A view from outside

[irond_will]

First off, let me give a little background. In my teenage years (12 years ago), I played Hero games voraciously. Yes - I'm one of these people who "drifted off" the RPG circuit because of college and a lack of people with whom to play these games. Of all the games I played, Champions, and Hero in general, was my favorite.

 

Now - really I've been reading these forums from time to time, and thought I'd drop a line to ask a few questions about niggles that bothered me from the game that continue to keep me up at night. Mostly, I wonder if things have been fixed, so most of my points will basically be criticisms of the game structure as it existed 12 years ago.

 

Another preface: yes - all game flaws can be obviated by good roleplaying and a good GM. All a decent RPG really needs to be is a good story with an occasional coin flip. But Hero Games attempt to build a structure in which characters build on X points are roughly equivalent in effectiveness; therefore, it should be judged upon its ability to do this.

 

So - on to the questions and points:

 

1) Biggest problem: no diminishing returns on spent points. A character who unloaded all of his points into a single attack basically was too effective. Why? because every point spent above the "campaign standard" defense went directly to damage. The GM had to either come up with RP contexts in which the character couldn't use his massive attack, or else tailor-build enemies to suck up this attack.

 

The proposed solution at the time was to limit attacks to a certain number of effective points (say 60). This seemed to fail, because it then constrained pretty much all players to make sure they had at least one attack of this nature. It then made it possible to ensure that the character's defense was effective against this level of attack. Which then forced rules to constrain the defense of the character to be such that the attack was somewhat (but not too) effective against the character.

 

In the end, it essentially started forcing characters to fit a mold in order to be effective. This seemed to go against the spirit of the system.

 

I think the house rule we decided upon was to choose a basic level of effectiveness (say 30 points), and charge double for points over this level. We might have extended this to triple or quadruple - I don't quite remember.

 

Anyhow, I seem to remember this helping our games. Has anything like this been done?

 

2. Killing Attacks were Broken: Point for point, killing attacks did more body damage and a similar amount of stun as regular attacks. But they bypassed non-specific defenses! I never understood the rationale for that one. The GM I ran with at first tried to make RP repercussions for using Killing Attacks (people think you're evil since you use claws), but, I believe, eventually folded and upped the cost of KAs. Has the structure or cost of KAs changed?

 

3. Strength was broken: Strength was worth buying for the figured characteristics alone. Plus it did damage at the same level as a separate power. In addition, one could add strength damage to the damage of Killing Attacks and Hand Attacks. Finally, it allowed a lot more RP flexibility - being able to lift, break, and throw things around was super-useful. This kind of fine control wasn't generally afforded other powers.

 

It was even worse in Heroic campaigns, where, because most attacks were STR-driven, and STR was so cheap, every character who wanted combat effectiveness would peg STR at the limit. Yeah - even mages. I know it went against their archetype, but you'd be amazed at what kind of mutilation character concepts would be subjected to when the game mechanics encouraged it.

 

Or maybe you wouldn't. You've been playing this thing for a while.

 

I think we eventually doubled the cost of strength, and modified its interpretation a bit so that a "SuperStrong" character would be something like he is in the comic books.

 

4. The system only translated marginally well to "Heroic" campaigns Mostly this was because there were caps on characteristics, plenty of points to hit those caps, and real incentive to hit the caps. In addition, there wasn't a lot of wiggle-room for characters to distinguish themselves with respect to their stats. I seem to remember that, because of caps, breakpoints, divisions, and rounding, there were about two desirable values for each stat, and everyone's characters had one of these values for each stat.

 

I think, in addressing this, we created some system in which stats added to figured characteristics and damage in a graduated fashion, so that there was some reason, say, to have a 19 str instead of an 18. It wasn't as elegant as the original system, but it seemed to help. I think we also used the softcapping rule on stats, where stats over some limit (20?) cost double.

 

finally,

 

5. Power Frameworks were Broken: Yep - sorry. They were. Awarding an "Elemental Control" point bonus to a character whose powers stayed in-concept was just silly. A character was supposed to be "in-concept" anyhow.

Multipower pools were bad also, since characters would just make sure that the only powers placed in the multipower would never be desirable at the same time anyhow - you couldn't shoot two guns off in the same turn. The especially cheesy trick I remember was to make sure each of the multipower slots had charges, so one character could have a huge number of powerful attacks, each with four charges.

Finally, I seem to remember "Power Pools" just being too flexible for their cost. I remember a shouting match breaking out at one point with a player who had sunk about all of his points into a "Power Pool", then came up with a catalog of different possible builds for his single character to fill all situations. Facing down robots succeptible to electricity? No problem! ShockMan is alt number 12!

 

I dunno - I'm sure people much smarter than me design these games - have these things been changed, now that there's so much more player-manufacturer communication via internet, or have the same debates continued raging?

[Agemegos]

Re: A view from outside

 

First off' date=' let me give a little background. In my teenage years (12 years ago), I played Hero games voraciously. Yes - I'm one of these people who "drifted off" the RPG circuit because of college and a lack of people with whom to play these games. Of all the games I played, Champions, and Hero in general, was my favorite.[/quote']

 

You gave up because of college!? I played more RP in my university years than in the fifteen since I graduated.

 

1) Biggest problem: no diminishing returns on spent points.

 

I find that an environment of varied threats and defences provides sufficient incentive to diversify. People won't sink more point into a defence that is already reasonably effective if enemies are slipping freight trains past the open flank, and they won't sink more points into an attack that is already reasonably effective if there are enemies they can't touch with it.

 

Of course, that means that character tend to be[come] versatile rather than overpowering, which you might see as another problem. If it is, restrict the character points.

 

2. Killing Attacks were Broken: Point for point, killing attacks did more body damage and a similar amount of stun as regular attacks. But they bypassed non-specific defenses! I never understood the rationale for that one.

 

The countervailing disadvantage is that they tend to kill people. Try reducing the incidence of resistant defences in your campaigns and let PCs face the prospect of trials for murder or manslaughter, etc.

 

3. Strength was broken: Strength was worth buying for the figured characteristics alone. Plus it did damage at the same level as a separate power.

 

[snip]

 

It was even worse in Heroic campaigns, where, because most attacks were STR-driven, and STR was so cheap, every character who wanted combat effectiveness would peg STR at the limit.

 

I have seen this problem too (I run only heroic campaigns), and find that a STR of 18 or 20 is too good and cheap for many players to resist. I have run and played in SF campaigns in which equipment (weapons and armour) were so good that hand-to-hand combat was a waste of effort: gunslinging characters often trun out with STRs of 8 or 10 if you adjust the STR mins of firearms to be realistic rather than 'balanced'. But of course you don't always want to play such campaigns. I would be tempted to raise the cost of STR to 2 CP per pip in heroic campaigns.

 

4. The system only translated marginally well to "Heroic" campaigns Mostly this was because there were caps on characteristics, plenty of points to hit those caps, and real incentive to hit the caps. In addition, there wasn't a lot of wiggle-room for characters to distinguish themselves with respect to their stats. I seem to remember that, because of caps, breakpoints, divisions, and rounding, there were about two desirable values for each stat, and everyone's characters had one of these values for each stat.

 

I feel that problem too. I am toying with the idea of changing a stat roll from 9+CHA/5 to 7+CHA/3 as an experiment in making more distinct values of charcteristics meaningful.

 

5. Power Frameworks were Broken

 

I'm not sure about this, because I don't run any or play many superheroic games, but had you thought that power frameworks are what allow power-based characters to compete on equal terms with STR-based builds? That STR and powers in frameworks are both underpriced to the same extent, and therefore that their relative costs are about right? Do bricks or martial artists or power-based characters dominate? If they turn out all to be viable builds because cheap STR, cheap powers in frameworks, and cheap DCs & CV in martial arts manoeuvres are all underpriced, then perhaps these things are all in fact priced right.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: A view from outside

 

The short answer: none of these things have changed.

 

The medium answer: I think you knew this when you started posting, and are merely trolling.

[irond_will]

Re: A view from outside

 

Thanks for your thoughts on these, Agemegos. I find it odd that after so many years I still remember as much as I do, and still actually have opinions on this stuff. If only I'd filled my brain with useful information at that age...

 

You gave up because of college!? I played more RP in my university years than in the fifteen since I graduated.

 

Yeah - mostly, it seemed like the RPG kids got picked on a lot in college. Plus, they'd wear their cloaks and super-outfits around campus, so I guess I can understand why.

 

1) Biggest problem: no diminishing returns on spent points.

 

I find that an environment of varied threats and defences provides sufficient incentive to diversify. People won't sink more point into a defence that is already reasonably effective if enemies are slipping freight trains past the open flank' date=' and they won't sink more points into an attack that is already reasonably effective if there are enemies they can't touch with it.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. But, if SuperBlasterMan and MegaArmorMan are teamed up with Sherlock Joe, you can bet that even the best GM would have a hard time coming up with a reasonable scenario combat challenge that allowed poor Sherlock to participate. Making them face mentalists would just force each build to devote a few of their points into, say, ego defense. After enough "weak spots" are exploited, the characters eventually end up looking more-or-less the same, with all their bases carefully covered.

 

Yeah - not all character concepts are equally suited for all challenges, but it seems like the system (which is mostly combat-oriented) ought to accomodate diverse builds a little more gracefully. I seem to remember that two dice over a "campaign standard" defense was well worth the ten points in terms of effectiveness.

 

Of course' date=' that means that character tend to be[come'] versatile rather than overpowering, which you might see as another problem. If it is, restrict the character points.

 

I think that's what we ended up with, like I mentioned above. What if, instead of a hard cap, there was a "ramping up" of cost w/r effect? Like, the first 30 points into a power costs 30 points at 1:1; the next 15 cost 30 points at 2:1; the next 15 cost 45 points at 3:1, etc. Think this might help?

 

2. Killing Attacks were Broken: Point for point, killing attacks did more body damage and a similar amount of stun as regular attacks. But they bypassed non-specific defenses!

 

The countervailing disadvantage is that they tend to kill people. Try reducing the incidence of resistant defences in your campaigns and let PCs face the prospect of trials for murder or manslaughter' date=' etc.[/quote']

 

Now - I mentioned that our GM tried to play that out. I think what we (the players) responded with was a cheap, stabilizing heal to go along with our killing attack. That, or we'd hack away with the claws until the enemy was about down, then finish him off with out non-killing EB (in the Multipower, of course). It was pretty goofy.

 

Maybe we eventually threw out the mechanics of killing attacks, and made everything the same kind of nd6 attack, allowing an advantage (+1/2?) of "Bypass Normal Defense". I think this healed the broken structure somewhat.

 

3. Strength was broken: Strength was worth buying for the figured characteristics alone. Plus it did damage at the same level as a separate power... It was even worse in Heroic campaigns, where, because most attacks were STR-driven, and STR was so cheap, every character who wanted combat effectiveness would peg STR at the limit.

 

I have seen this problem too (I run only heroic campaigns)' date=' and find that a STR of 18 or 20 is too good and cheap for many players to resist. I have run and played in SF campaigns in which equipment (weapons and armour) were so good that hand-to-hand combat was a waste of effort: gunslinging characters often trun out with STRs of 8 or 10 if you adjust the STR mins of firearms to be realistic rather than 'balanced'. But of course you don't always want to play such campaigns. I would be tempted to raise the cost of STR to 2 CP per pip in heroic campaigns.[/quote']

 

I think this is what we settled on also. If I remember right, it worked pretty well in SH campaigns as well, after we changed the "interpretation" of what defined Strength (a Strength 50 guy might be able to lift a semi, for instance) so people could play their "strongman" concept.

 

4. The system only translated marginally well to "Heroic" campaigns Mostly this was because there were caps on characteristics, plenty of points to hit those caps, and real incentive to hit the caps. In addition, there wasn't a lot of wiggle-room for characters to distinguish themselves with respect to their stats. I seem to remember that, because of caps, breakpoints, divisions, and rounding, there were about two desirable values for each stat, and everyone's characters had one of these values for each stat.

 

I feel that problem too. I am toying with the idea of changing a stat roll from 9+CHA/5 to 7+CHA/3 as an experiment in making more distinct values of charcteristics meaningful.

 

Something that seemed to work well in heroic campaigns was staggering it something like PD increases on ones, REC increases on twos, Skill increases on threes, etc. That and doing half-dice and pips of damage at intervals. Your idea for skill rolls is interesting too - would it make the game more stat-driven than skill-driven (since skills are based on stats, and buying up skill rolls via stats would be cheaper)?

 

5. Power Frameworks were Broken

 

I'm not sure about this' date=' because I don't run any or play many superheroic games, but had you thought that power frameworks are what allow power-based characters to compete on equal terms with STR-based builds? That STR and powers in frameworks are both underpriced to the same extent, and therefore that their [i']relative[/i] costs are about right? Do bricks or martial artists or power-based characters dominate? If they turn out all to be viable builds because cheap STR, cheap powers in frameworks, and cheap DCs & CV in martial arts manoeuvres are all underpriced, then perhaps these things are all in fact priced right.

 

You know - I think my GM told me the same thing. X is broken, but so is Y, so it kind of cancels out. I don't think it really did - we, the teenage munchkin gamers, just packed STR into ECs and Multipowers, thereby doubling the brokenness. When that was disallowed (thankfully), we just made sure that our mighty strengths always complemented our attack powers (which were, of course, in Multipowers).

 

Don't get me wrong - I took full advantage of these structures when making my characters, but, in hindsight, it was really just an exercise in accountancy. I don't believe I ever saw or made a character who just directly dropped their points into any power larger than about 10 points' worth.

 

I dunno - in terms of staying within the game rules, playing with that group was just an excercise in escalation of exploits. Remember that I have no real experience in how mature people play RPGs. It seems like the basic problem is that the GM is required to give the players a reasonable amount of challenge, but also ensure that all players can participate. When players are bound and determined to break a system (and, for some reason, we all were), it can be instructional (things to fix) or it can just - well - break the system and therefore the gameplay.

 

It's really interesting to me to see that the same sorts of problems are still floating around here.

 

-Fe Wm.

 

edit: formatting

[irond_will]

Re: A view from outside

 

The short answer: none of these things have changed.

 

The medium answer: I think you knew this when you started posting, and are merely trolling.

 

Wow - the medium answer doesn't have much more than the short answer.

 

And - well - I'll guess I pseudotrolled. I glossed over several of the posts in the "STR is too cheap" thread which got me remembering all these things more specifically. I honestly didn't know whether any of the other stuff had been changed, but, from what I read of the post, saw that there was some debate about increasing the value of the STR characteristic, though I didn't follow it to its resolution.

 

I dunno - does that count as a troll? I don't think I insulted or attacked anyone.

 

Fe Wm.

[Gary]

Re: A view from outside

 

Welcome to the forums!

 

All 5 of your issues have been discussed at some point on these boards. Some such as the Killing Attacks, Frameworks, and Str have been discussed multiple times and periodically resurface every couple of months or so.

 

I'd advise you to do a search on some of these topics so you can see what's been said before. Or if you want to just dive in, then either jump into an existing thread, or create your own to discuss a specific topic. Despite some grumbles that you may hear, most of the regulars on these boards enjoy arguing this stuff, even if it's been discussed before.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A view from outside

 

Yes, welcome. As Gary noted, these topics have been discussed (And as you'll notice, Gary and I are still discussing. ) many times. Dive right on in.

 

I'll just address one point: Killing attacks generate less Stun damage on average than "regular" attacks such as Energy Blast. Provided a target has even a tiny amount of Resistant Defenses, Killing attacks will on average do less damage to your opponent. If you want to reduce the effects of the "Stun Lottery" you can reduce the size of the Stun Multiple. Currently it's 1d6-1, but I've seen it played as 1,2,2,3,3,4 or even as a fixed number such as 3.

[irond_will]

Re: A view from outside

 

Thanks for the welcome, guys. This is really a blast from the past for me - for some reason this stuff has been rattling around for years now in my head. Nice to finally find some other geeks who actually want to talk about it.

 

I'll just address one point: Killing attacks generate less Stun damage on average than "regular" attacks such as Energy Blast. Provided a target has even a tiny amount of Resistant Defenses, Killing attacks will on average do less damage to your opponent. If you want to reduce the effects of the "Stun Lottery" you can reduce the size of the Stun Multiple. Currently it's 1d6-1, but I've seen it played as 1,2,2,3,3,4 or even as a fixed number such as 3.

 

I'll be damned - you're right. I get 9.3 average stun using the 1d6-1 multiplier (assuming a min of 1), and 10.5 using the straight 3 multiple. I assume it was always this way (I was using, at the end, whatever version the Big Blue Hardback was - does anyone remember what version that was?), and that I'm just better at math now. []

 

I'm not sure that it makes up for the "resistant defense" thing, and, offhand, I don't really see why the killing attack structure has to be different than the EB structure (which is really pretty, BTW), but you're right.

 

Actually, a better question I had upon discovering this board was why the opinions were so heated. I guess the people in the STR thread who were pointing out what they saw as flaws in the system seemed to have a point, and some of the arguments in favor of the balance of the current system seemed a little - I don't know - conservative.

 

I guess what I remember loving about the game was - yeah - the flexibility, but even more that the system seemed so... stable and balanced. I think the reason I remember the five points I listed above after so many years is that they really seemed like the most glaring flaws in a really beautiful system. Since I was really more in love with the consistency and balance of the system than I was personally invested in it, changing it for the better always seemed a non-issue for me. And I guess I didn't understand the conservatism or resistance to change in the thread.

 

But then, after I was accused of trolling, I checked out some of the other threads about how "Hero-hating" was a common internet pastime, and how advocacy of this system or that one seemed to be really strongly on peoples' minds. I guess from that point of view, it makes sense to defend the system, flaws and all, since it's generally such a cool system.

 

I suppose I should buy the new version of the game (in spite of knowing no one anymore with whom to play the damned thing) if I'm going to post to a thread, since I'm positive the gaps in my memory are substantial, and I really dont know what's changed.

 

But - yeah - maybe I'll throw my nonexpert opinion out from time to time if my workday is slow.

 

-Fe Wm.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A view from outside

 

Actually' date=' a better question I had upon discovering this board was why the opinions were so heated. I guess the people in the STR thread who were pointing out what they saw as flaws in the system seemed to have a point, and some of the arguments in favor of the balance of the current system seemed a little - I don't know - conservative.[/quote']People of differing views often get passionate about things that are important to them. That doesn't mean there's any personal animosity involved, just different opinions. Despite my own frequent debates with Gary, for example, he's one of my favorite people here. We just see gaming (and politics!) very differently, that's all. But I'd buy him a beer anytime.

 

These boards are actually pretty tame; if you want to see heated check out rpg.net sometime. You'll see Hero is pretty much a bunch of creampuffs by comparison.

[John Desmarais]

Re: A view from outside

 

5. Power Frameworks were Broken: Yep - sorry. They were. Awarding an "Elemental Control" point bonus to a character whose powers stayed in-concept was just silly. A character was supposed to be "in-concept" anyhow.

 

Elemental Controls are not designed to provide a bonus for a "character whose powers stayed in-concept". They provide a way of defining a single power (single special effect) that has multiple effects, and the system treats them as such - which provides a built-in set of limitations.

 

If I create an Elemental Control for "Flame Power" which contains all of the powers that I think make up "Flame" and then get hit a Drain that targets one of those powers - all EC slots get drained. That's a pretty serious limitation.

 

 

John D.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A view from outside

 

 

I'll just address one point: Killing attacks generate less Stun damage on average than "regular" attacks such as Energy Blast. Provided a target has even a tiny amount of Resistant Defenses, Killing attacks will on average do less damage to your opponent. If you want to reduce the effects of the "Stun Lottery" you can reduce the size of the Stun Multiple. Currently it's 1d6-1, but I've seen it played as 1,2,2,3,3,4 or even as a fixed number such as 3.

 

I'll point out that the above point is true when you're attacking things with no to low defenses (normals and agents), entirely false when attacking things with high defenses (bricks, master villains and the like) and sometimes true and sometimes false for things inbetween the two extremes.

[Gary]

Re: A view from outside

 

Yes' date=' welcome. As Gary noted, these topics have been discussed (And as you'll notice, Gary and I are [i']still[/i] discussing. ) many times. Dive right on in.

 

I'll just address one point: Killing attacks generate less Stun damage on average than "regular" attacks such as Energy Blast. Provided a target has even a tiny amount of Resistant Defenses, Killing attacks will on average do less damage to your opponent. If you want to reduce the effects of the "Stun Lottery" you can reduce the size of the Stun Multiple. Currently it's 1d6-1, but I've seen it played as 1,2,2,3,3,4 or even as a fixed number such as 3.

 

 

There is a certain break point where killing attacks do more net stun on average than normal attacks. For example, a 4d6 RKA will do the same net stun on average as a 12d6 EB vs 27 Def. Higher than 27 Def means that the RKA will do more stun, and less than 27 Stun means that the EB will do more stun.

 

With regard to Con Stunning, Normal attacks are better if the target's (Def + Con) are roughly equal or less than the average damage of the attack, about the same if average damage = (Def + Con +1 or 2), and worse if Average damage > (Def + Con + 2). So the 12d6 EB is better if (Def + Con) <= 42, about the same if (Def + Con) = 43 or 44, and worse than the 4d6 RKA if (Def + Con) >=45.

[Just A Guy Name]

Re: A view from outside

 

But I'd buy him a beer anytime.

Heh..I'm kinda thirsty myself {hint}

These boards are actually pretty tame; if you want to see heated check out rpg.net sometime.

JC! You can't send a Rookie into that Hellhole!

You'll see Hero is pretty much a bunch of creampuffs by comparison.

Mmm..beer and creampuffs

[Trebuchet]

Re: A view from outside

 

I'll point out that the above point is true when you're attacking things with no to low defenses (normals and agents)' date=' entirely false when attacking things with high defenses (bricks, master villains and the like) and sometimes true and sometimes false for things inbetween the two extremes.[/quote']That's true so far as it goes, but you've probably noticed most characters are not bricks or master villains. Those guys you either have to beat down the hard way or bypass their regular defenses with unusual attacks such as Ego Blast or NND attacks.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: A view from outside

 

Wow - the medium answer doesn't have much more than the short answer.

 

And - well - I'll guess I pseudotrolled. I glossed over several of the posts in the "STR is too cheap" thread which got me remembering all these things more specifically. I honestly didn't know whether any of the other stuff had been changed, but, from what I read of the post, saw that there was some debate about increasing the value of the STR characteristic, though I didn't follow it to its resolution.

 

I dunno - does that count as a troll? I don't think I insulted or attacked anyone.

 

Fe Wm.

 

I apologize for the gruffness of my tone, but every issue you've brought up has been discussed unto death, in most cases hotly. And it doesn't need to be insulting or attacking to be a troll, especially considering the more subtle RPG.net style trolls (who start threads like "Which is better: GURPS or HERO?" then sit back and watch).

 

If I wasn't at work I'd go through and pull up links to threads discussing the very issues you brought up.

[Vorsch]

Re: A view from outside

 

To Irond Will

 

As regards Killing attack, in not its average stun which makes it better or even its ability to ignore resistant defences its the "stun lottery" where from the roll of a single dice you can have a "worthless" to "takedown anyone" attack.

 

Example

 

30pts 6d6 EB ave stun 21, max stun 36 , unlikely to hit 30 (1% roughly)

 

30pts 2d6 Rka ave stun 17.5, min stun 2 , max stun 60 ( 0.5% )

even one good roll ie 6 will give equal to EB maximum for a average body roll.

 

Increasing this to 12d6 eb and 4d6Rka will show that a EB will rarely hit 50+stun but RKA will often hit 70+ stun. 10%. Its the pot luck nature of the stun multiple that is contentious.

[Barton]

Re: A view from outside

 

Mental attacks vs. strength:

I have played a scenerio in several conventions in which on side has a very weak (STR) mentalist against a group with a couple of "bricks" (high STR). It was very funny to watch the mentalist player figure out that the bricks usually have low mental defense. He mind controlled the brick and just had him march away!!!!

STR maybe "broken" [i do not believe so]. The point of my post is that even if it is "broken" the WIDE choices of attacks make characters vulnerable to one or more attacks. Once the enemy knows that weakness even a super STR brick is in trouble.

 

Multipowers / Elemental Controls / Var. Power Pools

This a problem for new GM's. The idea is to allow a wide array of things that make sense to be grouped together to be bought cheaply. A GM should have strict limits on points for these and what power(s) are okay. Remember, it is up to the GM on what is okay. My advice is to learn to say NO!!!

[KA.]

Re: A view from outside

 

irond_will,

First, welcome to the boards.

I found myself in the same position you are a few years ago.

I had played Champions in the early 80's, lost contact with all the people I knew who had played, and then many years later, happened upon the previous version of these boards while searching the internet for a place to buy Champions stuff.

 

On to general considerations.

 

I don't really consider your questions to be trolling, but they were somewhat like picking up a stick, walking over to a dead horse, and saying:

"Did you guys see that? He tried to kick me! We need to give him a good beating!"

 

The points you brought up have indeed been discussed to death, but that does not mean that they are totally invalid.

I think the problem is, some people see them a bit like laws.

Not that they cannot be changed, but that changing them may very well have unintended consequences, throwing off game balance in worse ways.

I don't think that everyone is "resistant to change".

But, I have seen cases, not necessarily on the specific points you bring up, where someone will say:

"I think rule Z is broken, here is how I am going to fix it!"

People who know the system inside and out (I don't claim to be one of those ) will start posting questions:

"Do you realize that your change is going to change the balance of X?"

"Do you know that under your rule, construct Y is now possible, which is more abusive than the problem you are trying to solve?"

I do not mean to say that all changes should be "shouted down".

But most things that people see as "flaws" in the system work fairly well when used properly.

And since any significant change in the rules will invalidate a huge amount of existing material, there should be really compelling reasons for these changes.

 

The fact that something is "open to abuse" is not necessarily a system flaw, it is more like "user error", or "deliberate misuse".

 

Think of even the most basic games.

 

Checkers:

"It would be possible for someone to put a Checker up their sleeve and place it on the board.

They could use this Checker to create a "King" or to replace a piece that had been taken by the opposing player.

There should be a specific rule that all players must submit to a strip search before play begins.

Also, before the start of each turn, a referee should count the Checkers on the board, and those that have been taken, to assure that no player has hidden a Checker on their person."

 

Now I am sure that there is a rule in Checkers, or at least an implied rule, stating that you can't just add in an extra Checker on your side when you feel like it.

But some immature players are going to fall back on: "Well, you didn't do anything to stop me from putting in an extra Checker, so I did! The rules are broken!"

 

Now you did say that when you were playing that you and your fellow players were not very mature. I understand that completely. We came up with some ridiculous stuff in my group too, back then.

 

But a lot of the "problems" in Hero really come from GM's who are too weak to stand their ground when players are creating characters.

 

The rules are pretty clear about sticking to your concept, not being abusive, etc., many people just choose to throw their hands in the air and let the players have whatever they want.

 

Why doesn't everyone in a Fantasy Hero Campaign buy a STR of 20?

 

Because unless you are a very strong fighter-type, that is probably not in your concept.

 

How does a wizard, who spends most of his time doing spell research in a dusty lab, justify being as strong as the Strongest Normal Human on Earth?

 

Sure, it is possible if that is your concept, but there had better be really compelling reasons for it, and you may be considered a misfit because of it.

 

How will the other small wimpy wizards react to your over-muscled behemoth?

Do you think they will be as willing to share secrets with someone who looks so different from them?

Someone who looks like the brawny fighters who pushed them around in their youth?

 

And, while it may be great to buy the high STR to get the benefits of it, their may be other repercussions for the Weightlifting Wizard.

 

He may have the STR, but not the other skills to participate in Hand to Hand combat.

 

What happens when he bumps into the local tough guy, spilling his drink?

Usually Tough Guy would have looked down and seen the Wimpy Wizard, and just let it go with a grumble.

But when the guy in the robe is built like a tank, he may ask him to "step outside".

What are you going to do?

Fry an unarmed man with a Fireball?

Cast some other spell to end the fight?

Now people are going to consider you an obnoxious bully.

You looked plenty strong enough to fight like a man, but you chose to "cheat" and use a spell.

Not really great for the reputation.

 

I am not saying that every character that does not fit some pre-existing "class" should be punished for being "different". The beauty of Hero is being able to create whatever you want.

 

It gives you a great deal of power to be able to put together whatever kind of character you want.

 

But with great power . . .

 

The GM has the right, and the duty, to look at a character sheet and say "NO!".

 

No, you can't have a 20 STR just because you like the figured characteristics.

No, you can't put twenty attacks into a Multipower just to save points.

No, you can't have an "Obvious Accessible Focus" that is the size of a grain of sand and implanted into your cerebral cortex.

No, you can't have a "Cool Powers" Elemental Control and put that inside of a Multipower.

 

Because Hero allows you the freedom to create virtually anything, it is almost impossible to anticipate every possible avenue of abuse, and cut it off without taking away flexibility. That is where the GM, and a little maturity on the part of players comes in.

 

On a few specific points. (Sorry this is so long, I must have some pent up posts or something )

 

1) Diminishing Returns - In a well run campaign, Mr. Massive One-Shot Attack is going to be the number one target of every opponent. If the character is constructed properly, according to the rules, and good sense, he will not have massive overall defenses. Which means that he will get to blast someone in the first fight he is in. After that Viper, Villain Groups, etc. will start thinking about how to deal with him. That is not "GM screwing" that is the natural evolution of a campaign world. I would let a player know that when they were creating the character. But, if they insisted on that concept, they would end up as a target. If you were the cops, and you were called to a scene, and one guy had a handgun and the other had a rocket launcher, who would you have the snipers trained on?

 

2) Killing Attacks - Already discussed by others. Just a few key points.

a) Stun Lottery - the best thing about them, in my opinion. Just like a bullet or a knife. A "good shot" can take someone down. A "nick" does almost no damage at all. There is nothing like seeing a player who needs to CON Stun a Villain with a nasty attack looking down at 5 Body and a x1 Stun Multiplier.

Perception - I am sure that Thor's hammer would do way more damage than anything the Punisher is carrying, but people see guns and think "bad guy". It sounds like your GM started with this idea, but didn't carry it through.

Killing Attacks that could CON Stun a Brick, are going to flat out kill a normal.

And I don't think mutilating an innocent, even if you can heal them back up, is going to sit well with the public.

 

3) The cost of Strength - Hey, this is a game. We are supposed to be playing Heroes. The Heroes of fiction, of nearly every genre, tend to be stronger than normal people. Strength is cheap so that you can have a character a little more "buff" than real people are without putting a load of points into it. Same thing with COM. That doesn't mean everyone should be a weightlifting champ, or Miss America. It is all about the concept. Just because it can be abused does not mean it is broken.

 

4) Heroic Campaigns - Haven't played them that much, but I would definitely use things like Higher Dex goes first, Higher INT notices first, etc. There would be a difference in how the numbers played out so that everyone would not be exactly the same.

 

5) Power Frameworks - Again, back to the GM. You just don't allow the kind of cheesy constructs you are talking about.

 

I don't mean this as a criticism of you or your past group. But it basically looks like you all went out of your way to "rape" the rules, and now you are claiming that the rules were "asking for it".

 

That doesn't really hold water.

 

Hero describes itself as a "Tool Kit".

 

If you choose to use a torque wrench for a hammer, you shouldn't complain when it gets "broken".

 

KA.

 

P.S. I tried my best to discuss your points. I had no intention of "attacking" you. If anything I said was offensive, please accept my apologies in advance.

 

Really, Truly, Welcome to the Boards

[GamePhil]

Re: A view from outside

 

1) Biggest problem: no diminishing returns on spent points.

 

There is a diminishing return: the character won't be as flexible. I have had a character with a high DEX and a mighty EB (villain named Cannon) taken out simply because the opposition recognized him as dangerous and Coordinated on him. He couldn't avoid the attack (didn't have Defense Maneuver, he didn't have the points) and went down (didn't have high Defenses, he didn't have the points, and the Knockback was heinous). I have never seen a Johny Onepower like this not have some severe weakness, usually more than that.

 

2. Killing Attacks were Broken

 

Killing Attacks are still broken in that sense. On the other hand, they're easy to "fix" if it is inappropriate for a given game, even if it's by disallowing them or increasing the cost. There are games where it is appropriate as-is, and there has to be a choice on what point level to use that is official.

 

3. Strength was broken:

 

That is many people's contention, yes. It is fairly unchanged. However, the abilities it gives you, great as they are, have never struck me as desirable enough to give up my character conception for. Let me expand on that: this is not some form of "moral" or "superior role-player" issue. It is pure powergaming. If I spend 10 points on STR, that's 10 points less that I can do with my character's actual conception. That's a good Invisibility Spell, one or more Multipower Slots, three or four Skills, some levels, and so on. Is STR better than these? That's up to personal taste, but for me, no.

 

STR also tends to be balanced by Power Frameworks, free powers (equipment, that you can buy skills with), or cost breaks (Spells in the Turakian Age are divided by 3): When everyone has access to a cost break similar to STR, STR is balanced. Every game setting so far published has these. In fact, many of the people that frequently dispute the cost of STR as appropriate also dislike Frameworks, but only with both taken together do they work out correctly.

 

4. The system only translated marginally well to "Heroic" campaigns

 

This is largely a matter of perception. The stat breakpoints certainly do limit the number of "useful" stats a bit. However, the number of levels you posit isn't correct in all cases:

 

STR: Every point is useful, since it increases your lifting power. Were that not true, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are all useful, so that's 4.

 

DEX: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are all useful, so that's 6.

 

CON: Since it's divided by 2 and 5, and multiplied by 2, and increases your ability not to be Stunned, all points are useful.

 

BODY: All points are useful.

 

EGO: Same as DEX, though less so (or not at all) in a game with no Mental Powers.

 

PRE: 13, 15, 18, and 20 are all useful, so that's 4.

 

COM: Equally useful at any point, depending on how it's used.

 

In addition, with the vast array of things you can buy aside from Characteristics, it is not difficult to differentiate characters. Not to mention Disadvantages and intangibles not covered in the rules to differentiate them still further. Plus, see the discussion of STR for my view on buying something up just because you get some mathematical benefit.

 

5. Power Frameworks were Broken

 

I agree that they give you a cost benefit, or at least they did in the past, for the very nebulous "restriction" of being in character. However, aside from balancing everyone else with Bricks, they also allow the level of flexibility that is seen with other systems and in the source material. Without them, you'd first have to alter the cost structure of STR, CON, and probably BODY, so that Bricks did not get a benefit over other characters. Then, you'd need to up the points substantially to replace the flexibility you get when building a character.

 

This is certainly a possibility, but it is not in the official rules. I'd suggest not having Figured Characteristics: keep the stats themselves, but don't have them based on Primary Characteristics but just at a given base (say, 2 PD, 2 ED, 4 REC, 2 SPD, 20 END & STUN). Then double or triple the point costs of characters. Then, dump Power Frameworks.

 

I wouldn't do it, myself, but it is an easy enough fix.

 

As for changes: Yes, they have all changed, though not directly. It is now explicit in the rules that you can throw multiple Powers as a single attack: this is a Multiple Power Attack. If it's in a Multipower, you obviously can't do this unless you have enough points in the Pool to have the Powers all usable at once. EC's are specifically restricted against this, in addition to being all Drained as John D. pointed out, so are not nearly as good as having the Powers bought separately. VPP's have the same problem as Multipowers. This is the major restriction that I see, and there are others (most important being me just saying, No).