Is Punisher the problem?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Seriously though... I'm accepting the Axiom of "Points spent is in direct correlation to Player Control" or some such for all my games' date=' now. It is almost a perfect litmus tests for player compatibility, in a way. If players "get it" and understand that their influence on the game is focused through how they spend their points, it goes a long way toward laying the groundwork for a compatible play style. "It's on my sheet with points spent and no limitations" has a lot more weight than "I always carry a back-up pistol, 'cause you said we could for free!" [/quote']

 

So my pistol purchased OAF (-1), No Conscious COntrol (GM decides whether I have it; -2); Independent (-2), will be less limited than the free one that my teammate packs, right?

 

The better answer, of course, would simply be to hand the construct back and say "that's more limited than what I'd give you for free, so you don't need to spend points on it.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

So my pistol purchased OAF (-1), No Conscious COntrol (GM decides whether I have it; -2); Independent (-2), will be less limited than the free one that my teammate packs, right?

 

The better answer, of course, would simply be to hand the construct back and say "that's more limited than what I'd give you for free, so you don't need to spend points on it.

That's an interesting point of discussion, as inane as the example is, practically speaking.

 

Let's say it's a 30 Base/Active (in this case), 6d6 EB. The cost in real points is 5 points. The limitation value is 25 of the 30 points, which means the GM "owns" 25 of those 30 points whereas the player owns 5.

 

Whereas the teammate's free one is 0 owned by player, 0 owned by GM.

 

So in a sense the guy who tried to get off for free ran afoul of the points assignment principle, ending up empowering the GM more than as if he'd followed the most fundamental axiom of all, taught to me by lemming..."don't annoy the GM."

 

Obviously, my interpretation is in some ways as inane as the example, but as a form of analysis there's something to be said for it. And it speaks to a corollary; an item composed of greater limitation cost than real cost has crossed a line in some way from a PC-controlled to a GM-controled item. Of course there's a net value that still breaks in the player's favor, but the point is that the Limitations are landing in the GM "column". LIke with anything regarding points it becomes difficult to say where the magic line of balance and efficiency and all that is, but what I think we can say is that by being explicit in this regard about what points "really" mean, we can learn why it is that constructs such as what you've quoted, Hugh, are so inane - they aren't simply munchkiney, they actually become more obviously problematic in where they are abdicating player authority. In other words, we can now also analyze the Advantaged/Active Points as in the "player column" and the Limited Points as in the "GM column" (which doesn't mean this is adversarial, btw). And my point here really is that while the fundamentals here aren't really new (I entirely admit this is the same way as saying what others have said when they point out "if a player takes these lims, then I'll make sure they come to play" with an ), we are developing a vocabulary and method of analysis which is more clear, more specific, and I feel more meaningful.

 

This gets trickier, though, with frameworks, but in that trickiness is an illustration of a principle regarding frameworks, that they are in some ways "gimmes" as their value is never (in my mind) wholly balanced against their efficiency. But I think that's okay, but that's also another discussion.

[Dragonblade]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I didn't read through the whole thread, but I recently started a superhero campaign where any mundane equipment does not cost CPs.

 

I have noticed a few things:

 

1) When mundane equipment costs CPs, comic book genre conventions are better enforced (i.e. costumed supers don't carry guns). Free equipment gives a grittier feel to the game.

 

2) Most offensive powers that can be built in a 350 point game are better than just carrying a gun so only one of my players actually has gun.

 

3) I have not noticed any balance issues despite the fact that the gun-toting character is essentially getting an RKA for free. None of the other players seem to notice or mind at all.

 

The bottom line is that making guns (or mundane equipment) free basically lends my game somewhat of a gritty Iron Age feel. Although not as much as I initally expected.

[David Blue]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

This is sounding like Amber to me.

 

Are there any Amber players here, and if so, how would you compare this equipment system with Amber equipment - which you can get free, build with Conjuration, or buy with permanent character points?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

This is sounding like Amber to me.

 

Are there any Amber players here, and if so, how would you compare this equipment system with Amber equipment - which you can get free, build with Conjuration, or buy with permanent character points?

David, you just beat me to it!

 

I'm much more of an Amber GM than a player -- heck, I don't get to play that often, regardless of the system -- but it's very similar to what I tell my Amber players about point-paid items:

 

"No, you don't have to pay for the whole thing. If you don't pay the whole cost, though, that means that someone, somewhere out there owns part of it as well. Maybe they'll come looking for you to get it back. Maybe they'll use it to keep track of your movements or to spy on you, or maybe something even more sinister. Are you sure you want this, even though you can't pay the full cost yourself?"

 

If the answer is "Yes", then I get to be creative in deciding who or what also has links to the item, and what they might want to do with/about those links.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

That's an interesting point of discussion, as inane as the example is, practically speaking.

 

Let's say it's a 30 Base/Active (in this case), 6d6 EB. The cost in real points is 5 points. The limitation value is 25 of the 30 points, which means the GM "owns" 25 of those 30 points whereas the player owns 5.

 

Whereas the teammate's free one is 0 owned by player, 0 owned by GM.

 

I'm guessing 30 owned by the GM, but I'm with you so far. Consider the additional limitations you require to get that 30 AP down to 1 RP, which is still more than "free" and imagine THAT construct!.

 

So in a sense the guy who tried to get off for free ran afoul of the points assignment principle' date=' ending up empowering the GM more than as if he'd followed the most fundamental axiom of all, taught to me by lemming..."don't annoy the GM."[/quote']

 

Best example: powerful character with no control over his abilities. Comic book examples: Longshot, Scarlet Witch, Talisman (Justice Machine). They don't know what their powers will manifest, so the GM has to do all the work. Classic "character that can be made, but should not", because it puts all the work on the GM (now he's annoyed) and removes most/all control from the player (who either gets annoyed or bored). Enough digression.

 

Obviously' date=' my interpretation is in some ways as inane as the example, but as a form of analysis there's something to be said for it.[/quote']

 

Agreed. To phrase it simpler, a prime axiom of any piints based system is (or should be) "the less you pay, the less useful it will be". Once you get down to paying zero points, it should be less useful than +2 COM, but better than a disadvantage. Given the ultility of +2 COM, perhaps that means a zero point power should be urtterly useless to just marginally disadvantageous.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Agreed. To phrase it simpler, a prime axiom of any piints based system is (or should be) "the less you pay, the less useful it will be". Once you get down to paying zero points, it should be less useful than +2 COM, but better than a disadvantage. Given the ultility of +2 COM, perhaps that means a zero point power should be urtterly useless to just marginally disadvantageous.

 

I disagree... the difference between "useless" and "out of player control" is a big thing.

 

If we are looking at this from a power effectiveness/wargaming aspect... then "useless" is very important, because the game revolves around "X action = Y effect vs. Z characteristic" A zero in the equation makes it all "zero."

 

From a role playing POV, though... "player control" is key. Here it is about a non equation concept of "how much influence does the player have in shaping the shared imaginary space?" Points are a statistical reflection of this core RPG abstraction.

 

In many ways, this is the classic Gamist vs. Narrative dichotomy. Both are mechanics driven... but the mechanics interpretation is vastly different. What I'm seeing here is that Hero is fascinating in that the same Mechanics can be interpreted in both ways. It goes back to the Axiom level for divergence.

 

If your Axiom is "The less points spent, the more useless/less effective the ability" you get a very different game from "The less points spent, the less player control can be weilded with that ability."

 

The problem is, because the Mechanics level supports both interpretations equally... and the differences that come out in Play Experience are subtle... players and GMs alike will be doing off the cuff interpretations/decisions that switch from the Gamist Axiom to the Nar Axiom... sending sutly confusing messages.

 

This is inevitable, and just a part of all RPG experiences, but I feel is an important insight.

 

Example: A Energy Blast with an OAF focus. A purely gamist interpretation would be "Half the points means half the time it is useless" and you'd keep records that would make sure the 50/50 split of effectiveness was maintained. "You got two shots off... now I'm taking it away for two rounds to even things out." I really doubt that is how most people interpret this, but I have seen plenty on these boards where people edge toward this.

 

Same example, with a Nar interpretation. The PC has half as much "player control" over the effect of the power on the story/world. In such a situation, the player might use their blast all the way through the enemy stronghold... winning his way to the control room... and as he bursts through the door to confront Evil Helmut... automated defenses blast the focus and break it. Suddenly, in the big dramatic confrontation, he doesn't have his normal attack, and the drama is controlled by the GM who has put the player in a situation where he has to use fisticuffs or out-think the villain, whatever. The drama/story control was not as much in the hands of the player because of the limitation on the power.

 

I know my preferences clearly fall much more toward the second camp.

 

(Standard disclaimer: No one is strictly Nar or Gamist or Sim. We just tend to prefer one or the other play style over time, but we engage in all styles during every Play Experience.)

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Won't take much time and won't be "playing" with you guys today as duty does call and I really did spend too much time on this yesterday, but briefly would note/agree that I think there are two separate variables related to points as suggested by the couple of messages above. One variable is control and the other is utility. They both have a similar relationship - more points for the player is more control and more utility. But there's subtle distinctions in scale and meaning between these, and I will just say that there does need to be some fleshing out of this and it's well worthy of exploration.

[Constantine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I disagree... the difference between "useless" and "out of player control" is a big thing.

 

If we are looking at this from a power effectiveness/wargaming aspect... then "useless" is very important, because the game revolves around "X action = Y effect vs. Z characteristic" A zero in the equation makes it all "zero."

 

From a role playing POV, though... "player control" is key. Here it is about a non equation concept of "how much influence does the player have in shaping the shared imaginary space?" Points are a statistical reflection of this core RPG abstraction.

 

In many ways, this is the classic Gamist vs. Narrative dichotomy. Both are mechanics driven... but the mechanics interpretation is vastly different. What I'm seeing here is that Hero is fascinating in that the same Mechanics can be interpreted in both ways. It goes back to the Axiom level for divergence.

 

If your Axiom is "The less points spent, the more useless/less effective the ability" you get a very different game from "The less points spent, the less player control can be weilded with that ability."

 

The problem is, because the Mechanics level supports both interpretations equally... and the differences that come out in Play Experience are subtle... players and GMs alike will be doing off the cuff interpretations/decisions that switch from the Gamist Axiom to the Nar Axiom... sending sutly confusing messages.

 

This is inevitable, and just a part of all RPG experiences, but I feel is an important insight.

 

Example: A Energy Blast with an OAF focus. A purely gamist interpretation would be "Half the points means half the time it is useless" and you'd keep records that would make sure the 50/50 split of effectiveness was maintained. "You got two shots off... now I'm taking it away for two rounds to even things out." I really doubt that is how most people interpret this, but I have seen plenty on these boards where people edge toward this.

 

Same example, with a Nar interpretation. The PC has half as much "player control" over the effect of the power on the story/world. In such a situation, the player might use their blast all the way through the enemy stronghold... winning his way to the control room... and as he bursts through the door to confront Evil Helmut... automated defenses blast the focus and break it. Suddenly, in the big dramatic confrontation, he doesn't have his normal attack, and the drama is controlled by the GM who has put the player in a situation where he has to use fisticuffs or out-think the villain, whatever. The drama/story control was not as much in the hands of the player because of the limitation on the power.

 

I know my preferences clearly fall much more toward the second camp.

 

(Standard disclaimer: No one is strictly Nar or Gamist or Sim. We just tend to prefer one or the other play style over time, but we engage in all styles during every Play Experience.)

 

This is a great thought. I just want to point out that it doesn't have to be either/or. A GM could use both interpretations. The general "effect" of a power/item can be measured in active points, while the "control" can be measured by comparing the active points to the real points of a power/item. If you pay no points for something, you have no control over how useful it is.

 

As for the person who wants to build a gun NCC (only when my GM wants me to have it), sure go ahead. But don't expect the gun to work whenever you want it to, NCC means just that, its a gun without a trigger. It will fire whenever the GM, or "someone" wants it to. Or maybe it has a trigger, and the "person" makes a decision each and everytime you fire it, meaning that sometimes, when you really want it, its may not work for you. Let the buyer beware.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

This is a great thought. I just want to point out that it doesn't have to be either/or. A GM could use both interpretations. The general "effect" of a power/item can be measured in active points, while the "control" can be measured by comparing the active points to the real points of a power/item. If you pay no points for something, you have no control over how useful it is.

 

As for the person who wants to build a gun NCC (only when my GM wants me to have it), sure go ahead. But don't expect the gun to work whenever you want it to, NCC means just that, its a gun without a trigger. It will fire whenever the GM, or "someone" wants it to. Or maybe it has a trigger, and the "person" makes a decision each and everytime you fire it, meaning that sometimes, when you really want it, its may not work for you. Let the buyer beware.

 

Totally agree... both interpretations will and do come into the Play Experience in every game. Sometimes, though, the GM might find an interpretation a bit in conflict. Do I go with the story driven rationale... or do I stick to the numbers on this one. These are the telling situations. Over time, one choice or the other will be the "preferred" choice... and over time that indicates a play style preference. (On a deeper level, the actual outcome in the game might look the same to a casual observer because it is the intent/desire behind the choice that indicates preferences more than the actual described outcome... but that is getting way too deep into GNS... and I'm sure someone will come along and tell me that I've got my interpretation of GNS theory it all wrong anyway. )

 

It is in the conflicted decision areas where we see our play style preferences form... where we can begin to consciously edge the game to a more consistent experience, if we are truly aware of the cause of the conflict and the reason for our decision.

 

Hero can support both interpretations... but sometimes they will come into conflict. The classic "I just rolled a 3 to hit the Hero from behind with a big attack with lots of sixes. Do I stick to my "points means useful" interpretation, stick with the rolls that will likely kill the PC when I don't really want that to happen... or do I fudge it a bit... lower the damage enough so that he's out of it and hurt, but not dead, because that fits the game better?" conundrum is part and parcel of this dichotomy.

[Constantine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Totally agree... both interpretations will and do come into the Play Experience in every game. Sometimes, though, the GM might find an interpretation a bit in conflict. Do I go with the story driven rationale... or do I stick to the numbers on this one. These are the telling situations. Over time, one choice or the other will be the "preferred" choice... and over time that indicates a play style preference. (On a deeper level, the actual outcome in the game might look the same to a casual observer because it is the intent/desire behind the choice that indicates preferences more than the actual described outcome... but that is getting way too deep into GNS... and I'm sure someone will come along and tell me that I've got my interpretation of GNS theory it all wrong anyway. )

 

It is in the conflicted decision areas where we see our play style preferences form... where we can begin to consciously edge the game to a more consistent experience, if we are truly aware of the cause of the conflict and the reason for our decision.

 

Hero can support both interpretations... but sometimes they will come into conflict. The classic "I just rolled a 3 to hit the Hero from behind with a big attack with lots of sixes. Do I stick to my "points means useful" interpretation, stick with the rolls that will likely kill the PC when I don't really want that to happen... or do I fudge it a bit... lower the damage enough so that he's out of it and hurt, but not dead, because that fits the game better?" conundrum is part and parcel of this dichotomy.

 

Yes, these are the decisions that I don't envy GM's for. But I think a great many of these decisions can more easily made if we include the "fun factor" into our calculations. Is it gonna be cool is the hero gets wasted from behind cause you rolled a lucky hit? Not hardly. Nobody is happy with this outcome. Not you as the GM, not the player(s), no one. So we set the dice aside, and go for the more "fun" outcome. Sometimes a PC's death makes a good story. So, if the dice roll that way, well, let the dice fall where they may. Sometimes more than one persons fun has to be considered. But fun is the bottom line. Gaming is supposed to be fun, so make sure its fun, no matter what rules you follow...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Yes' date=' these are the decisions that I don't envy GM's for. But I think a great many of these decisions can more easily made if we include the "fun factor" into our calculations. Is it gonna be cool is the hero gets wasted from behind cause you rolled a lucky hit? Not hardly. Nobody is happy with this outcome. Not you as the GM, not the player(s), no one. So we set the dice aside, and go for the more "fun" outcome. Sometimes a PC's death makes a good story. So, if the dice roll that way, well, let the dice fall where they may. Sometimes more than one persons fun has to be considered. But fun is the bottom line. Gaming is supposed to be fun, so make sure its fun, no matter what rules you follow...[/quote']

 

I would just caution that "fun" is a very nebulous terms, and can be just as problematic. I honestly do NOT game "for fun." I role play in order to create worlds and tell good stories and produce a unique, intense experience. There is great satisfaction when this works... and certain parts of it are fun... but a lot of it is hard work and discipline.

 

I don't want to get pedantic on this. I know what you mean and I agree... I just like to be more precise in the language... speak to what I'm truly trying to accomplish overall, and compare my decisions to this vision... was my GM decision in alignment with the vision, or did I set myself back from accomplishing my goal?

 

I know I'm probably the minority on this... and I don't expect anyone else to "do it my way" or anything like that. Just that I'd be careful to understand that not everyone approaches our shared pasttime the same way.

 

Preferences again...

[Fox1]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Is it gonna be cool is the hero gets wasted from behind cause you rolled a lucky hit? Not hardly. Nobody is happy with this outcome. Not you as the GM' date=' not the player(s), no one. [/quote']

 

Actually I am.

 

And so is the genre.

 

And so are my players.

 

I wouldn't make blanket assumptions like that.

 

But the point is a good one. Groups will make rulings based on what is fun for them. Being gamers they may will whine about it if the rules don't match however.

[Constantine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Actually I am.

 

And so is the genre.

 

And so are my players.

 

I wouldn't make blanket assumptions like that.

 

But the point is a good one. Groups will make rulings based on what is fun for them. Being gamers they may will whine about it if the rules don't match however.

 

Well, that depends on what genre we are talking. In most comics, death is very/very rare, and rarely lasting... But point taken, sorry if I made an assumption about you. And yes, being gamers, no matter which way you decide, they are likely to whine a little. I'm the worst whiner, though I tend to hide my whining in anger...

[Katherine]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I would just caution that "fun" is a very nebulous terms, and can be just as problematic. I honestly do NOT game "for fun." I role play in order to create worlds and tell good stories and produce a unique, intense experience. There is great satisfaction when this works... and certain parts of it are fun... but a lot of it is hard work and discipline.

 

I don't want to get pedantic on this. I know what you mean and I agree... I just like to be more precise in the language... speak to what I'm truly trying to accomplish overall, and compare my decisions to this vision... was my GM decision in alignment with the vision, or did I set myself back from accomplishing my goal?

 

I know I'm probably the minority on this... and I don't expect anyone else to "do it my way" or anything like that. Just that I'd be careful to understand that not everyone approaches our shared pasttime the same way.

 

Preferences again...

 

I just wanted to give RDU Neil props for stating his viewpoint was just a preference and even that he feels he's likely in the minority. That's pretty mature and classy, particularly in an online debate.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I just wanted to give RDU Neil props for stating his viewpoint was just a preference and even that he feels he's likely in the minority. That's pretty mature and classy' date=' particularly in an online debate.[/quote']

 

Uhm... thanks. Unfortunately, this highlights that a lot of my other posts probabaly don't merit the descriptors of "classy" or "mature."

 

Seriously... thanks for the comment.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I do consider "fun" to be the bottom line "profit" from RPGing for all, but I am using fun in the broadest context and the better word, even though I don't use it often, is fulfillment. For me, it's fun on a few levels, there's social enjoyment, the feeling of a "job well done" (as GM, something that engages people and entertains them, as player, something that interests and/or entertains others), fantasy desires (power, adventure, escapism) fulfillment, and, mainly, an interesting story to look back on that is more visceral than passive story-reading because "I was there".

 

I just lump it all into "fun". I recall Killer Shrike commenting that he doesn't like socialization or personal tangents in gaming; I still wouldn't say that he doesn't want to have fun, it's just that the fun for him is somewhere in the specific gaming and not socialization aspects.

 

I will say that not everything about RPGing is fun, that's for sure, at least if GMing. As a GM, there's a lot of work. Sometimes even pressure, when a game is looming and you feel creatively dry or unprepared or such. The major motivation for me to get through that work is the resulting stories, mainly. That's why I started doing pretty thorough note-taking and posting of the sessions, I realized that this was the legacy that was important to me and makes the game part fun. The other motivator is the socialization aspect, at least it's a motivation to keep going at the 11th hour if I'm in a bad mood or can't get it together, since I do really enjoy the company and left to my own devices I too often am nonsocial. Of course that's not an overall motivator to game, one can socialize in many different forms, but it's an immediate motivator to keep going when the deadline looms.

 

Then again, I'm not the kind of person who enjoys "doing", I enjoy conceptualizing and I enjoy results. The in-between just isn't the fun part of almost any endeavor to me, whether my job or personal hobbies. It's just how I am.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Then again, I'm not the kind of person who enjoys "doing", I enjoy conceptualizing and I enjoy results. The in-between just isn't the fun part of almost any endeavor to me, whether my job or personal hobbies. It's just how I am.

 

Dude... we were seperated at birth, I'm thinking.

 

I much rather prefer the idea of the thing... than the thing itself... in most cases.

 

And the bit about legacy... probably why I write up a couple page short after each adventure... have a log of every adventure over the past 18 years, etc. It's the remnant product of my art!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

An aside' date=' Handcuffs are not inappropriate, anyone could buy them. And they are horribly expensive to buy with points. Yet they are reasonable thing to carry for law enforcement super types. I've always hated trying to wrestle Hero mechanics for Handcuffs.[/quote']

7 points is horrible?

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Dude... we were seperated at birth, I'm thinking.

 

I much rather prefer the idea of the thing... than the thing itself... in most cases.

 

And the bit about legacy... probably why I write up a couple page short after each adventure... have a log of every adventure over the past 18 years, etc. It's the remnant product of my art!

Hey, take away those rolling eyes and say "art" with pride!

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

7 points is horrible?

If you don't have them...

 

 

grumble grumble freakin' 30 second rule...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

If you don't have them...

 

 

grumble grumble freakin' 30 second rule...

What? You use every single point possible, Zorn? Man! What a power gamer...although if I were to spend my last point on Mental Defense, I would actually get quite a bit, considering my Ego....

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

This is sounding like Amber to me.

 

Are there any Amber players here, and if so, how would you compare this equipment system with Amber equipment - which you can get free, build with Conjuration, or buy with permanent character points?

 

An interesting point. I love the Amber system (yes, my two favorite rule systems are Hero System with nothing but rules mechanics, and Amber, with hardly any).

 

I'm not entirely sure if there is a comparison. Amber draws the line at what's connected to a character and what isn't. I believe it also states that anything worth having is likely to have strings attached, and paying points for an item means that you hold the strings. Other than that, objects are just objects in Amber, and act that way for just about every main character.

 

I suppose it works kinda maybe a little bit if you look at it the right way somewhat similar in Hero. Paying points gives you all the strings to the item. Paying points with the Independent Limitations severs the strings entirely, but you've got something no one else can get. Picking up a piece of equipment, useful or not, without paying points means you've picked up something with strings attached and the GM gets to decide how to pull them, and how hard. In a game where characters normally pay for equipment, I guess I pull on the string fast, hard and constantly for anyone who thinks there's such a thing as free equipment, and I'm well within my rights to do so. I don't pull as hard, or as often, in a game where no one pays for equipment.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

If you don't have them...

 

 

grumble grumble freakin' 30 second rule...

 

But...those are what Utility Belt Multipowers are for.... I really don't understand why all heroes don't carry them. Cops do (flash light, handcuffs, mace, gun, nightstick).

[Fox1]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

But...those are what Utility Belt Multipowers are for.... I really don't understand why all heroes don't carry them. Cops do (flash light' date=' handcuffs, mace, gun, nightstick).[/quote']

 

Because they are key to the police officer character concept, and not to the concept of most heroes.

 

 

At least I haven't seen anyone attempt to charge players for the construction of their cereal bowl the use for their morning wheaties yet.