Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

[Briguy123]

I have decided to run a low powered campaign in a setting of my own design. Characters will have 50 base points + 50 points from disadvantages. I intend for the PC's to have better than normal stats, but don't want them to be that much better than compotent NPC's built on 50-75 points (i.e. Town gaurdsmen, Local priests, or goblin warriors). Where I want the PC's to shine is the range of skills, talents and perks they have compared to the Average NPC.

 

I have come up with several house rules to alleviate the problem of stat inflation, and I'd like your feedback on my ideas.

 

1. Strength costs 2 points instead of 1.

 

2. Players can spend no more 60 points on statistics.

 

3. NCM limits for base stats are set at 15 instead of 20.

 

My hope is that each player will chose one or two base stats that are "signature abilities" for his or her character that will be bought higher than fifteen while other stats are kept in the 10 to 15 range.

[Eosin]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I don't see anything wrong with the rules - they should result in what you are looking for but I would be wary of CSLs.

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

If you are going to limit the Stat level to 15, and enforce a limit on spending for stats. I would not bother with raising the price of STR. I have always found Dex to have a much greater affect on FH campains. Just don't let them start with any stat over 15 period, and don't let them raise a stat more than one point at a time with XP.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Also keep in mind that you may simply be trading one kind of "inflation" for another. If the characters are heavily restricted in how many points they can spend on CHAs, but still have the same number of points overall, then -- since they have to put the points somewhere -- you may start seeing CSL inflation, or Skill Roll inflation or the "everyone has all the same useful Skills" syndrome, etc.

[Briguy123]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

If you are going to limit the Stat level to 15' date=' and enforce a limit on spending for stats. I would not bother with raising the price of STR. I have always found Dex to have a much greater affect on FH campains. Just don't let them start with any stat over 15 period, and don't let them raise a stat more than one point at a time with XP.[/quote']

 

I want the PC's to be able to have one or two exceptional stats, after all they are supposed to be exceptional. I just don't want characters to have multiple stats above 15. I'm hoping that setting NCM at 15 makes stat inflation cost prohibitive.

 

I also require players to spend at least 12 points in non-combat related skills. this leaves 28 points to spend on talents, spells, CSL's, and combat related skills such as Martial arts or 2-weapon fighting. I may put caps on how many levels a player can pruchase from any one category of CSL's (OCV, range, penalty levels etc.).

 

Thanks for the feed back!

[Frenchman]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Sounds good, and if you players agree to it, go for it! (mine jumped up and down screaming when I suggested playing 50/50 characters, and simply refused to go along with reduced stat caps. I was suggesting pretty much what you are now)

 

The only thing I'd differ with you on is, as HeWhoIsMatt said, the doubling of the cost of STR. If characters are being limited to 15 (unless it is 'their' stat, which is what my group has done in all our games) then str won't be too much of a problem. I doubt many non-warriors will have str higher than 12 or 13.

[Ner0Sputnik]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Sounds good, and if you players agree to it, go for it! (mine jumped up and down screaming when I suggested playing 50/50 characters, and simply refused to go along with reduced stat caps. I was suggesting pretty much what you are now)

 

The only thing I'd differ with you on is, as HeWhoIsMatt said, the doubling of the cost of STR. If characters are being limited to 15 (unless it is 'their' stat, which is what my group has done in all our games) then str won't be too much of a problem. I doubt many non-warriors will have str higher than 12 or 13.

 

I always restrict starting out characters in my campaigns. I've had a few players balk at the thought of that and then I explain to them that this is my system of balance. If they want to have higher stats, then it's going to turn into the cold war.

 

Let's say I wanted everyone to have their average stats be at an 8-11 with a couple of stats rising above that. Then with most of the average bad guys would also be limited to this.

 

If they refuse and want to be at higher levels (say, average stats being 13-15) then they're just going to run into more bad guys with those stats and the big badasses are going to be rediculous.

 

Usually they see the point and back down... Though I can imagine that your gamers who all stand together might not back down, but as long as they realize that the bad guys are going to be as potent as they are, it's all good.

[Talon]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I would come up with a reasonable metric of combat ability (for a low-magic fantasy game, I use a simple formula involving DEX and CSLs), and make sure the PCs a) don't go above a set limit, and don't circumvent the metric. Set your NPCs at or below the same level and voila, instant balance.

 

A more direct way to do it is to make public a couple sample NPC sheets and say "these guys should put up a fight, but eventually lose, against your character." Fight combats as necessary to test.

[Briguy123]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

The only thing I'd differ with you on is' date=' as HeWhoIsMatt said, the doubling of the cost of STR. If characters are being limited to 15 (unless it is 'their' stat, which is what my group has done in all our games) then str won't be too much of a problem. I doubt many non-warriors will have str higher than 12 or 13.[/quote']

 

In my experience, players tend to buy strength up as high as they feel they can get away with just because of the boost granted to PD, Rec, and Stun. Accordingly, it is not uncommon that the average wizard, who spent most of his young life with his nose in a book of arcane lore, can bench press a horse. I have nothing against the warrior-mage archetype who is gifted both physically and mentally, but I think strength in the range of 13-15 is adequate for such a character.

 

Fighters are even more susceptible to stat inflation. Many fighters dont rely on intelligence or ego thus they tend to leave these stats at base levels. as a result, 90% of fighters I've seen played in the past have an 18 or higher strength because strength was cheap and they could afford to throw a few spare points into it. I'm hoping that doubling the cost of strength will limit the number of PC's built like Schwarzenegger, especially those who have no logical reason for being so strong.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I see where you are going with this. At one point I implemented a rule of 30 for Str and Dex. Once you crossed over 30, when you added the two stats together, the cost for each doubled. It was my way of handling the two most abused characteristics in FH.

 

Now I tend to incorporate campaign penalties, and realistic purchasing of characteristics. You cannot purchase a 20 Str in my campaign without first increasing BODY and CON. The increase in STR must be reflected in any combination of BODY and/or CON. This reflects the size of your character and/or how physically fit that character is.

 

The campaign penalties I incorporate include everything from increase costs in clothing and armor. Increased costs in lodgings, as that character needs a bigger bed. Increased costs in food, the bigger you are, the more you need to eat. I also believe that characters should not be given breaks for not having the appropriate skills. The only way to prevent "Combat" scaling is to enforce the need for non-combat skills. You do that, and the combat scaling will drop back to normal levels.

[Ner0Sputnik]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

In my experience, players tend to buy strength up as high as they feel they can get away with just because of the boost granted to PD, Rec, and Stun. Accordingly, it is not uncommon that the average wizard, who spent most of his young life with his nose in a book of arcane lore, can bench press a horse. I have nothing against the warrior-mage archetype who is gifted both physically and mentally, but I think strength in the range of 13-15 is adequate for such a character.

 

Fighters are even more susceptible to stat inflation. Many fighters dont rely on intelligence or ego thus they tend to leave these stats at base levels. as a result, 90% of fighters I've seen played in the past have an 18 or higher strength because strength was cheap and they could afford to throw a few spare points into it. I'm hoping that doubling the cost of strength will limit the number of PC's built like Schwarzenegger, especially those who have no logical reason for being so strong.

 

Why not just have a sit down with each of your players. Look over their character sheets see if any red flags come up. (This is what I do.)

 

"OK, what's your character concept again?

"I was born a poor elven child in the forests of Flegmnor where I learned how to ride and rope. At the age of 13 I ran away from home and became part of a mercenary party that blah blah blah..."

"Ok, so why does this require you to have a 30 strength, elf-boy?"

"Well, I, uhhh..."

"Wouldn't you say your character is more ranger-like?"

"Well, yeah, but he's a fighter."

"Granted, so buy up his skills. I wouldn't think he should have more than a 15 strength. Just make him hit more often."

 

Lots of times instead of saying "no" if you help your PCs redirect their points in ways that better fill out their character concepts, they'll like it even more.

 

EDIT: If this doesn't work, there are times when you do just have to say, "No. That's throwing your character out of balance."

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Why not just have a sit down with each of your players. Look over their character sheets see if any red flags come up. (This is what I do.)

 

"OK, what's your character concept again?

"I was born a poor elven child in the forests of Flegmnor where I learned how to ride and rope. At the age of 13 I ran away from home and became part of a mercenary party that blah blah blah..."

"Ok, so why does this require you to have a 30 strength, elf-boy?"

"Well, I, uhhh..."

"Wouldn't you say your character is more ranger-like?"

"Well, yeah, but he's a fighter."

"Granted, so buy up his skills. I wouldn't think he should have more than a 15 strength. Just make him hit more often."

 

Lots of times instead of saying "no" if you help your PCs redirect their points in ways that better fill out their character concepts, they'll like it even more.

 

EDIT: If this doesn't work, there are times when you do just have to say, "No. That's throwing your character out of balance."

 

Warning: This kind of restriction can easily backfire.

 

I mean, what happens when someone goes "fine! I'm playing a half-giant!" and can actually justify a stupidly high STR score?

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I don't know. The warrior I made for our FH game only had a 15 str till I went crazy and made it a 16. I suppose it depends on your players. As far as the game goes, the effect of a 20str as opposed to a 15 is so small I really don't see the big deal. It is the perks, talents, and skills where heros turn in to gods. Two of our guys got ahold of the evade ability and thats just silly. I guess it comes down to finding a spot everyone can live with. GMs want players they don't have to throw elder gods at, and players like to be badasses. If your players are okay with the rules then thats all that matters.

[Briguy123]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I don't know. The warrior I made for our FH game only had a 15 str till I went crazy and made it a 16. I suppose it depends on your players. As far as the game goes' date=' the effect of a 20str as opposed to a 15 is so small I really don't see the big deal. It is the perks, talents, and skills where heros turn in to gods. Two of our guys got ahold of the evade ability and thats just silly. I guess it comes down to finding a spot everyone can live with. GMs want players they don't have to throw elder gods at, and players like to be badasses. If your players are okay with the rules then thats all that matters.[/quote']

 

Several people in the group I play with buy every combat related stat up as high as possible on general principle, no matter what the character concept is. That's fine in a high powered campaign, but my concept for this campaign is that the PC's are not a group of ubermench weilding items of great power and performing acts of world shattering consequence. I want the group to be composed of slightly above average individuals who have to rely on wit and skill in a world that is not always kind.

 

I think the evade talent is grossly overpowered for a Heroic level game. Certain concepts don't translate well from D&D to Fantasy Hero.

[Cmonkey]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Several people in the group I play with buy every combat related stat up as high as possible on general principle' date=' no matter what the character concept is.[/quote']

I find that sort of behavior stems from some past GM (usually) that felt the need to pit himself against the players. It often is little more than a reflex for most players. They learned that if their character can't stand toe to toe with a giant, that character will quickly die, and that's no fun at all for a player.

 

What you need to do then is gain the group's trust. You need to make them realize that you don't want their characters to die anymore than they do. After all you can't very well tell a story if all the characters are dead, can you? It took me a long time to get my players to trust me enough, as the GM, to not actively try to kill their characters. That fear that the GM was out to get them was so ingrained that everyone always played a character with no past ties (family or friends) and the highest combat levels possible, even while genuinely trying to create a realistic character concept. I had to sit them down and make them realize that Johnny Boy the farmer isn't very likely to have a master level skill in swordfighting, in fact he's more likely to have no skill in it at all. I also had to show them that 99.9% of people should have at least 1 family member or friend.

 

Anyhow, it's been years now that I've been with this same group, and most players feel very free to experiment. I've had characters with no combat ability what-so-ever, and these characters were just as likely to survive as any other. I even once had a player refuse to use half of the points given to him because it didn't fit his character concept. That sort of stuff right there makes GMing worth all the work to me.

 

...that all assumes that you aren't out to kill your players, of course.

[Ner0Sputnik]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Warning: This kind of restriction can easily backfire.

 

I mean, what happens when someone goes "fine! I'm playing a half-giant!" and can actually justify a stupidly high STR score?

 

I had this happen to me. My response? "Sure. But your speed can't go over 2 and your dex is going to suffer horribly!" (I think we settled on 11 with the understanding that he could raise it in time to 13.)

 

It's all about balance, if you have someone who does a lot of damage, they act slower. If they do little damage, they can be much faster and have a higher speed.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I had this happen to me. My response? "Sure. But your speed can't go over 2 and your dex is going to suffer horribly!" (I think we settled on 11 with the understanding that he could raise it in time to 13.)

 

It's all about balance, if you have someone who does a lot of damage, they act slower. If they do little damage, they can be much faster and have a higher speed.

 

So how do you deal with real life examples that totally defy your house rules? One of the folk I taught swordfighting to (european 2 handed sword mainly) was an ex-football player who was in the police academy. He was 6' 5", 245 lbs of muscle, could lift me by the neck with one hand darth vader style (we used it in a choreographed fight one time) and was and still is one of the fastest and most agile men I've ever known. And he learned quick. I could usually take him with a trick, based on my greater experience. If I tried the same trick a second time tho, I usually would up nursing a painful injury. Even using blunted blades, getting hit with a 6 foot claymore HURTS. When I met him, you might say it was obvious how many points I had put into knowlege skills Although, within a year, he had become scholar enough so that I finally had someone I could discuss celtic history and legend with, as well as military tactics and period culture. When I stopped doing Ren Fiares, I left him in charge as my obvious sucessor. Unfortunately, he still needs to work on his more peaceful PRE based skills.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I find that sort of behavior stems from some past GM (usually) that felt the need to pit himself against the players. It often is little more than a reflex for most players. They learned that if their character can't stand toe to toe with a giant, that character will quickly die, and that's no fun at all for a player.

 

What you need to do then is gain the group's trust. You need to make them realize that you don't want their characters to die anymore than they do. After all you can't very well tell a story if all the characters are dead, can you? It took me a long time to get my players to trust me enough, as the GM, to not actively try to kill their characters. That fear that the GM was out to get them was so ingrained that everyone always played a character with no past ties (family or friends) and the highest combat levels possible, even while genuinely trying to create a realistic character concept. I had to sit them down and make them realize that Johnny Boy the farmer isn't very likely to have a master level skill in swordfighting, in fact he's more likely to have no skill in it at all. I also had to show them that 99.9% of people should have at least 1 family member or friend.

 

Anyhow, it's been years now that I've been with this same group, and most players feel very free to experiment. I've had characters with no combat ability what-so-ever, and these characters were just as likely to survive as any other. I even once had a player refuse to use half of the points given to him because it didn't fit his character concept. That sort of stuff right there makes GMing worth all the work to me.

 

...that all assumes that you aren't out to kill your players, of course.

 

These are some very good points.

 

To expand upon them, the players are going to buy what you enforce. If you enforce more non-combat skills over combat skills, that is what you will see increased. Work with them during creation, and state that if they dont have the appropriate skill or KS, that you are going to make the assumption that their character did not pay attention to learn or know it. Otherwise, their character would of purchased the appropriate skill. Reward characters that do have family ties. What works real well, especially if you use the "resource points" from DC, is to give them family contact points or perks. Now having a family is something desirable again.

 

If they chose to create a 'master swordsman' during character creation, let them. Then make sure that they go through some combats that do not challenge them. Let that master swordsman rule in combat, almost to the point that he gets bored.

 

I sort of use the rule, that if a character is not challenged in combat they cannot increase their CSLs. What can a person learn, if they man-handled their opponents? They are obviously going to just do the same things time and again till it does not work. So why let them increase their CSLs?

[Cmonkey]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Lezentauw's points about making sure their XP goes to skills they actually are improving is a good one, and I'd like to second it.

 

I cannot stress enough, however, that it is much better to have trust and cooperation between Players and GM than any sort of limitations on what the players can and cannot do. It's a heck of a lot less stressful for the GM and much more fun for the players. And isn't that what gaming is about, having fun? I never cap skills or stats or anything like that. I dislike it as a player and I dislike it as a GM. Heck, I don't even cap starting point levels anymore because I trust my players to make a character that will have room to improve, otherwise, what's the point of playing the character? If you're omnipotent and can destroy everything put in your path, bypass every trap and puzzle, where's the challenge? Isn't the challenge why people play? We've sat down and discussed these sorts of issues at length and came to a mutual agreement. I suggest you try and do the same.

 

So now, basically my players and I have the understanding that they will make characters that are realistic (not combat hounds), with much room for improvement (since we all like long campaigns, not short), and I will do my best to not kill their characters at every turn, even giving them better than average odds of surviving most of the time (since losing a character is often not fun), and provide them with the best campaigns/stories I can. All I have to do at the start of a campaign, regarding character creation, is tell them to make ________ characters (where the blank is filled by a genre). I don't have to be there or anything. I still do double check their math, but that's more me being anal than having anything to worry about.

[Ner0Sputnik]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

So how do you deal with real life examples that totally defy your house rules? One of the folk I taught swordfighting to (european 2 handed sword mainly) was an ex-football player who was in the police academy. He was 6' 5"' date=' 245 lbs of muscle, could lift me by the neck with one hand darth vader style (we used it in a choreographed fight one time) and was and still is one of the fastest and most agile men I've ever known. And he learned quick. I could usually take him with a trick, based on my greater experience. If I tried the same trick a second time tho, I usually would up nursing a painful injury. Even using blunted blades, getting hit with a 6 foot claymore HURTS. When I met him, you might say it was obvious how many points I had put into knowlege skills Although, within a year, he had become scholar enough so that I finally had someone I could discuss celtic history and legend with, as well as military tactics and period culture. When I stopped doing Ren Fiares, I left him in charge as my obvious sucessor. Unfortunately, he still needs to work on his more peaceful PRE based skills.[/quote']

 

It depends on the case, really. If I was starting a campaign with a bunch of characters and someone had a great concept based, for instance, on your friend, I would let them know that yes, it's a great concept, but if I let that character have all those skills, strength, speed and dex, it wouldn't be fair to the other players. He would be totally spotlighted in every situation. BUT that since I liked the idea of this character, we should strive to get somewhere close and then you can build him up to that.

 

I'd try and find the core of the character, what really made him who he was. hell, maybe give him a cramming skill that he could use with combat. If he trained for a few days with a weapon or skill he could use it. But if he didn't use it for a week or so he'd have to practice again to get his skill up. (And he'd need training from an instructor in both cases.)

 

Now, if I was running a guy solo and he wanted that character, I'd let him buff him up. That way I could throw him in the middle of a bunch of orcs and let him chop his way out.

 

Generally, I don't like to tell players, "No, you can't do that." I will instead try and find a good medium. I respect my players and their character concepts and they respect me as a GM and my need for balance. With most of my gaming group I never have to worry any more. If people go over by a couple of points I really don't care. They're solid in their concepts and as long as I like the character and it doesn't put the group off balance, it's all good!

[Guest Keneton]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I would recommend using limits that worked well with Hero Designer so that your player, and you teh GM have the full advantage of the software. I do think 60 is a little low, but to eachhis own. Good luck with your game.

[Curufea]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

Real life isn't balanced.

 

You aren't running a game of real life.

[The Hyborian]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I have decided to run a low powered campaign in a setting of my own design. Characters will have 50 base points + 50 points from disadvantages. I intend for the PC's to have better than normal stats, but don't want them to be that much better than compotent NPC's built on 50-75 points (i.e. Town gaurdsmen, Local priests, or goblin warriors). Where I want the PC's to shine is the range of skills, talents and perks they have compared to the Average NPC.

 

I have come up with several house rules to alleviate the problem of stat inflation, and I'd like your feedback on my ideas.

 

1. Strength costs 2 points instead of 1.

 

2. Players can spend no more 60 points on statistics.

 

3. NCM limits for base stats are set at 15 instead of 20.

 

My hope is that each player will chose one or two base stats that are "signature abilities" for his or her character that will be bought higher than fifteen while other stats are kept in the 10 to 15 range.

Sounds reasonable to me, just keep in mind that characters are not going to be that impressive at the start of the game. Hero System combat can turn deadly when folks start throwing around killing attacks. A couple of bad dice rolls and you have a player character with a disabling head wound. This is ok if you want combat to be scary, dangerouns, and always serious, but with only100 point characters its fairly easy for someone to end up with an arrow through the eye on the first outing, especially on characters who are not oriented toward physical combat. 75 point goblins will be a significant threat. Thats great if thats what you want, but realize what you are getting into.

 

Also, how common is healing magic? This lethality is greatly offset if there will be a character or two with meaningful healing magic available. If not, you might have a character death or two before they work up a bit in experience.

 

BTW, hi everybody.

This is my first post. Im a newcomer to these boards and a longtime gamer.

[Guest Keneton]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

|Welcome aboard. Cool name. I'm a big fan of Conan. Just read Beyond the Black River last week.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Need feedback on house rules for my new campaign

 

I mean' date=' what happens when someone goes "fine! I'm playing a half-giant!" and can actually justify a stupidly high STR score?[/quote']That would be an indication to me that this player is currently more focussed on the "Game" aspect of "Role-Playing Game" than he is on the "Role-Playing" aspect. It sounds like he wants to play a particular ability set rather than a particular character concept.

 

So that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. By switching to a half-giant, he's now matched up a character concept to the ability set he wants to play. That will work out much better.

 

(Note: I'm not bagging on this, or saying there's anything wrong with wanting to play an ability set instead of a character concept. Although I usually build my player characters around the character concept, I freely admit that there have been times when I've built a character around an ability set instead. And I've often built bad guys around ability sets.)