Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

[Vanguard00]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

First of all' date=' vetting means checking out something. Secondly, whether a game is going in the right direction is reflected in its popularity. I know of several gamers who find that the rule set is becoming more problematic and have, as a result, shied away from the game. The result is that it is harder to get a campaign going with this system which means less playing and less sales. You can't say that my suggestion make it weaker because it is in the same line as house rules, real limits dice limits on attacks or any other restriction that people put on the game. Then all of them make it weaker by your definition.[/indent']

 

 

Actually, I

can

say that it makes it weaker. It's a difference of opinion, something you'll get on these boards a lot. I'm not knocking your gaming style, but I am saying that

I

believe it's overcomplicating the system in place. I told you why I thought the math was wrong. If you didn't like my answer I'm sorry, but that doesn't negate it's veracity or applicability.

 

 

Usually, if someone introduces an approach that no one has heard of or thought of , it is classified as a novel approach.

 

No argument there. It is indeed a novel approach, and trying something new is rarely a bad idea. However, based on your depiction of such an approach, it's perfectly reasonable for me to state that this approach is not one that I want to "check out".

 

 

Of course, the beauty of this system is that everyone does it their own way. If you think that my definition of "Active Cost" and how to do Real/Active cost ratio is not right, then you simply implement you own version to make it workable. Thus, the approach, now customized as your approach could be worthwhile to check out. Just because you reject my version of the approach does not negate the potential of the overall approach as other people may choose to customize it.

 

Heh...I'm really not trying to knock your system, SoulCatcher. I'm simply replying to the statements you make. The first sentence in the quote above sums it up nicely. Everyone

does

do it their own way.

 

You asked why the thread was deviating from "how do you add this up" to "this isn't good" and I tried to explain it, that's all. I maintain that if it works for you then more power to you, but don't expect people to be convinced, and don't be surprised when people come out and say that they aren't convinced.

 

It

is

a novel approach, and I'm sure that someone will try it and maybe it'll work for them, too. All saying is that even with my original suggested differences on your example as to how I'd do it, I probably won't institute such a model for gameplay. It can be difficult to say "This is what I do" and then see bunches of people try and tear holes in it. I tried not to do that, but rather demonstrate what I thought were some flaws in the logic of it, and then state that I personally wouldn't use such a rule.

 

Seriously, no offense or malice was intended in any of my replies.

[Zanthis]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Whatever works for you. I just find if I'm that worried about GM vetting and GM bias, then the campaign has larger problems. Please understand, I played a good six years with min-max players under a number of systems. We used to abuse the heck out of all kinds of things. We had to make rules to cover the wierdest things. Ultimately, we spent a lot more time making rules than playing games.

 

Now I am much happier playing games with minimal house rules and very few restrictions. Without campaign limits in HEROs, most people will build reasonable characters (after your first couple characters in this format). The GM vetting process isn't a very big concern for use anymore. Honestly, most of us are more embarrased when something fails because we didn't notice the potential for abuse. Heck, a lot of the time we've all pitched in to help each other design tricky powers for our characters!

 

As to your system, I've already said how I'd add up ECs. I agreed on how you did MPs and stated that VPPs needed no special house rules since your existing ones already covered it. That you have had a disagreement with another player in your own campaign on the method to calculate these things suggestions your players are trying to walk the edge of allowable within your rules. Same thing happens in campaigns with caps. If 90 AP is the offensive cap, amazing how many people have 90 AP attacks.

 

I wish you the best of luck with your system. Someone on here says it best in their sig (paraphrasing): There is only one wrong way to game: The Way of No Fun.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Actually, I have heard of similar approaches but that is not surprising since I have learned that SoulCatcher is an old acquaintance of mine and I have played with the GM who used the approach mentioned. I honestly cannot recall whether or not he used this approach for any of the campaigns I played in or not, although I ceratianly remember him putting limits on the Active Points in an character as opposed to the Real Points.

 

This approach grew out of problems that this GM had with some players who loaded up grossly powerful characters with loads of Limitations. This GM was also extremely reluctant to reject any character that didn't violate the game's rules or any house rule (including point caps) that he had put in place.

 

Personally, I have never been terribly fond of this approach or Active Point limits of any type. This is largely due to the fact that it discriminates against Limitations that remove part of a Power as opposed to those LImitations that simply limit when it can be used.

 

Rod

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

This approach is simply another method by which to attempt to maintain play balance. It is similar to any campaign that has any type of limit. It works like limits in campaigns on real points. Many campaigns have real point limits. A common one might be 500 Real Points. Why? For play balance. It wouldn't be good to have a 250 Real pt character in a campaign with a 750 Real pt character. I am talking about reasonably constructed characters so theres' no need to provide extreme examples that might balance out. That would not be the realistic norm. Why have caps for attack APs? Because most campaigns have run into problems, if there are no caps.

 

Of course, if your campaign has no caps or guidelines for creation and you have not run into problems then you are obviously a well run group and you already know the defacto caps in your campaign. I doubt any campaign runs with no limits, whether written or unwritten.

 

Caps are used almost everywhere, whether written or unwritten. This is just an additional type of cap that is simple to implement. I know this from experience. It just takes a few extra minutes in the design process. But why bother with this new type of cap. It is simply another choice that those who wish a cap for play balance have to choose from. There is no need to knock it if your not interested.

 

For play balance why do you even need to choose this type of cap?

The reason that this type of cap is useful is that a character created with alot more limitations in their attacks can create inordinately powerful attacks compared to others in the campaign. That is why there are AP caps. In the same sense, characters created, overall with alot more limits is also likely, all other things being equal (eg design skill of players involved, etc.) of being more powerful. That is my experience in character design and I am a person able to make effective character designs. Also, this tool cannot be used to maintain play balance all by itself and is not intended to be a cureall. It would have to be used in conjunction with other play balance tools such as GMs discretion, etc.

 

In the end, I have introduced a new concept for campaign limitations for peoples consideration and am looking for input into making it the best possible tool that it can be. I had not realized it would be a new concept. This statement is not to be misconstrued in that I am seeking to make this the best play balance tool. I am simply trying to make it as good as it can get. There is no point in trying to shoot it down because it is simply presented as another option for people to consider just like all the other options available for GMs to use. It seems pointless to attempt to nullify this as an option for people to choose. I look for input from people who may wish to contribute ideas to develop this concept further.

 

I had not realized that this would be such a new concept. I had assumed that some people had already used this idea beforehand. I was looking for what I had assumed would be practical solutions from people who had already tried this idea to say how it has been done elsewhere, what problems might have been encountered and solutions found. Hopefully, I can get a more positive infusion of ideas from people who might like to see where this can go.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

There is no need to knock it if your not interested. [/indent]

 

Soulcatcher, please understand that I didn't intend to knock your example of Real/Active Cost caps. When you solicited information on how to make it better, you also open yourself to the question of "Is it worth making it better". As I said before, it can be difficult to post something new and then see criticism of it. However, if you're posting here to the boards you'll see that quite a bit. Don't get too thin-skinned.

 

Also, don't be discouraged by those who disagree with you. Continue posting your ideas and sift through those posts you don't agree with to find those you do. Perhaps it's a simple matter of not responding to those in open disagreement with you, or perhaps you shouldn't try so hard to convince us it's a workable solution. It may be, but it's up to us to accept it or not. And being Hero System gamers we tend to pick apart just about everything that comes our way. You'll see it a lot.

 

 

In the end, I have introduced a new concept for campaign limitations for peoples consideration and am looking for input into making it the best possible tool that it can be. I had not realized it would be a new concept. This statement is not to be misconstrued in that I am seeking to make this the best play balance tool. I am simply trying to make it as good as it can get. There is no point in trying to shoot it down because it is simply presented as another option for people to consider just like all the other options available for GMs to use. It seems pointless to attempt to nullify this as an option for people to choose. I look for input from people who may wish to contribute ideas to develop this concept further.

 

At the risk of being argumentative, you can continue looking for the positive input you desire, but be prepared to accept the negative input, as well. My first reply to you was solely in answer to your questions and you didn't seem to like it much. I'm sorry you felt that I was trying to shoot it down. I wasn't. I was simply offering alternatives.

 

I had not realized that this would be such a new concept. I had assumed that some people had already used this idea beforehand. I was looking for what I had assumed would be practical solutions from people who had already tried this idea to say how it has been done elsewhere, what problems might have been encountered and solutions found. Hopefully, I can get a more positive infusion of ideas from people who might like to see where this can go.

 

 

And I sincerely hope you can, too. Again, don't let this round discourage you. Continue posting your ideas and try to gracefully accept that not everyone is going to agree with you.

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Actually Vanguard00, I am not thinskinned and you misunderstand my responses. I am not trying to convince you of its merits. I am trying to inform those who are reading the responses of the merits of looking at this idea by providing counterarguments. You are the one who seems to be getting bothered here at my responses. If I was discouraged I wouldn't continue to post.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Cool. Just checkin'. It just takes a while to get to know people's posting style.

[Guest Keneton]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

I have been reading this thread, but lightly. I am attempting to understand the method involved here and the percieved problem it solves. By in large real points are irrelevant to play balance.

 

Any formul taht concerns itself with this form of campagn limiting will not work. I DO applud the effort, but as a Hero GM with many many years of experience, I can tell you it does not work.

 

Our Superheroic campaign uses The Effectiveness rating. To date it is the best Mathematicale Formul I know of to rate the effectiveness of Heroes. The reults are almost always accurate. It is available in spreadsheet form in the free stuff section and th details of its use and defenitions can be found in Digital Hero #3.

 

As for the viability of The Hero Sytem and the anology of fast food, let me address this quickly. Hero is the best, simple and true. Every other sytem has stolen or modified Hero in its id for popularity. While some games originated before Hero, only one is stll popular that predates it.

 

The big three of RPG's. . Hero. Traveller, and D&D, have a special place amongst us old timers. I am always shocked when newer younger gamers come out and criticize what they dont even understand. I am glad Hero is what it is. It is flexible without becoming clunky like GURPS, or requiring a revised edition after 14 months like the d20 products.

 

In ANY game system metagaming and system breaking can occur. The bestway to deal with it is to not invent a new game, but change the thinking of the offending player.

 

my 2 ep.

 

PS: I want to stress I admire your efforts on this system, please do check out the ER. You are not alone in your quest for the grail!

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Hero is probably the best RPG although not necessarily the best game. The ability to customize your character and to create a complete character with alot of depth I enjoy alot. The roleplaying situations you can create are excellant. Yet, the ability to abuse rules resulting in the needed house rules that creates games that are varied can be considered both a strength and a weakness. It is the weakness of that approach that might limit its eventual success.

 

The strength of D&D resides in its relative lack of abusability, the consistency of the application of the rules from campaign to campaign and now greater variety that promotes its spread and sustainability. A player going from one campaign to another would have no problem integrating a character concept into another campaign. With such a great variety of approaches to Hero, its growth might get curtailed and I have seen it happen. Less abusable rules would benefit Hero as a game and would see its sales expand which would help see its product be sustained and developed further. Many systems become defunct due to problems inherent in the system.

 

Wouldn't it be great to a have a Hero system that allowed a great variety of characters and situations but had a more internally consistent set of rules that had a minimal problems with abusability. How successful would the game become then!

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Actually, the GM tool option that I propose is similar to something that occured much earlier in Hero history. Early in Champions history, MP pools were pools of Real Points and not Active Points, as it is now. They found that there was a huge play balance problems because people could have huge limited attacks in individual slots whereas other characters did not. The result was that the pool became an Active Point Limit to the powers in the slot. This improved play balance but did not solve it.

 

The approach I'm talking about takes that same solution to a problem and applies it to the entire character, in a sense. Its not just the Real points that should concern people, in terms of play balance, but also the total Active Points of a character.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

I'd like to expand a bit on the points Keneton has made above. While his Effectiveness Rating spreadsheet is a highly useful tool and is probably as accurate as any such purely mathematical approach can be, it still has its limits. Gauging character effectiveness in combat is always going to require a bit of guesswork. It's still as much (if not more) art as science.

 

If an opponent has Desolidification and none of the heroes have Affects Desolid, then pure numbers are not going to reflect that.

 

If an opponent has a special effect that causes double Stun to a hero due to a Vulnerability, pure numbers will not reflect that either.

 

No matter how one tries to reduce this to pure mathematics, it is always going to require examination by a GM. The best any numbers-based system can do is prescreen characters for more obvious flaws before the GM looks at them to render a final ruling. And even then it's still guesswork. I'm sure we've all built characters that looked better on paper than in actual game play.

[Guest Keneton]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

Well put my castle sacking friend!

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

True. No tool can solve game balance problems. GM vetting is the final tool. Tools and house rules can help guide characters towards that goal and make it easier for the GM to get approvable or nearly balanced characters. This approach is simply another choice to be evaluated and it might be interesting for some people to try it out.

 

The only game balance issue I am dealing with is PC balance. What happens when you encounter villains or the opposition is a whole other ball of wax where peoples ingenuity and cleverness play a major role. Usually!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

True. No tool can solve game balance problems. GM vetting is the final tool. Tools and house rules can help guide characters towards that goal and make it easier for the GM to get approvable or nearly balanced characters. This approach is simply another choice to be evaluated and it might be interesting for some people to try it out.

 

The only game balance issue I am dealing with is PC balance. What happens when you encounter villains or the opposition is a whole other ball of wax where peoples ingenuity and cleverness play a major role. Usually!

If your method helps prevent some players in your campaign from abusing the rules, then that's fine. I myself will not play with people like that, but I do recognize that not everyone has that luxury if they want to play. But even your method is subjective, since it really addresses only points.

 

Is a character that has a vastly higher DEX and SPD really more effective than a character with vastly higher defenses and with half again as many DCs? Or vice versa? That all depends on your perspective. From my point of view, as long as one can effect the overall battle then it is not really important which particular player character was "most" effective. My ego just doesn't bruise that easily as long as I'm playing with friends. (Of course, the fact our campaign is "by invitation only" helps us keep out those elements which would be overly concerned with such unimportant and foolhardy comparisons.)

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

That is why I only suggest that it is a tool option to be used with other tools, including GM vetting. Of course, since it is only an option, the only GMs that need to consider it are those who want to try a new tool that might help them. I believe that the more choices GMs have to achieve the balance they want the more likely they will succeed. Some may want to try it just to try something different.

 

Although, it is best if everyone can have a significant contribution, every now and then, and not be overshadowed all the time. Characters can also contribute through ideas and roleplaying. There are many ways for a character to contribute. In fact, sometimes a player can have a very powerful character, yet not use it effectively. Still, the more balance in power the better, though each may specialize in a different way and contribute differently.

 

The closer to balance the better, usually. This also applies to the tactical capabilities of the group because balance provides depth of capabilities to deal with difficult situations and bad luck. It also makes it easier for the GM to provide threats that can be a challenge without it being too extreme for any particular character. Extreme challenges are appropriate sometimes too.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Real and Active Point Limit Campaigns

 

We're currently in just such a situation in our campaign. We're fighting a powerful sorcerer and his minions. We've defeated the human ones, but he still has a half dozen "living shadows" which are Desolidified; Affect Solid, and Drain BODY and STUN. Less than half our team can effect these things at all, which are also faster and have higher DEX than any of our team except my MA Zl'f, who cannot hit them and is currently down 7 of her 12 BODY. With no Power Defense and no Mental Defense she was in serious trouble when the sorcerer mentally paralysed her and then two of these shadow things attacked her. Fortunately she has a teammate who can teleport her to keep her safe until she breaks free of the mental Entangle. Not a good fight from her point of view, but there have been plenty of battles where her SPD and DEX turned the tide. But as you pointed out, a well balanced team can handle many situations even if every character cannot.