Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Well, then dont list any Primayr characteristic that is equal to "10". Assume 10.

 

Along those lines, dont list total STR, DEX etc. Buy them all as powers, and have them show up as "+X" STR, etc.

 

That will give you the "Only What I Paid For" bit. I think you'll find it inconvenient in the long run and confusing to newbs/less mechanically oriented players, but you could do it without changing anything.

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Well - you are at least partly to blame - I enjoyed reading the frameworks posts and have been looking at alternative ways to use the system ever since...

 

I have thought something similar on occasion. I think as Killer Shrike points out there's a pragmatic problem but setting that aside...

 

 

 

As I said before though, if everyone has them to the same, or similar enough fashion, do they have to be on the character sheet?

 

My aim in life is to have a character sheet that someone new to the game could pick up and use effectively without an integral knowledge of the game.

 

I suppose it doesn't require no characteristics but I was thinking that removing another set of things to think about it makes the system as a whole easier to digest.

 

If I ever come up with such a character sheet then I shall be sure to post it!

It would be interesting to see but I think as to the specific idea of leaving unenhanced or ordinary characteristics off the sheet, I think there's the tradition of gaming as referenced where we're just so accustomed to seeing all the stats it's jarring not to, plus I do think it would actually be a little harder on newbies.

 

Though Dust Raven's list or any other such approach might well be rewarding in the long run as to having more specific stats and eliminating the general or vagueness of the current stats.

 

And of course back to your point, I do think there's relevance to more fundamentally just having the specialized abilities on the character sheet and leaving off standard stuff, which would sit on a standard reference sheet for all. And of course as you suggest those would be expressed either similar to mine or Dust Raven's comments, or possibly as individual power/skill constructs. What would be most interesting, you know, is that you would truly eliminate the gamist in us looking at a sheet and saying "well I simply must get another point of DEX to reach a break-point" as well as probably it would hold sway against basic point inflation.

 

Revolutionary idea that might just improve gaming, actually. I think the real problem is how to present it so that it could be easily understood and implemented.

 

PS/EDIT - and thanks for the partial "blame"

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Characteristics are more visible. I don't think they significantly more susceptible to being bought without character demand. Watch how many players come up with the most pff the wall reason their character would have mental, power and flash defense, because they don't want to have an easily targeted vulnerability.

 

This isn't to say every player abuses defenses, but I've seen it at least as much as characteristic abuse.

 

Now, what about resistant defenses? Many comic book characters have none, but what would a GM say to a player whose character design included no resistant defenses?

I'd say buy a truckload of STUN and BOD!

 

We had a superhero like this actually. Quite interesting, he even had low DCV. He just soaked up damage. It worked fairly well; it was particularly interesting when a villain did Find Weakness (yes, I was the GM, and yes, I know that was a mistake, but the villain wouldn't know that), only to find that it didn't matter that he halved the defenses as it was just a few extra points of STUN damage.

 

EDIT/PS - to be clear, we're talking RESISTANT defenses. He had plenty of non-resistant.

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

This' date=' is of course, why we "only" have 14 Characteristics...[/quote']

Touche!

 

PS - I should add, I counted and you had 20, of which, among others, Lift is already on (at least theoretically) the character sheet though as derivative of STR. So it's like you only added 5, really.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

I'd say buy a truckload of STUN and BOD!

 

We had a superhero like this actually. Quite interesting, he even had low DCV. He just soaked up damage. It worked fairly well; it was particularly interesting when a villain did Find Weakness (yes, I was the GM, and yes, I know that was a mistake, but the villain wouldn't know that), only to find that it didn't matter that he halved the defenses as it was just a few extra points of STUN damage.

 

EDIT/PS - to be clear, we're talking RESISTANT defenses. He had plenty of non-resistant.

There's a character like that in one of the game I actually play in. He wanted a character than healed fast and could come back from the dead (like a phoenix), and wanted this to happen frequently. I talked him into a high BODY and STUN to make up for Defenses. It costs way more than Defenses, but it's also much more powerful (AP and Find Weakness and even Pen become useless against him).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

It worked fairly well; it was particularly interesting when a villain did Find Weakness (yes' date=' I was the GM, and yes, I know that was a mistake, but the villain wouldn't know that), only to find that it didn't matter that he halved the defenses as it was just a few extra points of STUN damage.[/quote']

 

Actually, I think that's an important (if off topic) comment. Players and GM's can be guilty of tactically maximizing their actions based on their knowledge and perceptions, rather than those of the characters they are playing.

 

Grond doesn't know you have 3/4 Physical Damage reduction and huge Absorbtion from physical attacks. He only knows you aren't falling, so clearly he needsto hit you harder.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

EDIT/PS - to be clear' date=' we're talking RESISTANT defenses. He had plenty of non-resistant.[/quote']

 

Despite the examples given, I will suggest that having no resistant defenses is far more common in the comics than in the game. And buying a ton of Stun and BIOD doesn't exactly match those characters either, does it?

 

Moving on the same train of throught, how often do you see a Champs super who has ordinary human DEX, Speed, CON, etc. Yet the comics are full of characters who have super powers without enhanced characteristics (or at least significantly enhanced characteristics).

 

It's not that Hero couldn't support this. If, when 1st Ed premiered, we had sample characters with DEX'es lower than we are used to, we might have a very different game today. Let's say the exceptionally slow Brick had a 5 DEX, rather than 18, and a 2 Speed, rather than 4. A typical Super might have had 14 DEX and 3 Speed, rather than 23 and 4. A Martial Artist might have had a "superhuman" DEX and Speed of 23 and 5, rather than the 35 and 7 we've now become accustomed to (and then it was more like 29 and 6). This, and similar "normal" CON levels (to pick the most constant stats at or above human maxima) would have left more points for other abilities and powers, so we might be playing 150 + 100 point characters today, with lower CON, lower DEX and SPD, etc..

 

Lower DC's and lower defenses could have been another route - imagine if an 8d6 Energy Blast were typical, 10d6 the high end, and 12d6 "overwhelming". Instead of DC's 10 - 12, we might have 6 to 9. Defenses could drop by 10 across the board and average damage would be unchanged. DC['s and defenses in tose early characters were actually a bit lower than what we see as "typical" now, but "inflation" started pretty early on.

 

That's not the road taken by even first edition, of course, and it's way too late to go back now. But it's interesting to consider how the game might have evolved differently. If Supers had clustered at lower levels, we might have seen more of a push to design rules that make every point in a stat count for something.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

I think Hugh is right. It's one of the things that's always bothered me when designing characters and something I've always tried to address when playing Champions.

 

Despite the examples given' date=' I will suggest that having no resistant defenses is far more common in the comics than in the game. And buying a ton of Stun and BIOD doesn't exactly match those characters either, does it?[/quote']

 

It depends on how you want to look at the 'interpretation' of the characters rather than the written down stuff on the character sheet.

 

If that was written down as 'uncanny ability to survive' then it wouldn't matter whether the mechanics you used were a ton of STUN and BODY or resistant defences. Both would give the effect. But the very action of writing them down creates a picture in the head of both players and referees.

 

The GM needs to know the mechanics to run the game but what's written on the sheet slants how it is described in game.

 

 

Doc

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

I may be repeating some other people's ideas, but here's my two cents. (I read the first two pages of this thread, got some ideas, then came back and saw there were many more pages, and said 'No')

 

While I agree that Chracteristics, in principle, invert the cause-effect relationship between Effects and Special Effects, personally, I think a line must be drawn in which simplicity triumphs over accuracy.

[Blackjack]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

I don't think I was talking about characteristic abuse.

 

I think that quite a few of my players see a characteristic list that is mostly 10's as boring and spend points on them to make them more interesting. I think the vary fact that they appear on the character sheet makes the players more likely to buy them as they see the characteristics as one of teh major ways they differentiate each other.

Doc

 

DocD,

 

I certainly understand your point, but I must respectfully disagree. In the characters I cited earlier, Nightwolf has 59 points in powers (no Frameworks) and 186 points in characteristics while Ladyhawke has 67 points in powers (43 in a two-slot "Wings" Multipower) and 173 points in characteristics.

 

Personally, I don't spend points on characteristics because I think 10's are boring, I spend them to make my character appropriately stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, etc. If my energy projector isn't particularly strong, I leave him with a 10 STR. Of course, some people may buy characteristics inappropriate to their character, but if they do, then those points aren't available to the character in other areas...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Moving on the same train of throught' date=' how often do you see a Champs super who has ordinary human DEX, Speed, CON, etc. Yet the comics are full of characters who have super powers without enhanced characteristics (or at least significantly enhanced characteristics).[/quote']

 

Believe it or not, I see this every time I GM. One of my guidelines is for characters to have "normal" characteristics unless they are actually a Power of some kind. (Non Power) Characteristics average between 10-15. Of course, DEX is generally between 15-20, but how often do you see a comic book character that isn't more than a little above average in that department?

 

I also make use of the "durrable" "will to live" and "acrobatic dodging" defenses using Armor Hardened Non-Persistant Restrainable to simulate a hero's ability to not get shot up when shot at.

 

I'm actually surprised the published genres don't support thing like this as a baseline. With published characters having an average DEX of 23 and SPD of 5, even if they don't have any reason for being faster than Bruce Lee, I guess it's no surprise most people play that way too.

[Agemegos]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Grond doesn't know you have 3/4 Physical Damage reduction and huge Absorbtion from physical attacks. He only knows you aren't falling' date=' so clearly he needsto hit you harder.[/quote']

 

This is a very important feature of Champions games, in my opinion. The GM can never completely firewall from his NPCs the information he acquires by vetting characters and adjudicating their efforts. The flip side is that NPCs are often not properly vetted and rely on dodging rulings for their effect.

 

Don't get me started on Bugbear.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Believe it or not, I see this every time I GM. One of my guidelines is for characters to have "normal" characteristics unless they are actually a Power of some kind. (Non Power) Characteristics average between 10-15. Of course, DEX is generally between 15-20, but how often do you see a comic book character that isn't more than a little above average in that department?

 

I also make use of the "durrable" "will to live" and "acrobatic dodging" defenses using Armor Hardened Non-Persistant Restrainable to simulate a hero's ability to not get shot up when shot at.

 

I'm actually surprised the published genres don't support thing like this as a baseline. With published characters having an average DEX of 23 and SPD of 5, even if they don't have any reason for being faster than Bruce Lee, I guess it's no surprise most people play that way too.

Actually there is a pretty good write-up of Bruce Lee HERE that has him described with a 30 DEX and 6 SPD! And this was done by Michael Subrook, the writer of Ninja Hero, so although not "official" I would imagine that it is fairly balanced compared to other published characters.

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Despite the examples given, I will suggest that having no resistant defenses is far more common in the comics than in the game. And buying a ton of Stun and BIOD doesn't exactly match those characters either, does it?

 

Moving on the same train of throught, how often do you see a Champs super who has ordinary human DEX, Speed, CON, etc. Yet the comics are full of characters who have super powers without enhanced characteristics (or at least significantly enhanced characteristics).

 

It's not that Hero couldn't support this. If, when 1st Ed premiered, we had sample characters with DEX'es lower than we are used to, we might have a very different game today. Let's say the exceptionally slow Brick had a 5 DEX, rather than 18, and a 2 Speed, rather than 4. A typical Super might have had 14 DEX and 3 Speed, rather than 23 and 4. A Martial Artist might have had a "superhuman" DEX and Speed of 23 and 5, rather than the 35 and 7 we've now become accustomed to (and then it was more like 29 and 6). This, and similar "normal" CON levels (to pick the most constant stats at or above human maxima) would have left more points for other abilities and powers, so we might be playing 150 + 100 point characters today, with lower CON, lower DEX and SPD, etc..

 

Lower DC's and lower defenses could have been another route - imagine if an 8d6 Energy Blast were typical, 10d6 the high end, and 12d6 "overwhelming". Instead of DC's 10 - 12, we might have 6 to 9. Defenses could drop by 10 across the board and average damage would be unchanged. DC['s and defenses in tose early characters were actually a bit lower than what we see as "typical" now, but "inflation" started pretty early on.

 

That's not the road taken by even first edition, of course, and it's way too late to go back now. But it's interesting to consider how the game might have evolved differently. If Supers had clustered at lower levels, we might have seen more of a push to design rules that make every point in a stat count for something.

It's an interesting point and one which is particularly striking if you consider that most people have mentioned that the original inspiration for Champions-style play was X-Men-type characters and Marvel rather than DC. If so, that point regarding how the path could have been taken stands out even more since those characters in particular are as you indicate.

 

However...a big divergence from the source material is that in an RPG people want to HIT, not MISS! And that goes for GMs as well. In a gamist-cum-simulationist mindset we want to "feel" the combat, and this "feels" more like combat not "I missed, I missed, I missed, You're KOd". In fact that is an oft-argued criticism of GURPS.

 

And beyond that, the source material really has two standards around Silver era Marvel - the tactically-driven and often plot-driven battles in which there aren't many hits but also the final brawls, the big battles, the massive "one man survives, this is it" combat where there is tremendous "takes a lickin' but keeps on tickin'" mentality. Champions was more geared to the latter than the former.

 

I can see the roots of the issue, anyway.

 

Personally I'm not bothered by the heavier-hitter approach; and you could say it well-presaged the Lobo sorts of Iron Age stuff we'd see later (though that is not why I'm not bothered, it's simply that the levels feel fine to me), so it was rather prescient, whether due to some insight on the creators' part or rather their closeness to the same comic book community that would be receptive to this later trend.

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Believe it or not, I see this every time I GM. One of my guidelines is for characters to have "normal" characteristics unless they are actually a Power of some kind. (Non Power) Characteristics average between 10-15. Of course, DEX is generally between 15-20, but how often do you see a comic book character that isn't more than a little above average in that department?

 

I also make use of the "durrable" "will to live" and "acrobatic dodging" defenses using Armor Hardened Non-Persistant Restrainable to simulate a hero's ability to not get shot up when shot at.

 

I'm actually surprised the published genres don't support thing like this as a baseline. With published characters having an average DEX of 23 and SPD of 5, even if they don't have any reason for being faster than Bruce Lee, I guess it's no surprise most people play that way too.

But interestingly, isn't it your perception that Hawkeye would beat Bruce Lee's rear even without his bows and arrow? Or is that just me? I have a perception that even the low-end comic book superheroes would beat the crap out of high-level modern heroic characters. And perhaps that is why I have no great issue with so-called stat inflation.

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Actually there is a pretty good write-up of Bruce Lee HERE that has him described with a 30 DEX and 6 SPD! And this was done by Michael Subrook' date=' the writer of Ninja Hero, so although not "[i']official[/i]" I would imagine that it is fairly balanced compared to other published characters.

One could play devil's advocate and say that Surbrook had to do that due to stat inflation. But whatever the case, I think one thing that fundamentally influences, as I thinik about it, what we see as "genre" and "correct" is so completely subjective as it relates to our experiences in childhood and how we matured from then as to how we see superheroes. There just is no barometer, as many people don't come strictly from a superhero-loving background into superhero play. I just think it's so subjective we can't have more than a spirited and interesting speculative and opinion discussion.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't learn from that. In fact, these conversations have been pivotal in helping me closely consider character creation for the modern Disavowed-inspired heroic campaign I've just started. In that game I can "feel" the gradations of "every 5 = double" and I have to say that it feels right against superheroes who could tromp all over them. And the fundamental point here is that it speaks to the internal consistency of these things and how HERO translates this, and these conversations inform that process.

 

Pardon the ramble, it's obviously off-topic, but fruitful I hope.

[The Horror]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

getting rid of characteristics would be a fantastic opportunity to streamline the system.

 

 

This is a fantastic idea. I am really impressed by this.

 

The entire system would have to be rewritten, but it would still be Hero wouldn't it? Sure the points would change, and there would be a new mechanic to handle the characteristics instead, but the Hero basis would still be there. You would still be designing the powers based on the special effects, and you would still be able to design anything you wanted with the system.

 

How about getting rid of skills as well? You could just set some basic general costs for 'abilities', and give a bunch of examples. In short, the players describe anything that they want their character to be able to do. They then pay some points for their chosen abilities based on how useful the ability is in the campaign, and how good they are at it. No need to be fancy, just some rough levels like "good, excellent, human max, superhuman, godlike being".

 

Say if Joe wants to be able to run fast, and to lift up heavy things. He might buy Running as per the power, and buy Lift as an ability. The GM would look at the generic table provided with the abilities section, and decide that Lift is of moderate use in the campaign. This sets the base amount of points Lift will cost. Then the player decides how well he wants to be able to Lift (ie. good, excellent, human max, etc...).and applies the cost modifier for the rough level he wants the ability at.

 

If a character who doesn't have Lift tries to lift something, he only does as well as a normal person might.

 

Surely you could do the same thing with all the skills, and with the attributes as well. Keep PD, ED, REC, and END as powers. All the rest can be purchased as some sort of generic ability system. The ability to stun someone can be decided based on the amount of damage dealt compared to body/toughness/machismo ability level of the character (with a default number allocated if they don't buy the ability).

 

Thoughts?

 

 

The Horror

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Are you being serious The Horror? What you describe isn't HERO as far as I can see as there's little granularity and an inability to model the powers as we know them, or at least I couldn't get there from your post. And I hope I'm not insulting you.

[The Horror]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Are you being serious The Horror? What you describe isn't HERO as far as I can see as there's little granularity and an inability to model the powers as we know them' date=' or at least I couldn't get there from your post. And I hope I'm not insulting you.[/quote']

 

Well, it depends on how you see Hero. I view Hero as a tool for building absolutely anything in game terms, and allocating that construct a point cost that can be compared to the point costs of other constructs. Is the granularity one of the most important aspects of Hero? Maybe to some. Not for me.

 

Look at the disadvantages in Hero. We allocate them point costs, but they are not particularly exact now are they? Yet the guidelines provided are still good for comparison purposes. All I was suggesting was to perhaps give attributes and skills a similar level of detail as disadvantages. Of course, this takes away the granularity of the attributes and skills, but if you are going to take away attributes then I don't see how you could really keep it. You could still keep the granularity in damage, in inches of movement, in END, armor, and most other things really.

 

Simpler more streamlined Hero, with a completely consistent set of internal mechanics. I do like the idea (but don't get me wrong, I love the crunch too - just in a different way).

 

 

The Horror

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Well, it depends on how you see Hero. I view Hero as a tool for building absolutely anything in game terms, and allocating that construct a point cost that can be compared to the point costs of other constructs. Is the granularity one of the most important aspects of Hero? Maybe to some. Not for me.

 

Look at the disadvantages in Hero. We allocate them point costs, but they are not particularly exact now are they? Yet the guidelines provided are still good for comparison purposes. All I was suggesting was to perhaps give attributes and skills a similar level of detail as disadvantages. Of course, this takes away the granularity of the attributes and skills, but if you are going to take away attributes then I don't see how you could really keep it. You could still keep the granularity in damage, in inches of movement, in END, armor, and most other things really.

 

Simpler more streamlined Hero, with a completely consistent set of internal mechanics. I do like the idea (but don't get me wrong, I love the crunch too - just in a different way).

 

 

The Horror

Okay, fair enough, thanks.

 

As to the idea, I don't see though how you derive either balance or a scale out of the system you "proposed" (I realize it was a speculative brainstorm, so don't get me wrong). How do you envision abilities be built, do you think, at some high level?

[The Horror]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

Okay, fair enough, thanks.

 

As to the idea, I don't see though how you derive either balance or a scale out of the system you "proposed" (I realize it was a speculative brainstorm, so don't get me wrong). How do you envision abilities be built, do you think, at some high level?

 

Well, what would the abilities be used for?

 

I picture them as being things like: lifting, looking cool, commander (or born leader), ace pilot, crack shot (and any other skills really), hardy (I'm thinking diseases here), or maybe even speedy. Most other things would be covered by the powers and use the system of balance for those.

 

If you want an ability done at greater levels than the 5-6 levels provided, maybe a Megascaling or some sort... Oh yes, I can almost feel the power of looking cool at Megascale.

 

 

The Horror

 

Edit: added some stuff I forgot to put in.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

How about getting rid of skills as well?

 

Oh! He saw my characteristics and raised skills. Do I see, call or fold?

 

You could just set some basic general costs for 'abilities'' date=' and give a bunch of examples. In short, the players describe anything that they want their character to be able to do. They then pay some points for their chosen abilities based on how useful the ability is in the campaign, and how good they are at it. No need to be fancy, just some rough levels like "good, excellent, human max, superhuman, godlike being". [/quote']

 

Now this is where FREd comes into his own - if a GM wants to do the work. You have a toolkit to make the game you want and can present this kind of thing to players - as a harrassed, time-poor working person I would, as I said, love this to be in a Hero supplement for alternative front ends to the game.

 

All the crunchiness can exist in the background where the GM can access it at need and just present the cool stuff upfront. I think Hero fails to catch the people that want cool stuff like The Horror describes below.

 

Say if Joe wants to be able to run fast, and to lift up heavy things. He might buy Running as per the power, and buy Lift as an ability. The GM would look at the generic table provided with the abilities section, and decide that Lift is of moderate use in the campaign. This sets the base amount of points Lift will cost. Then the player decides how well he wants to be able to Lift (ie. good, excellent, human max, etc...).and applies the cost modifier for the rough level he wants the ability at.

 

If a character who doesn't have Lift tries to lift something, he only does as well as a normal person might.

 

Yeah - I can see something like that but it would take a major re-write of the rules or a lot of work from the GM.

 

Surely you could do the same thing with all the skills' date=' and with the attributes as well. Keep PD, ED, REC, and END as powers. All the rest can be purchased as some sort of generic ability system. The ability to stun someone can be decided based on the amount of damage dealt compared to body/toughness/machismo ability level of the character (with a default number allocated if they don't buy the ability). [/quote']

 

I think it is possible. It is an extreme extension of the decision to include characteristics in the powers section of the game. I suppose that you could include skills in the mix as well if you wanted to make the system run on one mechanic rather than the two or three that currently exist.

 

I would like to make sure that the system retained its detail - even if it was only for the GM to look at and for the GM to tinker with in a game.

 

If you want an ability done at greater levels than the 5-6 levels provided, maybe a Megascaling or some sort... Oh yes, I can almost feel the power of looking cool at Megascale.

 

And that is the kind of hook that people looking at Hero don't feel.

 

They think superheroes and want to think about the cool powers that they'd have. Instead they are presented with screeds and screeds of detail like

 

3D6 RKA AP, no range, 0 END etc etc

 

Takes the romance out of using a Plasma blowtorch in a ruck in space...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

However...a big divergence from the source material is that in an RPG people want to HIT' date=' not MISS! And that goes for GMs as well. In a gamist-cum-simulationist mindset we want to "feel" the combat, and this "feels" more like combat not "I missed, I missed, I missed, You're KOd". In fact that is an oft-argued criticism of GURPS. [/quote']

 

This is true, however the odds of hitting (with the possible exception of agents and normals) would be unchanged if everyone's DEX was lower across the board. What kind of a range do we see now? We probabkly view a 17 as pretty slow for a Super, and fast Martial Artists tend to get written up in a range up to 35. There are doubtless some exceptions, but I'd say they're pretty rare.

 

If those slow bricks had instead been written up as DEX 5 (slower than an average human), and those fast martial artists as DEX 23 (better reaction time than a peak human), the range of CV would be 2 to 8 instead of 6 to 12, but the odds of any two chartacters hitting would be completely unchanged.

 

We say "oh, all the comic guys are faster than normal humans", but how true is that, really? Are the reaction times of the big bruisers like the Hulk or the Juggernaut two to four times human norm (which is a 13 to 18 DEX, by the way)? "A bit faster than human norm" could easily be an 11 - 1 OCV better than the average human 8, and about 150% human norm.

 

If this were the standard, Bruce Lee wouldn't have been written up "requiring" a 30 DEX. A 20 (peak human) would have been plenty.

 

At the end of the day, it's not the road Hero went down, and the game works as it is. I'm certainly not looking to change over to Mutants & Masterminds because their characteristics are "baseline human", not stat inflated. They'll probably start to suffer from stat inflation sooner or later too.

 

You hit the nail on the head with the "gamist" comment, of course. If the average CV is 4, I want a 5 or 6 to be reasonably assured I'll normally hit. If it's an 8, then I want a 9 or a 10. If it creeps up to a 12, I want a 14 CV. Average damage and average defenses all creep up the same way. We all want our characters to be "competetive", and we get frustrated when our character seems ineffective (even for only one game because the dice act against us). If we couldn't hit, we want more OCV. If we couldn't do damage, we want greater attack powers. If we were taken out easily, we want better DCV and/or defenses. But all we get is an arm's race - the other players want similar upgrades, and the villains need more power to compete. If no one puts the brakes on it, we end up with DEX of 30 - 45, SPD 8-10, DC 15-20, DEF 45-60 characters, and just keep building. Luckily, our character points force us to put the brakes on somewhere, and reasonable campaign guidelines establkish the limits (at least for reasonable players and decent GM's). But there'sd always someone who wants to push the evenlope, and then the competetor in gamers comes to the fore.

[zornwil]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said, Hugh, except for the significant "baseline issue", i.e., where do supers start, is 17 DEX "low" for a super, same for 4 SPD, etc.. Although I don't fundamentally disagree in that I don't think your starting point is any worse than anyone else's, I think there is considerable room for debate and alternate views here. My point is not so much to quibble as to highlight that I really think there is room for reasonable disagreement on this particular point and thus whether there's an issue depends entirely on that except...

 

as I don't disagree that in general there's a "gamist inflation" or arms race as you put it, I don't disagree that this is a generalized issue. The thing is, realistically, given your statements, isn't this an inevitability and if not what can be done to make it not inevitable?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

 

But interestingly' date=' isn't it your perception that Hawkeye would beat Bruce Lee's rear even without his bows and arrow? Or is that just me? I have a perception that even the low-end comic book superheroes would beat the crap out of high-level modern heroic characters. And perhaps that is why I have no great issue with so-called stat inflation.[/quote']

It's my perception that high-level modern heroic character are low-end comic book supers. While Bruce Lee, Jet Li or Jacky Chan would hardly tackly Superman, they could certainly handle the low powered guys (assuming a cinimatic world where martial artists don't routinely break arms and legs on a bad landing from a backflip).