Oihid

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oihid

 

It's a one paragraph house rule. And why have any house rules at all if the GM can just say no?

Then why are you advocating a house rule or outright official rules change for OIHID?

 

We have no house rules in our campaign.

 

We also have GMs that will say no.

 

I'm detecting a pattern here...

 

My experience and general observation suggest that house rules are mostly a crutch for GMs that won't tell their players no. House rules may not even be targeted at every player, but rather at particular players who tend to come up with abusive character designs. If Andy always rapes the rules by using munchkin constructs and building overpowered combat machines ("What's wrong with a 2d6 RKA Autofire X10 Penetrating x2 Megascaled 1 Hex Area Selective Target attack? It doesn't exceed the Active Point cap."); a house rule to prohibit Penetrating Attacks or Megascale with 1 Hex Area will prevent Andy from building this unbalancing construct. Too bad that it also prevents the good player, Bob, from building a totally conceptual and not imbalanced power for his character. "I'm not singling you out, Andy. It's in the house rules. Bob couldn't build his character with those Advantages either. "

 

Instead you get a sulking Andy and a fairly good character built by Bob that isn't as cool or as interesting as he could have been. I don't think that's a very desireable outcome and is not going to improve the campaign in the least bit.

[Kristopher]

Re: Oihid

 

And why have any house rules at all if the GM can just say no?

 

Must...resist...

[Kristopher]

Re: Oihid

 

Regarding OIHID...

 

It's only an 'Every-Hero' construct if the players don't care about conception. Which they would be tremendously tempted to do so obviously.

 

Not really.

 

I've seen very few PCs with OIHID.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oihid

 

Regarding OIHID...

 

I've seen very few PCs with OIHID.

I've seen lots. Exactly half of our eight PCs have OIHIDs to various degrees. Obviously that balances out fairly well. Others have foci or other small conditional Limitations.

 

And our team's unquestionably most powerful character, a mentalist with a 95 point mental powers VPP, has no Limitations on those powers except what types of powers he can purchase within the VPP.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Not if my 350 point character buys Transform: Powered Armor to Leisure Suit.

 

JUst to make sure, it will be AE Radius, with enough Megascale to cover the solar system. It will only be one slot in his MP.

I was just going to buy Desolid and an NND Affects Solid.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Then why are you advocating a house rule or outright official rules change for OIHID?

 

We have no house rules in our campaign.

 

We also have GMs that will say no.

 

I'm detecting a pattern here...

 

My experience and general observation suggest that house rules are mostly a crutch for GMs that won't tell their players no. House rules may not even be targeted at every player, but rather at particular players who tend to come up with abusive character designs. If Andy always rapes the rules by using munchkin constructs and building overpowered combat machines ("What's wrong with a 2d6 RKA Autofire X10 Penetrating x2 Megascaled 1 Hex Area Selective Target attack? It doesn't exceed the Active Point cap."); a house rule to prohibit Penetrating Attacks or Megascale with 1 Hex Area will prevent Andy from building this unbalancing construct. Too bad that it also prevents the good player, Bob, from building a totally conceptual and not imbalanced power for his character. "I'm not singling you out, Andy. It's in the house rules. Bob couldn't build his character with those Advantages either. "

 

Instead you get a sulking Andy and a fairly good character built by Bob that isn't as cool or as interesting as he could have been. I don't think that's a very desireable outcome and is not going to improve the campaign in the least bit.

Nah, I can't buy that re house rules as a blanket or even generalized statement. I enjoy house rules, and a lot of it is that it's fun (for me) to tinker with the rules, to tune things to the way I like them. That's the great thing about HERO, it's an elegantly tuneable system, at least compared to most. I don't THINK I have any house rules geared towards character constructs that I didn't like. I've added a few where the rules didn't cover something that came up a few times (or didn't cover it in a way I enjoyed) and I wanted to clarify how I think it should work.

 

For me, there's 2 types of rules changes, in general:

 

1 - changes for the sake of making the system work more to my liking; often these so-called changes are really just maintenance of prior edition rules I don't think ever should have been changed - e.g., both lemming and I run with -1/3", we both don't dig the "new" (yeah, I know, 4th edition) rules for range mods

 

2 - changes that shape the character of the campaign/genre play; I just don't like KB even though for MOST people the KB rules are great for superhero games; when I started the current campaign, I did away with my old provisions against KB, but as the campaign progressed, I just didn't like the way it felt dramatically; but as always I left a method for players to get around that, just at a slight cost increase

 

However, for me, because of #2, house rules vary per genre/campaign. It's much like the HERO genre books, which if you think about it are just house rules. Don't you think? What do you thnik?

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Regarding OIHID...

 

 

 

Not really.

 

I've seen very few PCs with OIHID.

 

I've seen lots. Exactly half of our eight PCs have OIHIDs to various degrees. Obviously that balances out fairly well. Others have foci or other small conditional Limitations.

 

And our team's unquestionably most powerful character, a mentalist with a 95 point mental powers VPP, has no Limitations on those powers except what types of powers he can purchase within the VPP.

 

I hadn't seen it much at all in the past, in the current campaign 2 of 6 original PCs had it to varying degrees (one substantially but not greatly, the other "sweeping" and whether "too sweeping" being a matter - apparently - of debate).

 

But the point here is that this just demonstrates how different campaigns can be. And how important it is that the base rules can easily cater to a myriad of playing styles. And how it's fairly presumptive to believe that others' campaigns must function a certain way.

 

Kristopher, thanks for the quote, I just noticed!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Oihid

 

Just checking in. See you all in another 4 or 5 pages

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Just checking in. See you all in another 4 or 5 pages

Hey, we're talking about other stuff, too!

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

Nah, I can't buy that re house rules as a blanket or even generalized statement. I enjoy house rules, and a lot of it is that it's fun (for me) to tinker with the rules, to tune things to the way I like them. That's the great thing about HERO, it's an elegantly tuneable system, at least compared to most. I don't THINK I have any house rules geared towards character constructs that I didn't like. I've added a few where the rules didn't cover something that came up a few times (or didn't cover it in a way I enjoyed) and I wanted to clarify how I think it should work.

 

For me, there's 2 types of rules changes, in general:

 

1 - changes for the sake of making the system work more to my liking; often these so-called changes are really just maintenance of prior edition rules I don't think ever should have been changed - e.g., both lemming and I run with -1/3", we both don't dig the "new" (yeah, I know, 4th edition) rules for range mods

 

2 - changes that shape the character of the campaign/genre play; I just don't like KB even though for MOST people the KB rules are great for superhero games; when I started the current campaign, I did away with my old provisions against KB, but as the campaign progressed, I just didn't like the way it felt dramatically; but as always I left a method for players to get around that, just at a slight cost increase

 

However, for me, because of #2, house rules vary per genre/campaign. It's much like the HERO genre books, which if you think about it are just house rules. Don't you think? What do you thnik?

 

I have quite a few house rules, none of them about character creation. Most of them are there to speed up the game and reduce book-keeping, or to better simulate a genre. After playing this game a few decades (ack!) I've ended up with pet theories about what does and doesn't work in play that are far different than Steve's.

 

And different from Gary's.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

I've seen lots. Exactly half of our eight PCs have OIHIDs to various degrees. Obviously that balances out fairly well. Others have foci or other small conditional Limitations.

 

And our team's unquestionably most powerful character, a mentalist with a 95 point mental powers VPP, has no Limitations on those powers except what types of powers he can purchase within the VPP.

 

Looking at my own games, there is not a single PC that does not have some sort of framework and/or limitation. Not many Villains built like that either, and it's not like points are an issue for them.

[Sean Waters]

Fix in the mix

 

Hey' date=' we're talking about other stuff, too! [/quote']

 

Yes. I think you mentioned focii...

 

Would it be wrong of me (STUPID QUESTION!) to suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? You let the players design as they will on the understanding that anyone perceived as too powerful in practice will be receiving a visit from Dr Destroyer's monopolies and mergers division with an offer they can't refuse.

 

Of course this wouldn't just cover OIHID, but also any abusive or plain efficient character build.

 

The other way to do it is award less experience to characters that have an easy time of it because they are more 'powerful/abusively built'.

 

If UberLass takes down villains in one or two punches and never seems to take significant damage, what is she really learning? Bad habits, probably, certainly not how to stretch her powers and employ new combat techniques.

 

UnterLad, who spends most of his time reeling from blows and grovelling at the feet of enemy mentalists, whilst bleeding profusely from numerous wounds will be on a steep learning curve, even if it ends at 'I'm putting all my experince in PS: Plummer and leaving the superhero game for good.

 

So long as everyone knows that is how it is going to work in advance, you shouldn't have too much of a problem. Put a whole new slant on mini-maxing, anyway...Everyone's a winner!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oihid

 

Nah, I can't buy that re house rules as a blanket or even generalized statement. I enjoy house rules, and a lot of it is that it's fun (for me) to tinker with the rules, to tune things to the way I like them. That's the great thing about HERO, it's an elegantly tuneable system, at least compared to most. I don't THINK I have any house rules geared towards character constructs that I didn't like. I've added a few where the rules didn't cover something that came up a few times (or didn't cover it in a way I enjoyed) and I wanted to clarify how I think it should work.

 

For me, there's 2 types of rules changes, in general:

 

1 - changes for the sake of making the system work more to my liking; often these so-called changes are really just maintenance of prior edition rules I don't think ever should have been changed - e.g., both lemming and I run with -1/3", we both don't dig the "new" (yeah, I know, 4th edition) rules for range mods

 

2 - changes that shape the character of the campaign/genre play; I just don't like KB even though for MOST people the KB rules are great for superhero games; when I started the current campaign, I did away with my old provisions against KB, but as the campaign progressed, I just didn't like the way it felt dramatically; but as always I left a method for players to get around that, just at a slight cost increase

 

However, for me, because of #2, house rules vary per genre/campaign. It's much like the HERO genre books, which if you think about it are just house rules. Don't you think? What do you thnik?

I was only talking about particular restrictive types of house rules; those concerning character building. I was rather unclear, and for that I apologize. I forget we're probably not an entirely typical group.

 

Rules altering the ways system rules work are not really house rules to my way of thinking, although I concede that's probably what they get called by most players and GMs. Since I don't play with a group that uses any such rules tweaks, I have a tendency to forget that many GMs tinker (some extensively) with the system rules. We basically don't, because with multiple GMs we don't agree on the few minor issues that come up. I strongly dislike the Stun Lottery, Mentor actually likes it, and Blackjack thinks it's just OK but is willing to try something different. So we stick with the status quo. When he runs, Blackjack only uses Knockback for dramatic effect; he doesn't like it as a default rule in Champions. Mentor and I use standard KB rules. However, these types of minor differences in GMing style haven't been formalized within our campaign by written house rules. They're just stylistic differences between our gamemasters.

[Warp9]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Would it be wrong of me (STUPID QUESTION!) to suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? You let the players design as they will on the understanding that anyone perceived as too powerful in practice will be receiving a visit from Dr Destroyer's monopolies and mergers division with an offer they can't refuse.

 

Of course this wouldn't just cover OIHID, but also any abusive or plain efficient character build.

Over the course of the thread, I've seen a particular concept come up several times. The idea seems to be that ultimately game balance should be left up to Meta-Rules, and the GM's common sense.

 

Hero has a fairly complex system of rules (which I like), but it seems to me like the arguments presented could also be used to justify moving to a more "rules-lite" system.

 

There are universal systems out there with less rules, but they are based more heavily on the GM's judgement. One of the reasons that I like a system that has more comprehensive rules is that I don't like to place too much faith in the GM's judgement.

[OddHat]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Over the course of the thread, I've seen a particular concept come up several times. The idea seems to be that ultimately game balance should be left up to Meta-Rules, and the GM's common sense.

 

Hero has a fairly complex system of rules (which I like), but it seems to me like the arguments presented could also be used to justify moving to a more "rules-lite" system.

 

There are universal systems out there with less rules, but they are based more heavily on the GM's judgement. One of the reasons that I like a system that has more comprehensive rules is that I don't like to place too much faith in the GM's judgement.

 

Like it or not, in a system as complex flexible as Hero, covering as many options and genres as it does, balance ultimately will come down the GMs judgement. That's the nature of the beast. After that, we end up arguing about degrees.

[Warp9]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Like it or not' date=' in a system as complex flexible as Hero, covering as many options and genres as it does, balance ultimately will come down the GMs judgement. That's the nature of the beast. After that, we end up arguing about degrees.[/quote']

When you use the term "degrees" above, what specifically do you mean by that term? Do you mean that some systems rely less on the GM's judgement than others?

 

And, if so, is that a good thing?

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

I was only talking about particular restrictive types of house rules; those concerning character building. I was rather unclear' date=' and for that I apologize. I forget we're probably not an entirely typical group. [/quote']

 

Heh, nobody's group is entirely typical!

 

Rules altering the ways system rules work are not really house rules to my way of thinking, although I concede that's probably what they get called by most players and GMs. Since I don't play with a group that uses any such rules tweaks, I have a tendency to forget that many GMs tinker (some extensively) with the system rules. We basically don't, because with multiple GMs we don't agree on the few minor issues that come up. I strongly dislike the Stun Lottery, Mentor actually likes it, and Blackjack thinks it's just OK but is willing to try something different. So we stick with the status quo. When he runs, Blackjack only uses Knockback for dramatic effect; he doesn't like it as a default rule in Champions. Mentor and I use standard KB rules. However, these types of minor differences in GMing style haven't been formalized within our campaign by written house rules. They're just stylistic differences between our gamemasters.

 

Yeah, in the environment you describe (which I think is neat btw), I can see sticking to the rules as such as being critical, and I would, too, then. Lemming and I have discussed co-GMing a game and while it really hasn't come together, when we do we'll be using the standard rules, except for -1/3" since we both happen to like that and our whole group seems fine with that.

[zornwil]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

When you use the term "degrees" above, what specifically do you mean by that term? Do you mean that some systems rely less on the GM's judgement than others?

 

And, if so, is that a good thing?

Not to speak for OddHat, but I believe so. Games like d20 with classes and such remove some layer of balancing issues. I used to not really agree with that but after some discussions on these boards I've come to think that's true. And some games would require more GM "intervention" than HERO, like a FUDGE or many of the stripped-down rules lite games.

 

PS - I don't think it's good or bad, that's a value judgement. And personally I can exist in either environment, but I prefer games that require a more active GMing role mainly because I like to tinker - but also because it's a sign of good flexibility.

[OddHat]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

When you use the term "degrees" above, what specifically do you mean by that term? Do you mean that some systems rely less on the GM's judgement than others?

 

And, if so, is that a good thing?

 

God you like playing word games.

 

Yes little toaster, some RPGs do rely more than others on the GMs judgement in a given area. Whether this is Good or Bad is a matter of taste and circumstances. If you fear using your own judgement, perhaps you should consider taking up a different hobby?

[OddHat]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Not to speak for OddHat, but I believe so. Games like d20 with classes and such remove some layer of balancing issues. I used to not really agree with that but after some discussions on these boards I've come to think that's true. And some games would require more GM "intervention" than HERO, like a FUDGE or many of the stripped-down rules lite games.

 

PS - I don't think it's good or bad, that's a value judgement. And personally I can exist in either environment, but I prefer games that require a more active GMing role mainly because I like to tinker - but also because it's a sign of good flexibility.

 

Gosh you said that more kindly than I did.

 

Still, Even the d20 family has optional rules, and the DM was still encouraged under the rules to do as he likes in his own campaign for the sake of the story. RPGs are not competition level war games, though there has always been some cross over.

[zornwil]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Gosh you said that more kindly than I did.

 

Still, Even the d20 family has optional rules, and the DM was still encouraged under the rules to do as he likes in his own campaign for the sake of the story. RPGs are not competition level war games, though there has always been some cross over.

Oh, surely, as to d20, and don't get me wrong, it's a matter of degree.

 

AD&D was probably the system I bastardized more than any other, in fact!

 

(yawn, back to bed!)

[Warp9]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Not to speak for OddHat, but I believe so. Games like d20 with classes and such remove some layer of balancing issues. I used to not really agree with that but after some discussions on these boards I've come to think that's true. And some games would require more GM "intervention" than HERO, like a FUDGE or many of the stripped-down rules lite games.

 

PS - I don't think it's good or bad, that's a value judgement. And personally I can exist in either environment, but I prefer games that require a more active GMing role mainly because I like to tinker - but also because it's a sign of good flexibility.

It seemed like that one of the premises behind this thread is that it would be better to require less GM intervention.

[Warp9]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

God you like playing word games.

I try to avoid making assumptions that I don't have to make.

 

 

Yes little toaster, some RPGs do rely more than others on the GMs judgement in a given area. Whether this is Good or Bad is a matter of taste and circumstances.

It is also somewhat relevant to the arguments made in this thread.

 

 

If you fear using your own judgement, perhaps you should consider taking up a different hobby?

The judgement thing is only likely to bother me when someone else is GMing. But it might also be a problem for my players when I'm GM.

[OddHat]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

It is also somewhat relevant to the arguments made in this thread.

 

Eh, those parts of the thread are just the old War Gamers versus Storytellers thing that has been going on since Gygax molded the very first twenty sided die from his own ear wax.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Fix in the mix

 

Eh' date=' those parts of the thread are just the old War Gamers versus Storytellers thing that has been going on since Gygax molded the very first twenty sided die from his own ear wax. [/quote']

 

Ear wax? Thank goodness!