Is Punisher the problem?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

On the other hand, I think it's important for the GM to keep the power level of "free" equipment fairly low. When a Gun Bunny PC can get a gun with powers as good as his partner's paid for powers, you have a game balance problem.

 

Unless of course you realize Neil and VdM's statement about the screws and real world equipment. Free equipment has strings and conditions, paid for equipment is immune to all that, up to and until the rules for focus destruction and all that. So even if Gunbunny pays points for an identical pistol to the free one that Omega Man is now sporting, Gunbunny can use his "gun" in more places and has less worry than Omega Man.

 

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Yes. In my game, which is theoretically defined as heroic because characters don't pay points for "standard equipment," characters only pay points for equipment that is essentially unique to them: signature items. I got tired of having characters pay for light body armor, a communicator, and a firearm that only got used if guns were in their concept, pay points for stuff the agency they worked for issued them. Most of the characters - despite the cool "rocket pistol" they were issued - only consider it a backup, and the gun-centric characters end up toting more than that to make up for their lack of powers, anyways.

 

I included "equipment access" in their "Operations Officer" Perk. This allows them standard issue gear and any plot advancing equipment I... er, the agency... gives them for story purposes; and access to agency vehicles to get them to the scene of the story as appropriate. This actually gives me a lot of oversight over how much stuff they lug around in most cases while making them happy not to waste points on mandatory buys that aren't specifically in concept. Its not so much a set "equipment" allowance or rolls for access to the big goodies as it is a common sense of what's situation appropriate. But there's a caveat...

 

My game isn't a "superhero" game, its much more an espionage game with powers, but they still don't take more than they need (and they tend to skimp on equipment because, as one player put it, he feels like he might be abusing the concept). I was worried about it at first, but standard goodies from the armory aren't "signature" stuff and the players want their character's to stand out. That isn't to say the stuff doesn't get used, but the combat stuff gets used a lot less than you'd think, and the other stuff makes my life as a gamemaster (for plot purposes) a lot easier.

 

Also (my game doesn't have set character points), I found "gun toting" characters tend to run as many as a hundred points behind the other ones (for instance, Hotshot, our gun-fu queen weighed in at 400 points, while most of the powers or signature skills people (martial artists, etc) averaged 500-550 points. She was well rounded and in concept on less, and the array of guns and grenades she carries lets her hang with "the big boys" without unbalancing the game (yeah, she has some cool guns, but the characters with powers can often do broader things, or, sometimes, more powerful things, than her guns can).

I think (I may be wrong) this is a fairly common approach in heroic games. In my Disavowed game, which is heroic, that's how I do it.

 

PS - this is basically also a powered agents game, though more oriented towards occult and general weird stuff

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I never had a game balance issue with free mundane equipment in a superheroic campaign. To me, game balance is in actual gameplay, not in a number at the bottom of your sheet. Groups with widely differing character point totals work fine, as long as each player feel he's getting a fair share of the limelight.

 

More to the point, I have had game flavor issues with free equipment, but that was because I was trying to run a Silver Age game with a player that didn't really like or even understand the Silver Age feel. Image a Hulk clone, except Bruce Banner is stark raving lunatic and armed to the teeth.

 

Anyway my rule of thumb is, characters only pay for unusual equipment, super-tech or signature items.

Wow, my old friend Scott was playing in your game?

 

He's a good roleplayer, but this sounds like a character of his, and he did tend to be a bit rules-abusive/munchkinesque although we were both a lot younger then, this is almost 20 years ago.

[Vondy]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I think (I may be wrong) this is a fairly common approach in heroic games. In my Disavowed game, which is heroic, that's how I do it.

 

PS - this is basically also a powered agents game, though more oriented towards occult and general weird stuff

 

True. I basically took the heroic method and started using it in my 400-550 point supers game with no ill effects.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

True. I basically took the heroic method and started using it in my 400-550 point supers game with no ill effects.

Just now thinking about, I would think that in any high-powered game such a thing has no substantive impact, anyway. It's actually probably more in the 100-250 or such point range that it starts to matter as affecting balance, as the overlap between real world equipment and player-specific eqwuipment isn't that much of a gulf in that range.

[nexus]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Just now thinking about' date=' I would think that in any high-powered game such a thing has no substantive impact, anyway. It's actually probably more in the 100-250 or such point range that it starts to matter as affecting balance, as the overlap between real world equipment and player-specific eqwuipment isn't that much of a gulf in that range.[/quote']

 

That's a good point, Zornwil. The effective power levels of the supers in question would have an impact. I am charging points for equipment in Street Level Champions game for just that reason. Their powers are minor and don't really outstrip modern weaponry by much. In Seeds of Change, the level is so high that most normal weaponry and armor is essentially useless anyway. The one character that did pay points for her gear has "super equipment" that's effective at that level.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Well, here's how I'd break it...

 

Teleport. (Possibly plus EDM)

 

Oh, my gun broke? Half a second... (bamf) (bamf) Okay, problem solved.

 

Fixed Locations: Last place I teleported from, Base

 

Then stockpile the best gear money can buy. And take levels and ranged martial arts to get their damage up to standards.

 

 

I mean, I've already built a PC with this rough power set, except he paid points for his stuff.

 

 

 

Now, if everyone not only has equal access to the 'free' stuff, but makes equal use, of course there's no problem, it is a now heroic game. But it would be quite easy to exploit.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Well, here's how I'd break it...

 

Teleport. (Possibly plus EDM)

 

Oh, my gun broke? Half a second... (bamf) (bamf) Okay, problem solved.

 

Fixed Locations: Last place I teleported from, Base

 

Then stockpile the best gear money can buy. And take levels and ranged martial arts to get their damage up to standards.

 

 

I mean, I've already built a PC with this rough power set, except he paid points for his stuff.

 

 

 

Now, if everyone not only has equal access to the 'free' stuff, but makes equal use, of course there's no problem, it is a now heroic game. But it would be quite easy to exploit.

 

And simply put... I would never game with you.

 

That is it, in a nutshell. If someone takes a Game Rule and exploits it... that means they just don't get to play. Such a tact is very Gamist... it is the definition of munchkin... it says, "Exploit rules to your advantage to win" and your example is extreme munchkin gamism. Making rules that are non-intuitive like "Must pay points for everything including your underwear" just out of fear of asshat munchkins... well, that is counter productive at best.

 

JUST DON'T PLAY WITH ASSHATS!

 

The fact is... creating a rule to control gamist asshats is like using raw meat to keep a lion from attacking. Gamist munchkins thrive off of rules. They take them as challenges to break and exploit. You just feed them by creating a rule they now get to try and exploit to their advantage.

 

JUST DON'T PLAY WITH ASSHAT MUNCHKINS!

 

Any rule can be exploited... even then, there are a hundred ways for the GM to then exploit the situation you just described above. All that creates is an us vs. them mentality as players start to compete with exploiting loopholes rather than cooperative gaming.

 

 

Asshats. Don't game with 'em.

 

Really... it is that simple.

[nexus]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Actually, Whammewhamme, that could be a pretty cool concept. I character that can teleport to pick up more stuff. There's many ways to stop it. I don't see the problem with it.

 

And Gamist play isn't nessecarily "munchkin" IMOP, its a differnet style. I've unfortunately gamed with munchkins of all stripes. Munchkin is a state of mind.

[nexus]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Another possible Dodge

 

Desolidification, 0 endurance. 10 Strength, affects Real world. Now you can pick and fire your free guns while being Desolid "logically". The GM is always going to have to monitor for things likes this.

[Vondy]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Well, here's how I'd break it...

 

 

But I'd never let you get away with it.

[zornwil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Actually, Whammewhamme, that could be a pretty cool concept. I character that can teleport to pick up more stuff. There's many ways to stop it. I don't see the problem with it.

 

And Gamist play isn't nessecarily "munchkin" IMOP, its a differnet style. I've unfortunately gamed with munchkins of all stripes. Munchkin is a state of mind.

Actually, as you say, I can see value in this if restrained to appropriate game-play. Basically, in a low-heroic level game where most people have a single schtick or such, this guy has the one ability to go back and forth to the base. He gets stuff, he checks facts, but he's of course got to move to do it, which eats up his phases. He better be fast, because that mostly-broken armor isn't going to hold against MADMAN IRON KILLER!

[gojira]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Unless of course you realize Neil and VdM's statement about the screws and real world equipment. Free equipment has strings and conditions, paid for equipment is immune to all that, up to and until the rules for focus destruction and all that. So even if Gunbunny pays points for an identical pistol to the free one that Omega Man is now sporting, Gunbunny can use his "gun" in more places and has less worry than Omega Man.

 

Hawksmoor

 

Right.

 

In my (partial) defense, at least a couple of other posts went up while I was composing mine.

 

 

To expand on this idea a bit, it's about more than just screws. In (I think) RDU Neil's merc campaign, it sounds like free equipment plays a much larger role. But that's to be expected, and players wouldn't be surprised when everyone started getting free stuff at the start of an adventure. And if it was a green beret / blacks ops type of campaign, I wouldn't expect lots of loss and breakage to offset things. You just don't expect a highly trained operative to be that careless.

 

I'm old school and I react poorly to the idea of not paying points for anything. I've also played a lot of GURPS and GURPS just doesn't work well for supers, in part because guns are so deadly in GURPS. It takes a lot of work on the GM's part to make GURPS work at those power levels. These issues can be largely avoided in Hero just by charging points for everything.

 

RDU Neil and others have made a good case for not charging points for everything. It doesn't have to disrupt play balance greatly. And it's counter-intuitive for the players to charge points for *everything*. So it's not always a big deal and can actually help immersion.

 

 

However, I still think not charging points has to be done carefully, and with a firm eye on play balance. RDU Neil's genres have been carefully choosen so that free stuff makes sense and doesn't affect play balance. I think the screws needed would be different in different genres.

 

For an example of a different types of screw look at the Pulp Hero forum. People on that forum are asking for a size rating for guns that affects stealth. This will give players something to look at besides which gun does the most damage. That's an example of a different type of screw besides the OAF-take-it-away one. And players and GMs see the need for it.

 

I think we should look at different genres and power levels, and try to determine what are the better screws for each. Also, we should determine where game play definately starts to break because of too many free things. Then we can say "Hey! This doesn't work so well, maybe don't go here." Maybe we could add some playtesting as well.

 

But that might also be better handled on a different forum.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I don't know if this has been asked before in this thread, but what's the difference between a character with mundane equipment (the Punisher) and a character with unusual equipment (Black Panther, Captain America, Nomad, Iron Man, etc, etc)??

[megaplayboy]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I don't know if this has been asked before in this thread' date=' but what's the difference between a character with mundane equipment (the Punisher) and a character with unusual equipment (Black Panther, Captain America, Nomad, Iron Man, etc, etc)??[/quote']

 

well, just off the top of my head, Frank Castle can go to a gun store or back alley dealer and get replacement guns pretty easily--i.e., you can buy a lot of his stuff at K-Mart or a gun show, while an indestructible aerodynamic shield or powered exoskeleton are generally one-of-a-kind items that are hard to replace.

Also, mundane stuff tends to be slightly less powerful, and "subject to the constraints of reality" to a much greater extent than Cap's shield or Iron Man's armor. A real gun can jam or misfire, requires regular cleaning, and breaks more readily than an unusual or "trademark" firearm.

 

Mostly a genre convention--like the difference between a fast horse and Trigger.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

Mostly a genre convention--like the difference between a fast horse and Trigger.

 

Yeah, having Trigger is an advantage.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I don't know if this has been asked before in this thread' date=' but what's the difference between a character with mundane equipment (the Punisher) and a character with unusual equipment (Black Panther, Captain America, Nomad, Iron Man, etc, etc)??[/quote']

 

Mundane might not be the right word. "Accessible because it makes sense within the story and GM and players are ok with it."

 

So... in my mind, this means any equipment that they get their hands on. It means using a focus stolen from an enemy if they can... it means keeping that alien bio-armor, if that makes sense at the time... it means losing these things and having them turned against you just as often.

 

But mostly, it is about "points equal control/access/effectiveness." Thus, if a player wants a Cap-like shield... very unlikely they will find one... be able to take one... be able to keep and use it... unless they pay points for it. Maybe for an adventure or so... but just as it is "reasonable" that the keep what they find... it is "reasonable" that cops begin wondering where evidence is going... they have to figure out where to keep their stuff... others want to take/steal/have what they do... etc. You have to buy ammo and power packs and figure out how to maintain things... etc. Explosions and AE attacks damage "free stuff" more often when "points stuff" seems to escape unless targeted. Pay points for your OAF Infra-Red Goggles... cool. Don't and the first time you do a double backflip acrobatics in combat, those things you bought out of a Sharper Image catalogue go flying off your head to break against a wall.

 

None of that really matters, if you paid points for the item. It is basically a part of your character at that point. It can be lost briefly or whatever is typical of foci... but you'll eventually get it back, guaranteed. Player paying points has author-like control where they don't with "free" stuff.

 

By not paying points, the player is submitting their equipment needs to the GM control and story needs. If they whine, I have a simple mantra. "Pay points then."

 

Fact is... you don't have to really go out of the way to hose them. One, my players abide by the social contract of "free equipment should be supporting details... not the stuff around which the story turns" and second, they are nervous enough about what MIGHT happen, that they choose to pay points whether I've done anything to put the screws to 'em or not.

 

Of course, I don't think a single one of us enjoys making equipment lists or the like. That stuff bores us to tears and is un-fun at best... so equipment desires are minimal, and we've played together long enough that players know when I'll look askance at their requests, or other players will say, "Yeah, right..."

 

Compatible play styles allow this to work (like any game, really) more than trying to enforce some kind of codified rules.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I have not read the whole 12 pages of the thread: apologies if I am re-treading old ground.

 

Points in HERO are not all equal. You can not directly compare 50 points in life support and 50 points in energy blast. In a straight fight, the energy blaster wins. In a fight on the surface of the Planet Mercury...well, there isn't a fight, the energy blaster dies in the heat and vaccuum.

 

It's worse than that though. You can't compare points even for a single power.

 

A 5d6 EB is more assuredly NOT half as useful as a 10d6 EB. In a campaign where 10d6 is the normal attack, a 5d6 attack is likely to do no damage at all.

 

This problem is not directly soluble. The system works if everyone plays off roughly the same number of points and observed, roughly, conventions as to AP and DC maxima. You can not legislate for balance, you can only encourage it. HERO is probably as close as you can get in a system that allows this level of customisation.

 

Right, so back to the original question. The Punisher, to my mind, is probably a 250 point character. Fighting against 350 point characters his weaponry is going to be of very limited utility, not worth any points in effect as it is unlikely to ever effect anyone significantly. In a 250 point campaign, those same guns may have a very significant effect and can't just be handed out free.

 

So, whilst acknowleging that it is all a matter of balance anyway, I'd suggest that the answer is in the precepts of the question: in any campaign, any OFFENSIVE equipment that has (say) less than 2/3 the AP and DC of the campaign average powers can probably be given away for free without adversely effecting gameplay or fairness - so in a 12DC game anything that does 7 or less DC could be given away free - most guns. Now this assumes it is a 'straight' attack. I'd add the proviso that the guns can not have more than (say) +1/2 to +1 in advantages, and the AP should also be low (probably less than 40 points too). Non-standard effects should also be discouraged. Mind Control Gun? Transformation Ray? I don't think so.

 

Even this is not a hard and fast rule.

 

Everyone could carry a service revolver in a 500 point game and never use it, or at least not for causing damage. Why pay points for that? Well, if it is 500 points but no one has resistant defences, a service revolver is a deadly piece of equipment and you'll need to pony up the points.

 

Now I was careful to specify OFFENSIVE. Defenses are almost always useful, and if they add to your base defenses (which they will as a rule) they always add utility and will need to be paid for. A gas mask is always useful if you need to breathe, so you'll need to pay for it.

 

In summary (and why I couldn't have just written this at the top and had done with it I don't know), if a piece of equipment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the game, it is fine to give it away for free. If it does, or might, you should be paying for it.

 

OK, it is accurate but really not helpful. Sorry.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

 

I don't know if this has been asked before in this thread' date=' but what's the difference between a character with mundane equipment (the Punisher) and a character with unusual equipment (Black Panther, Captain America, Nomad, Iron Man, etc, etc)??[/quote']

 

Bringing the wheel full circle, would the Punicher get his equipment for free, or have to pay points, under the posited model?

 

I'm not a big punisher fan, so I'm going from my limited exposure to the character. However, it seems to be it is rare for him to lack access to his guns, even military-level hardware when required. Having these guns, not special skills in their use, is his main schtick.

 

So, in the structure posited, Punisher would logically pay points for his guns. He pretty much always has access to them.

 

By contrast, Black Panther has (in recent publishing) a few staple gadgets (vibranium soles in his shoes; climbing and attack claws) for which he would pay points since he pretty much always has them, and they are virtually never unavailable. He would also make considerable use of the "free equipment if access is logical", especially when in Wakanda. In the most recent arc, for example, he boards a sky-cycle because he's in a Wakandan military base, and needs air transport for combat. Were he in the USA, he'd have to figure out some other way to deal with the problem, since shipping in a sky cycle on an hour's notice isn't "reasonably accessible equipment".