarly, I think if you refute this, you also diminish the value of the system as a whole. This system is not and has not ever been intended to simulate "reality". It is intended to simulate "heroic fiction". The former prizes solely simulation. The latter requires a system based on value judgements as to that which best facilitates that play.

 

Where people tend to disagree is to what degree balance is corrupted by the inherent trade-off. Those who argue purely on a simulation-of-reality front alone are as wrong as those who argue purely on a heroic-feel front.

[Kintara]

Well, usefulness is, by definition, a product of how you use something. So, of course the system is going to be priced according to usefulness. A hammer's usefulness is dependent on the situation it's placed in. But I don't think it should be priced according to the method by which attain the same amount of usefulness. So, a small machine that molecularly alters things with equal effectiveness to a hammer should cost the same as a hammer.

 

The game should keep in mind how common combat might be, for example. The situations the PCs will be in should be taken into consideration. But the methods by which they overcome said situations should be balanced against eachother. The result is what matters, not the method. Certainly you want to encourage in-genre methods, but people will do that with out point breaks. The point costs are a measure of effectiveness, not appropriate form.

 

Edit: I'm wondering if I made myself clear....

[zornwil]

I think you're clear enough but I think the examples of EC and MPs speak rather loudly on the matter.

 

I also think people ignore the intersting sort of difference between HERO and what I would call a "flatter" system, M&M. With M&M, the attacks/defenses are much flatter. Mental stuff is effectively no more expensive - because after all it isn't really any more effective. But the side effect is that characters, defense-wise, have to be just as balanced. This creates (in my opinion) an unrealistic situation with bricks gifted in mental defenses.

 

HERO bypasses this precisely due to their costing. Mental stuff costs more. Fewer people buy it. So it is more effective. Uh, so it is more expensive - ?! - wait a minute! My point being that HERO creates a "preferred powers" system, and it's one that I think works elegantly, whereas M&M's, while theoretically more "effectiveness-based" creates more player and GM challenges.

[Kintara]

Well, I don't think they speak loudly on the matter. MPs don't strike me as anything but a way to make it worthwile to have a variety of attacks that you don't need active all the time, or in varying degrees. ECs are basically "power stunts" of the same overarcing ability. The special effect is important for it because it's supposed to be the same ability. Neither power framework is limited to any one method. There was a post earlier on the nature of an EC, and I agree that this whole thing about rewarding "in genre" concepts is not what it's about.

 

Edit: Read this thread.

[Tech]

Ah, yet another discussion on STR. Bricks are often the subject matter used in this subject of STR costs. IMHO, it really depends on the use of STR. I present an example:

 

Villain A uses Telekinisis to lift Brick A up into the air. "Go ahead and break out hero; fall to your doom if that's your wish."

 

Lifting up a STR-based hero into the air via TK negates his attack. Energy Blasting a STR-based hero with EB at a distance negates his STR. (Even if the Brick picks up something, it's likely not aerodynamic.) Ego Attack a STR-based hero. These are but a few examples. There are plenty of ways to say something else is better a STR-based hero. Hence, I simply like STR as is, as do my players.

 

Ok, I'm off to another topic.

[Kintara]

Yes, not necessarily soemthing that MUST change for the game to work. But would having a 375 point character in a 350 point game "break the game"? No. But it isn't good either.

 

And your analogy would probably work for that 375 point character. Of course there are plenty of ways to overcome a specific character or ability. It's common sense.

[Javed]

Originally posted by Gary

Why would a GM look any more closely at 60 str than a 12d6 EB?

 

Read what you quoted. The GMs I game with look at a whole character.

 

A 60 STR in isolation is not a problem. No GM I've played with has ever come out and said "No character may ever have a STR of 60." Nor have they said, "No character may have a 20/20 force field," nor "No character may have 10 pts of POW def."

 

Now, most GMs I play with would look carefully at a character that has 30/30 defences, 10 pts mental, power, and flash defence to sight and hearing, and a 12 DCV on top of it.

 

Same with STR and energy blast and other offensive abilities. No GM I know would allow a character with a 60 STR, and a multpower with 60 AP energy blasts, drains, ego attacks, mind control...

 

The whole character is what is imortant, not the individual powers, in general.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Javed

Read what you quoted. The GMs I game with look at a whole character.

 

A 60 STR in isolation is not a problem. No GM I've played with has ever come out and said "No character may ever have a STR of 60." Nor have they said, "No character may have a 20/20 force field," nor "No character may have 10 pts of POW def."

 

Now, most GMs I play with would look carefully at a character that has 30/30 defences, 10 pts mental, power, and flash defence to sight and hearing, and a 12 DCV on top of it.

 

Same with STR and energy blast and other offensive abilities. No GM I know would allow a character with a 60 STR, and a multpower with 60 AP energy blasts, drains, ego attacks, mind control...

 

The whole character is what is imortant, not the individual powers, in general.

 

IOW, Str should be treated as any other normal attack power, and no special restrictions should be placed on it that wouldn't be placed on other normal attack powers.

 

Now if the character has 60 Str, and a 60 pt multipower with lots of attacks, and 30/30 Def, and 10 pts Mental, Power, Flash, and 12 DCV on 350 pts, then he's got some serious limitations on the character anyway that are going to cripple him in play.

 

The character with 60 Str and 60 pt MP is spending 50 extra points on that 60 Str. Do you really think that the character will somehow be more "balanced" if he spends those extra 50 pts on Dex/Spd, Defenses, or Skill Levels?

[zornwil]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mentor

Ultimately, my opinion remains that if a GM doesn't craft his/her adventure to make every Superhero and their powers valuable at some point, he is doing a disservice to the players and to his own enjoyment of the genre. Encouraging the mentalist player to wrack their brain for the right command or action to give a mind controlled villain is a challenge that should entice and not frustrate or hassle a good GM. The issue of trust between GM and players continues to rise up as the main issue at hand. Likewise, sometimes the mentalist needs to know when to default to another power or ability when mind control is not the call. There is no mathematical balancing formula that can ever successfully predict the behavior of a player and that is for the best.

 

Variety is the spice of life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

While this doesn't directly address the STR arguments, I feel it's a vital ingredient however a GM deals with STR and its effects.

 

My apologies in advance to Mentor if he did not want his words lended to this thread, please be sure, all, to taking this as what it is - i am reusing his excellent words from another thread to make a point I feel should be made.

[Kintara]

Be careful of using the fuzziness factor. It tends to breed a limited form of nihilism. What's the point then?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kintara

Be careful of using the fuzziness factor. It tends to breed a limited form of nihilism. What's the point then?

 

As to your first couple sentences...

 

Very simply, the point is that ultimately the enjoyment of the game will rest as much on the GM's ability to please all the players in a way that accomodates their niches, regardless of apparent imbalances that inevitably tend to occur. I am not intending the point to be an argument for or against the STR issue but rather to speak to the larger concerns of those struggling with STR over-effectiveness. The answer is in part attending to this catering to each niche, including the uber-brick and the players who will be relatively underpowered (as well as in part taming that points problem in part by changing the rules to suit your game/style).