Package deal - no deal?

[Sean Waters]

You used to get something for package deals, even if it was only a few points. Now? Nothing.

 

They are a tool for the GM but you get no advantage for taking them, saving that 'it is easier to build your character'. Great.

 

I'm not looking for any big giveaway here, but how about the disadvantages points from package deal do not count towards the category maximum points (i.e 50 points of psych lims would be ON TOP of any psych lims in the package deals). The package disadvantages still count towards the total disadvantage points, just not the points per category. How would that be?

[Rick]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

That sounds like a very feasible option, I like that a lot actually.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I'd be OK with that, but I often allow the "max per category" to be exceeded anyway if appropriate for the character.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

The Global Guardians uses a slightly different version. Packages representing various professions are made, they include skills, Perks, and in some cases powers. The packages also include disadvantages that are common with the package. The cost of the package is the total from skills/perks/talents/powers *minus* the value of the Disadvantages in the package.

 

It does distort the value of some characters since they can be as many as 50 or 60 points higher in total point value, but since the packages are available to any character it evens out in the wash.

 

Species Packages however grant none of these benefits. They are simply used to set a new foundation for that character as a member of that species (Ape, Tautiq, Xorn, Hsax). The disadvantages are simply part of the character and noted (for full value) in the disads section.

 

Hawksmoor

[sbarron]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I'm not looking for any big giveaway here' date=' but how about the disadvantages points from package deal do not count towards the category maximum points (i.e 50 points of psych lims would be ON TOP of any psych lims in the package deals). The package disadvantages still count towards the total disadvantage points, just not the points per category. How would that be?[/quote']Of course, you can do it however you want. The point of a point based system is to balance the PC by providing them the same amount of points, and making them spend those points in a proscribed manner. Things like "deals" reward certain character designs. If that's what you want, great. If it's not, then just be aware of the potential problems.

 

I don't see anything wrong with your method, except possibly that PCs who have hunted in their package deals will load up on hunted, or that have psych disads will be total nut jobs.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

Of course, you can do it however you want. The point of a point based system is to balance the PC by providing them the same amount of points, and making them spend those points in a proscribed manner. Things like "deals" reward certain character designs. If that's what you want, great. If it's not, then just be aware of the potential problems.

 

I don't see anything wrong with your method, except possibly that PCs who have hunted in their package deals will load up on hunted, or that have psych disads will be total nut jobs.

 

My point is though, as things stand, you get no kind of deal at all: they are a campaign tool for the GM masquerading as something useful for the player. Package deals are supposed to have limited points in them in any event, so I wouldn't think that this would be unbalancing or pandering to the munchkins. At present there seems to be very little incentive to buy package deals at all, other than keeping the GM happy: the same effect can be obtained by just requiring certain skills and disads to be bought. Either we make PDs have at least some utility or get rid of 'em. IMO.

[sbarron]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

My point is though' date=' as things stand, you get no kind of deal at all: they are a campaign tool for the GM masquerading as something useful for the player. Package deals are supposed to have limited points in them in any event, so I wouldn't think that this would be unbalancing or pandering to the munchkins. At present there seems to be very little incentive to buy package deals at all, other than keeping the GM happy: the same effect can be obtained by just requiring certain skills and disads to be bought. Either we make PDs have at least some utility or get rid of 'em. IMO. [/quote']Package deals provide the player with information about the skills and abilities that a particular type of character he might want to play has. Cops have a certain package, firemen another, miner dwarves a third. The package shows the player what type of skills the character would have in the GMs game. That is utility for the player. While it's not actually a "deal" in the sense of getting or saving points, it does have value.

 

And since I'm not trying to de-rail your thread, Lemming, I'm bailing out. I like the balance that the new "no deal" package deals provide, because they are perfectly balanced for all characters. If you want to put the "deal" back in, more power to you. I agree it's kind of dumb to call something a "deal" when it's not, but stuff like that happens when you get to the 5th Ed. of a game system. I always hope that 6th Ed. will be perfect...

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I agree. Package Deals are used to establish norms. Without them, you'd have no idea what a baseline is. Some GMs say that the minimum for a character to be a Police Officer is PS: Police Officer and a Perk. Maybe a Watched. Others have groupings of skills and perks that end up costing the character 50 points to be a cop. Package Deals let characters know what they have to buy to belong to a certain demographic. Want to be a cop? Then you have to buy Police Officer Package Deal (and if you don't get certain skills, justify them. Maybe instead of buying a certain skill, you buy a Contact defined as Uncle Police Commisioner). Want to be a Doctor? Buy the Doctor Package.

 

(Also, I think calling them simply Packages would simplify a great many things.)

 

Also, they provide simple templates for GMs, and a common set of expectations for characters. A GM needs some City Guards, he can just take the Heavy Fighter Package and voila, city guard. A character can assume certain things about City Guards and Doctors and Terran Security Specialists, because the Package is the rule. There are exceptions, but the Package is the norm.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

There's no reason not to make the 3rd Ed Package Deal system a house rule for your game. Figure out how many skills in the package are of infrequent use (combat skills are generally considered to be frequent use, things like Gambling or Persuasion not so much). If 1/4 of the package is of infrequent use, give a point of package bonus; 1/2 gives 2 points, and 3/4 gives 3. I would suggest making these points count over and above the disads, or no one will care too much (at least those guys who insist on squeezing out every last point from disads they can get).

[Silbeg]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

In my Champs game, the question came up about why they are spending all those points for bases/vehicles, etc., that are primarily just tools for the GM. So, to answer that, we recreated the package for being a member of the North Force. There are several levels, some of the ideas have been stolen from the UNTIL book.

 

In any case, the points have been severely discounted (usually 5 points, plus some disads that gain the PC no points). In this way, the characters get a little something (including what amounts to some basic training on what it means to be a sanctioned superhero) without breaking the bank.

 

However, package deals (especially in a heroic level game) can go a long way towards building a character. It is the word "deals" thata probably the most of us gripe about... they are in fact just packages!

[MitchellS]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

Ultimately the package deal should have been renamed something like Abilities Package or Character package. The name "deal" seems to be confusing to many people.

[Susano]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

Ultimately the package deal should have been renamed something like Abilities Package or Character package. The name "deal" seems to be confusing to many people.

 

I like "Template" even better.

[yamamura]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I agree with Susano on this one, templates is a nice and simple name for them.

 

G

[shem_whistler]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I agree with Susano on this one, templates is a nice and simple name for them.

 

G

 

Also it is a term that I have seen in some D20 products, namely B5, and this might help breed some cross product 'ability'. I so couldn't finish that sentance right

 

Shem

[Brother Jim]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

if it's not a "deal", it shouldn't be called a "deal". just call it a package, a template or something similar.

 

 

 

 

 

my two crowns

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

if it's not a "deal"' date=' it shouldn't be called a "deal". just call it a package, a template or something similar.[/quote']

 

Well, we have to call it someting, and package deal is more familiar to older Hero gamers. That said, I have no problem with "template" either.

 

[if it can be physical, why is it caled an energy blast?]

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

[if it can be physical' date= why is it caled an energy blast?]

 

E=mc^2, man, E=mc^2

[Brother Jim]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

kinetic energy

 

 

 

 

 

 

'nuff said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fnord !

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

kinetic energy

 

Oh, that exp[lains it..

 

[Why doesn't energy defense defend against kinetic energy?]

[Brother Jim]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

because kinetic energy is physical damage.........nevermind, i dunno....

[Toadmaster]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I don't really have a problem with the name but template is more descriptive. If you want packages to give a few points to encourage players to take them call in a roleplaying bonus and give your players a few xp for taking a package instead of just taking the bits they want.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

Package deals provide the player with information about the skills and abilities that a particular type of character he might want to play has. Cops have a certain package, firemen another, miner dwarves a third. The package shows the player what type of skills the character would have in the GMs game. That is utility for the player. While it's not actually a "deal" in the sense of getting or saving points, it does have value.

 

And since I'm not trying to de-rail your thread, Lemming, I'm bailing out. I like the balance that the new "no deal" package deals provide, because they are perfectly balanced for all characters. If you want to put the "deal" back in, more power to you. I agree it's kind of dumb to call something a "deal" when it's not, but stuff like that happens when you get to the 5th Ed. of a game system. I always hope that 6th Ed. will be perfect...

 

Oh de-rail away. I love train wrecks (so long as no one gets hurt, obviously). Anyway I like to think of these things as everyone's threads no matter who starts them.

 

I suppose that my problem with PDs is that I often don't agree with the contents. I mean, not every elf is going to have above average DEX, although every elf bought up in elvish society will speak elven...unless they are deaf, in which case they may speak some sort of sign, or maybe are just good mimes with expressive faces. Thing is I rarely find a PD I don't want to change for the character I had in mind. They are OK for the generic fireman, cop, soldier, teacher, elf, whatever, but for actual characters I mainly find them a hinderance. If I want players to build specific things into a character then I make them campaign requirements rather than PDs.

 

Different strokes, I suppose...

 

BTW: I'm not sure 6th ed. is scheduled to be perfect but Nth ed. is, so let's keep honing....

[MitchellS]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

Oh de-rail away. I love train wrecks (so long as no one gets hurt, obviously). Anyway I like to think of these things as everyone's threads no matter who starts them.

 

I suppose that my problem with PDs is that I often don't agree with the contents. I mean, not every elf is going to have above average DEX, although every elf bought up in elvish society will speak elven...unless they are deaf, in which case they may speak some sort of sign, or maybe are just good mimes with expressive faces. Thing is I rarely find a PD I don't want to change for the character I had in mind. They are OK for the generic fireman, cop, soldier, teacher, elf, whatever, but for actual characters I mainly find them a hinderance. If I want players to build specific things into a character then I make them campaign requirements rather than PDs.

 

Different strokes, I suppose...

 

BTW: I'm not sure 6th ed. is scheduled to be perfect but Nth ed. is, so let's keep honing....

To be fair though the elf package is designed to represent the typical elf of a certain campaign world. In your dex example they're saying the average elf is slightly more agile than the average human. That doesn't mean you can't play a clumsy elf just by buying down the dex. They're character guidelines not carved in stone demands.

 

I'd also say that while you don't agree with the "official" packages you apparently have packages you'd create and use in your games. You just call them campaign requirements.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

To be fair though the elf package is designed to represent the typical elf of a certain campaign world. In your dex example they're saying the average elf is slightly more agile than the average human. That doesn't mean you can't play a clumsy elf just by buying down the dex. They're character guidelines not carved in stone demands.

 

I'd also say that while you don't agree with the "official" packages you apparently have packages you'd create and use in your games. You just call them campaign requirements.

 

But it does kind of make it pointless, neh? I mean If you add DEX then you can take it away again by buying it down, it is working very differently from a skill in a PD, which you can't 'buy down' in hte same way.

 

As has been identified I think that my problems with PD are:

 

1. They used to be an actual deal - you got something for taking them, even if it was only onoe or two character points, you felt there was some quid pro quo.

 

2. The name. I know this is not something a Hero player should ever admit to, but I don't like the idea of something being called a 'deal' when it clearly is nothing of the sort. 'Campaign requirement' is a lot more honset to my mind.

 

I CAN see the point of having something like PDs to knock up rough and ready NPCs, but really, PDs don't do that: they can't just slot into a normal character template to create, say and elf or a fireman as the points don't balance and the NPC will reqire further work. if you don't care about points balance, just give the NPC what you think it needs: you don't need a PD to do that.

 

Unless they actually change to 'give something back' I just feel that they are an idea that has had its day and should be quietly disposed of. Maybe a small, dignified ceremony, just for close friends. No flowers.

[paigeoliver]

Re: Package deal - no deal?

 

I just want to toss in my support for keeping the name "Package deal" even though it is no longer a deal. Name changes like that just serve to make compatibility problems between various versions of games (in places where there is no rules related reason for there to be a problem).

 

It would be like Wizards of the coast changing "hit points" to "life force". They continue to use hit points because everyone knows what hit points are and they are referenced extensively in past products.

 

I know one name change doesn't seem like a big deal, but stack up senseless name changes over time and it can just add up to confusion. Rename package deal to template, Comliness to attractiveness, energy blast to ranged attack, and so on and it starts making things confusing and incompatible very quickly.

 

My two favorite games are pre-D20 D&D and ALL Hero products. You know why? They are my favorites because the games evolved but never broken the basic compatibility of the game. You can run a 2nd edition Hero module with 5ed revised ("Julie"), and you won't even really have to change anything. The points might not add up to be the same, but you can still use it. Same thing with D&D (until D20 came along), you could take something from 1978 Era Basic D&D and use it with 1995 era AD&D 2nd edition UNMODIFIED.