Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

[Phil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

A friend of mine & I have had the idea in the back of our minds for some time to do something similar to this someday in the shadowy future (minus killing the main character off).

*Get 5 GMs together.

*Each person will GM one game, will be the main character in one game, and will be support in three games.

*Enable you to do the "solo hero" books/games while still having group play. So you could have game one as Batman (main player), Robin, Alfred, Batgirl. Game two as The Shadow (main player) + lackeys. Etc.

*Rotate games around. Great for those times only a few folks show up. Only three folks show up? Fine - still able to run either of two games with main character + one support character each.

 

That's a nice idea. Difficult, possibly impractical, and good for one-offs but harder for longer story threads, but those are just barriers. Excellent idea worthy of whatever puny rep I can bestow!

[BcAugust]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Note, we just finished a major game session that had both the OIHID character(mine) and the Power Armor character taken out early.

 

Nox(my mainly shadow-magic powered person) had the enemy rig up lights so she couldn't get to or watch the direct battlefield. So her contributions were basically: teleporting our tactitian/MA into town quietly, watching inside the buildings for any surprises, and at the end, after the lights went out, trying to stop one of the villians from pulverizing our downed brick. (Trying as in "The entangle missed, but your playing on his psych lim of honorable made him hesitate")

 

The Power armor guy... well, the "real world" effects of his sfx ended up having him kill twenty+ people, led to him being picked out easily, and dropped easily once someone got to the creamy filling(mentalist).

 

My thoughts on it... well, it's a good thing Nox has mainly been a support character(I've done zero damage. I'm the one that sets up people, does evacs, and intelligence). Also, hearing the gm saying "You have 50 seconds to get her out of here before her armor goes down and she gets her heart shot out."... well, it's scary, and an obvious drawback. I'm not sure how many people play with an as obvious trigger for OIHID as I do(Intense light for a minute, if I'm kept in an area without deep shadows, I can't turn it on, if I have no light, I can't turn it off, which can be a major pain), but it's very effective at shutting me down when the DM needs too.

 

Which brings up something I didn't notice said before. PA characters are not stealthy. What the heck do they do when it's time to investigate or influtrate someplace? Or even the whole "Dressing as the enemy in order to sneak in." cliche?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

[Power armor] characters are not stealthy. What the heck do they do when it's time to investigate or influtrate someplace? Or even the whole "Dressing as the enemy in order to sneak in." cliche?

 

They wait outside for the "high sign". In our games, the "high sign" is often the sound of machineguns and explosives.

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Which brings up something I didn't notice said before. PA characters are not stealthy. What the heck do they do when it's time to investigate or influtrate someplace? Or even the whole "Dressing as the enemy in order to sneak in." cliche?

I think this is an issue where one's mileage may vary.

 

Powered armour characters can be highly stealthy.

 

Powered armour is essentially just magic spandex. Consider Vindicator (or Guardian), from Alpha Flight for example. Spandex powered armour is a normal, recognised, in-genre type. There is no need for it to be less stealthy than silk.

 

Powered armour characters have more points to spend than lesser characters (though less than Cosmic Cube types). Three points for Stealth is not much. (Except in comparison to what else you can buy for three points through an efficient framework.) Powered armour user can have excellent DEX, also bought at discounts of course.

 

If stealth comes up often enough to count, a powered armour character is in an ideal position to rebuild for maximum advantage. (This happens regularly anyway, because it's in-genre for powered armour - how many suits has Iron Man had?) A super-stealth slot in the old "energy control power" multipower with well-chosen limitations won't cost you more than your Stealth skill did, and can generate formidable advantages like darkness against sound-energy.

 

Powered armour characters are in a good position to come up with rationales for suddenly being able to suppress signals like body heat and scent.

 

Powered armour is great for leaving no traces behind. Shaggy Lion Man is in deep trouble with forensics, whether he thinks of himself as "the ultimate hunter" or not but a sealed power suit need leave no traces. (Robots are good too of course.)

 

Stealth goes best with superior senses (to counter modern security systems). These also are naturals for powered armour (at discounts of course), and less appropriate for acrobats with names like Black Leopard and Wing-Head. Technology has moved on since the the early 1960s.

 

I would say: "PA characters are not stealthy ..." in campaigns where the gamemaster makes that be true." It's campaign specific.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Powered armour is essentially just magic spandex. Consider Vindicator (or Guardian)' date=' from Alpha Flight for example.[/quote']

 

That's not powered armor; that's a powered costume. Lots of supers have powered costumes (Captain Britain, Booster Gold, Spawn, etc.). Powered armor is like Iron Man, Titanium Man, Crimson Dynamo, and so on. It's rigid and it's bulky (or it's bulkier and more rigid than spandex, at least).

 

This has nothing to do with what powers the focus provides. You can have the exact same set of powers with a magic ring. What makes a focus "powered armor" is what it looks like.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Powered armour is great for leaving no traces behind. Shaggy Lion Man is in deep trouble with forensics' date=' whether he thinks of himself as "the ultimate hunter" or not but a sealed power suit need leave no traces.[/quote']

 

On the other hand, Shaggy Lion Man doesn't show up on a broad-spectrum EM sensor scan, or leave tell-tale trace elements behind when he uses his Flight Boots. Special effects are not a replacement for powers. Anyone can be undetectable -- if they pay for it.

[tesuji]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Which brings up something I didn't notice said before. PA characters are not stealthy. What the heck do they do when it's time to investigate or influtrate someplace? Or even the whole "Dressing as the enemy in order to sneak in." cliche?

 

the last PA guy i built for use had a variety of suit configurations including a stealth/surveillance model which included a claoking screen (invis instead of extra force fields) and a long range glider wing (instead of additional rocket boosters) and enhanced surveilance equipment and recon drones (instead of additional weaponry.)

 

stealth suit still retained short term combat capabilities, but wasn't up to the combat suit for variety and endurance if a fight broke out.

 

also had a hammer suit option where the additional systems were replaced by exoskeleton and hth combat add-ons so he could, in a pinch, fill in for/or augment the brick if we needed additional pounding.

 

IIRC the flavors were:

1. general patrol/combat (generic ranged combat guy)

2. Stealth/surveillance (sensors, invisibility, silent movement.)

3. brick (extra strength, armor and punch)

4. long range combat (targetting computer, flight boosts and ranged weapons)

5. long mission (all end reserve rechargable)

6. rapid response (semi speedster)

 

between the OIF bonus and the efficient use of frameworks, he managed these with remaining in the middle of our "range of attacks" which iirc meant he was 12d6 in a 10-14d6 game.

 

PA guys don't have to be noisy unless thats what they want.

 

heck, IMX, bricks are usually some of the least stealthy guys.

[Mentor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

This is totally true... but it comes up because some of the players at the table are not having as much fun because they are dominated by others at the table... toes stepped on, etc. One (and only one) of the reasons for this does come back to imbalance of characters in some cases... and in some cases that is from OIHID and Focus type characters over non.

 

I don't bring this up out of theoretical maybes... but because what I thought was balanced as a GM is kinda bugging some of the players at the table.

This unfortunate tendency is unfortunately something that no character power balance can correct. Character construction is only part of the process.

 

My longest running character, Double Eagle, was a mix between Cap and Batman. He had the lowest attacks and defenses on our team (12 PD and ED, of which 4PD/ED was armor), a medium DEX (29) and SPD (6) (which tells you how powerful our team was) and the slowest movement (Running 10" and Gliding 12"). Double Eagle ended up being legendary in the campaign universe and was also the leader of the Sentinels, our campaign group, not only based on my play. It was all in how the PCs were being played. Our current campaign is made up of far superior players to those I gamed with in the previous campaign.

 

Fast forward to 2005. We have character in our current campaign who really has a lot of potential to shine, but the player is very passive and hesitant. He can't seem to make the role playing trransistion required to fully utilize his character's best features. Most of the other players in the campaign agree that we could really play this character effectively and have alot of fun with it, but the current player just can't seem to get in to it. No amount of points or power can overcome that.

[Shubbie]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

The problem with adjusting the costs for that is then everyone will switch their limitations from focus to restrainable or only in hero id. Then you have to adjust those costs.

 

You could easily wind up with cascade changes.

 

Im assuming you are going to do this at the start of a new campaign not in the middle, if I wanted a focus and you halved the cost I would just switch to restrainable as its -1/2 and gives a similiar effect of OIF.

 

The problems with focus, seem to happen when one of two things happen.

A character takes a ton of focuses, not one big focus, this makes it hard for a gm to take them away since they are all individual (yeah ive done this)

 

Or alot of characters all take foci making it hard for a gm to take away foci as they would have to spend every adventure just taking away foci and you cant really do an astral type since the party could easily be too weak with no foci.

 

Its a problem but its not worth changing the cost and causing more problems.

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

The problem with adjusting the costs for that is then everyone will switch their limitations from focus to restrainable or only in hero id. Then you have to adjust those costs.

Yes they will do that.

 

But, partly it's what do you have ideas for? As I said above. I can see myself having ideas for and having fun with Captain Marvel. I feel like I've gazed on the superiority of focus-dweebs over inherent heroes enough for ten lifetimes.

 

You could easily wind up with cascade changes.

Yes. And that's not something to invite without forethought.

 

Im assuming you are going to do this at the start of a new campaign not in the middle' date=' if I wanted a focus and you halved the cost I would just switch to restrainable as its -1/2 and gives a similiar effect of OIF.[/quote']The Hero guys never tire of inventing stuff like this. Gaps open up all the time. Maybe in 6th Edition there'll be a -1/2 limitation "only with an offensively stupid special effect." (grin) And strength will be nerfed, to make it impossible to create even a marginal classic comic hero without availing yourself of all the clever meta-game constructs and non-limiting limitations. (half-smile)

 

Seriously, this is an issue. People will switch. They'll go where the points are. They'll stop pretending to be fascinated with some comic-book characters and concepts, and start pretending to be fascinated with others. If Automaton powers were OK for player characters (or when they are) - suddenly the fascination with zombies, golems, robots etc. seems overwhelming! (sour face) I've no answer to that.

 

The problems with focus, seem to happen when one of two things happen.

A character takes a ton of focuses, not one big focus, this makes it hard for a gm to take them away since they are all individual (yeah ive done this)

Sure. That's how the advantageous concept works. The player is just being intelligent by using it in the obvious way, assuming it's allowed in the first place. Others will be doing worse things, so you have to keep your character in the game.

 

Or alot of characters all take foci making it hard for a gm to take away foci as they would have to spend every adventure just taking away foci and you cant really do an astral type since the party could easily be too weak with no foci.

The solution I've seen is: you can't step on another player's patch. So you get an OAF, an OIF, an IAF and an IIF character. Then you can't have a new character come in and use one of those or other frameworks and efficient character construction ideas that a character already has the patent on. Otherwise you're going to get every single character focused up, only in hero identity, using variable power pools, elemental controls, multipowers, linked powers, and activation rolls. (And once upon a time, package deals.) This stuff has to be reserved for the first characters built with it. That preserves variety of character concept, which is genre.

 

Otherwise, it becomes like a race where everybody has access to steroids, instead of having clean and dirty athletes to spread out the field.

 

The Darwinian pressure towards an all-focus game, if you allow that, can be crushing.

 

The astral stuff is no problem. Just have everybody keep all their foci on the astral plane too. I don't think I've ever seen any gamemaster not do that.

 

Its a problem but its not worth changing the cost and causing more problems.

It's certainly not worth having characters re-written. I wouldn't even imagine changing the system rules, only house rules, and only then at the start of a game, after batting some ideas around, say ... here.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Nobody's campaign allows for such a construct. That's my point. This specific rule' date=' that each new charge refreshes an End Reserve completely, is too good. It's a rule that's broken, so most if not all GMs would alter the rule and not allow it.[/quote']

I agree and disagree...

 

To the extent that this might be a good construct for some concept, it's fine to leave it in. For a player with a very limited set of powers, as in one or two, this may be more useful and less abuse and fit the concept.

 

That being said, I could say that about just about a million other rules. So to err on the side of general system elegance and rules length, I'd say it's probably better to just drop the rule and let people be inventive when the situation actually arises calling for such a rule.

 

So I tend to think it should be dropped but for a somewhat different reason.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Stepping on toes is a similar issue. If the Brick is clearly superior in combat, the EP is likely to get disgruntled if the Brick can also effectively do everything the EP can do by throwing objects of opportunity that are available in virtually all battles.

 

If the game is "Mighty Man and his Amazing Sidekicks", how many players want to play a Sidekick?

 

An interesting idea would be if Mighty Man had immense power but was basically a stumbling boob and slow to boot, so that the Amazing Sidekicks are actually directing all the traffic and forced to choreograph things so that MM's great power can be brought to bear. That's a complete tangent, just suggesting it could be fun.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

OK

 

First limitations are not balanced.

 

Take, for instance, activation rolls. If you apply them to a power you roll every phase to see if they work. It is sad if your 14- EB doesn't work, but it is only one shot in 11, so no real biggie. Mind you the limitation works the same for constant powers, and losing one of them one time in 11 could be fatal...say flight, just as you're trying to pull out of a dive, or suddenly your force field goes off and you find you have no resistant defences...

 

So: 1 - let's not pretend this is a science.

 

Second, there's been much reference to the conditional/limited power guidelines. These are guidelines AND they only reflect powers that either do or do not work, and with reference to other limtations, like activation, they don't do that well. The system is erring on the side of caution: you get less for your money if you buy a generic limitation rather than a Hero-hand-crafted version.

 

So: 2 - let's not pretend this is a science (I know I've already done this one but it is a biggie)

 

Finally the focus limitation is not simply a question of how often the power works. Looking at it that way is daft as it utterly fails to take into consideration that a focus is a limitation that can be effected by outside factors, most often the villains. They can attack you when you haven't got it, or they can steal it or whatever: a villain can not control when a power with an activation roll works, or effect the number of charges a power has or changethe increased END cost, but they can darned well effect your focus. Failing to acknowledge that is missing the point of the limitation, which will, of course, make it look like a bargain. 'Internal' limitations can be controlled by the character, 'external' limitations, like focus, are controlled at least in part, by the game world. That's why 'not in intense magnetic fields' is worth a limitation - they hardly ever occur - until the villain finds out that they screw up your main attack....

 

So: 3 - look at limitations in the round, don't 'focus' on just one aspect of them.

 

Pun intended, obviously (and accessably). Which means it only cost me half the points

 

Great post. I agree in a sense, but Hugh has a point...

 

I think they're balanced one to another, at least reasonably well. If I don't have my OIF: Blaster Gauntlet, I won't waste a phase trying to fire it, only to see those triple sixes come up.

 

"Firebolt's force field is down! I've got to get Grond's attention before he pulps poor FireBolt. I'll fire the MegaBlast!" Two 5's and a 6 later, it's Grond's phase...and he's not distracted by that small fizzle *pop* sound the Megablaster just made....Poor Firebolt!

 

Reasonably balanced to one another depends a lot, though, as Hugh alluded to and Mentor explains more...

 

I play the Power Armor guy in the game Trebuchet refers to. More often than not, the fact that the armor is an OIF carried in a briefcase imposesits own limits on utility without the GM having to roll anything. Having to run to a closet or empty office in order to don armor while the villains are wreaking havoc is preety limiting if you see the purpose of your team being to protect society and not just win the fight.

 

Often the OIF overlaps with the Secret ID in preventing Cyberknight from donning his armor to prevent something from going down or to keep one of his comrades or DNPCs from being affected. There is much more to the limitation that making the batteries drain or something.

 

As Mentor points out, "Limitation" is a broad term, and that can be in the form of all manner of inconveniences. As Hugh also suggested, choices are made/informed by Limitations, not just the effectiveness of a power is at stake.

 

I think also the important factor is genre. In heroic fiction Foci are extremely common (though whether it's a "real" Focus, i.e., losable, is a question per character/storyline/writer), as is OIHID (or at least the latter is common in superhero stuff). The influence of these being as they are in the source material, it isn't merely a rules issue as to balance, it's also that GMs often so identify with these tropes the don't even think to challenge them, I believe.

 

To all the three above points, the issue really is the application of the Limitations. I think Foci are probably underpriced a bit, but a 1/2 step down or such doesn't seem fair, either. Though this will depend on whether the GM enforces such.

 

Another question is how much Limitations should be "enforced", or better put for my purpose here, contrived. As RDU Neil at one point alluded to, better GMs are less likely to contrive in general, both for the obvious story-telling reasons but also for the reason of not wanting to appear to be hosing someone.

 

All this being said, I think the real issues are very much in the hands of GMs and not rules-centric in this case. Balance, taking together the points above, is not about balance in combat just as it is not about balance out of combat. It's about all taken together.

 

I'll freely admit I don't bring these Limitations to bear directly very much. More often it's a situational issue. Those with Foci lose them when imprisoned (which just happened). I've very rarely seen OIHID played (contrary to many others' experience), but when I have it seems to work fine, with the character having to deal with changing and all that.

 

Also, I do challenge that a -1 would be every other session or such, regardless of rules. If you stick to the rules on frequency, you really have to work hard measuring whether Lims and Disads came up in a session and if not then fitting specifics in for ALL of the Lims and Disads bought for all players.

 

Also, a -1 on a character's sole massive power is a lot more important than a -1 on a character's side power he rarely uses. So the total points involved also should come into bear when weighing how often to employ a Limitation directly.

 

All in all, I really think that while a GM may well want to reset Limitation values to suit their usage in his game and this is a good thing, it gets too hard to get too deep in Limitation values in the rules. I think the current values are rough enough decent approximations.

 

Having talked before from a gamemaster's point of view, I'll say as a player, I don't find focus-dweebs heaps of fun. I don't respect them, and I don't want to play one. But I also don't like how their floods of free points can ratchet the power level of the game easily beyond what I would regard as more satisfactory heroes' ability to be effective/heroic.

 

(Damage caps, if "hard"/inflexible/genuinely applied, can bring some sweet relief, though not total. I might have a kinder opinion of foci if I had seen damage caps brought in on games where the focus-dweebs took over. If.)

 

"The rules" say you shouldn't make a character built totally to work at night, or by day, or whatever. But if you're in a party with focus-dweebs, you'd be wise to do that, if you were allowed to. Because that would get you into the game some of the time, instead of being shut out of the top level all the time.

 

When focus-dweebs dominate the power level of the game - which they will when villains are written to challenge the greatest heroes, which will be them - there are really only two power levels: dweeb and non-dweeb. Being "hosed" for a scenario is pretty meaningless in a game where it takes a 20d6 attack not to be a wimp. Having a three dice punch is not really different from having a pathetic plain vanilla martial artist's 7d6 punch and 9d6 kick, against opponents with 40+ defences - except that you get credit for it: "Night-Man fights - without his powers!"

 

That's one of the reasons the focus-dweebs don't have to be afraid of being evicted from their armour. First, it doesn't happen. Second, if it did it would be a special scenario written to make the campaign's mightiest hero look good even without his armour. But third, even if they did have to sit around the base and play solitaire, a sufficient power imbalance, which fully munchkined-up, fully-limited focus-dweebs can easily achieve, means: "So, I was useless in that one unique scenario, in years. You guys are useless all the time." To which there is no answer from Plain Jane, but Night-Only-Man does have an answer.

 

What a great post! We do spend a lot of time on these matters as GMs and the like. You are right that players do want some balance IN THEIR OWN WAY. I think this will be very group-driven and thus vary even radically by group. I do think that it has to be taken into account. It doesn't change my overall opinion on the Limitation values and all that as per above, but it does put a spin on it that is important in actual Play Experience.

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

From the thread: "What's the most ridiculous PC you've ever been subjected to?"

 

Glupii : "However I did have a character that I allowed the player to bully me into accepting that not only was stupid, but eventually wrecked the campaign. I was trying to run it like a fairly serious campaign (at least as seriously as you can when comic book characters are involved). The character that evetually evolved into a semi playable form (keep in mind it had been rejected for rules infractions several times) was basically an invalid with a powersuit. It basically kept him alive as well as gave him super powers. He was a tremendously powerful character as he bought everything OIF-Independent and with charges, etc. Basically an extreamly min-maxed character. Well in the first battle, he showed himself to be the main threat and the villains took him out first. Once he was down, the rest of the villain crew that I had ramped up to match the hero group with this PC in it, had no problem taking out the rest of the group. One character had his character killed while the offending player had his armor stripped from him and he died without it. What really hurt is that now a very strong mastermind has an even stronger suit of armor he can wear completely unbalancing the entire game.

 

I could have salvaged it I guess with some lame excuse (oh the suit blew up when the mastermind was testing it) but it just felt wrong and the campaign that I spent weeks preparing has now gone by the wayside as none of us have deemed it fun enough to bring back. I guess it was as much my own fault and failure as a GM for even allowing the guy in the first place."

 

Glupii: "Actually that is what my last line was trying to say (I think?). I should never have allowed him to play the character. But I have always played with a total trust in the Hero system balancing itself in the long run. I usually have no problem with a person playing a min/maxed character because usually the min/maxing leaves some deficiency somewhere in the character that is going to become apparent and hurt eventually. I hope that by seeing this, players will eventually lean toward more balanced characters. For all my other players, this has been the case and we worked well. But for this guy, he just refused to "get it". And I guess I should have stepped in to regulate his actions for his own sake and for the sake of the fun he missed (and caused others to miss)."

 

I see no indication Glupii is a bad gamemaster in any way whatever. But his faith, "a total trust in the Hero system balancing itself in the long run," was misplaced, and it caused him to make one (1) terrible mistake, admitting a character (and a player) he should never have allowed in his game. The rest followed according to a normal pattern.

 

Of course he rebuilt the villains to fight the world's greatest hero. Of course he did, it's the most natural thing in the world to do. That's why it happens over and over. And in the end I think he was lucky in how that turned out. The slow disaster is worse than the fast one.

 

Of course when the mighty hero, The Focused One, Mister Independent, went down, the other player characters were swept up like chaff. They should consider themselves lucky the gamemaster played out their defeat. Another gamemaster might not have bothered to. (And that's a humiliating way to go.)

 

I know that I'm talking to a lot of tough Space Marines who've dealt with "xenomorphs" or "bugs" over and over and never had any problem.

 

Van Leuwin: Thank you, Officer Ripley, that will be all.

Ripley: God d@mn it, that's not all! 'Cause if one of those things gets down here then that will be all! And all this, this bull-ship that you think is so important, you can just kiss all that goodbye!

- Aliens (1986)

 

It's probably not that helpful to get as hot under the collar as that. (laughing)

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Great post, zornwil (and not just because I'm very flattered - thank you) - it helped me get an overall picture on this big issue which we spend a lot of time on and where there are a lot more valid points of view than just mine.

 

I strongly agree the focus limitations should not be nerfed in the rules. Keep the rules as they are. They're needed. They work right in a lot of campaigns. And I would absolutely not want to see a change that affected everything that has been built before, say, a 6th Edition.

 

What I'm talking about is getting your campaign to work the way you want it to, familiar traps and gory tales from the roleplaying trenches, things that are inherently dangerous to game balance, gamemaster awareness, house rules, stuff like that. Not messing with what rules are in the core book that everyone refers to.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Not messing with what rules are in the core book that everyone refers to.

 

Heaven forbid that Hero should actually improve anything. With this kind of thinking we'd all be listening to 8-track tapes.

 

Unfortunately, I think DOJ agrees with you: dont fix it, just add another page to the rulebook explaining how to work around the bug.

 

Feh.

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Or maybe the DoJ crew doesn't agree with those who think it's a problem...

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Heaven forbid that Hero should actually improve anything. With this kind of thinking we'd all be listening to 8-track tapes.

 

Unfortunately, I think DOJ agrees with you: dont fix it, just add another page to the rulebook explaining how to work around the bug.

 

Feh.

Wanna hear my vinyl record collection?

 

Actually what I would like is not a change to the phonebook but something like an Animated Champions (or better yet a licensed Incredibles book - dream on) with all kinds of worked-out, play-tested optional rules for more speed and fidelity to the sub-genre, possibly including everything from nerfing the focus bonus for player characters to special packages for costumes (introduced by Edna "E" Mode) to making one high roll for hit-and-damage (if that play-tested well for new/naive players) - a completely radical thing (the "sports car"?) that was Hero, but with every conceivable option used to nail that sub-genre down.

 

But I wouldn't want people to be told to re-write their Star Hero, Fantasy Hero, Pulp Hero and so on games because of that. Let the phonebook be the phonebook. Don't mess with the Dark Champions and Champions guys who are already having fun.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

But I wouldn't want people to be told to re-write their Star Hero' date=' Fantasy Hero, Pulp Hero and so on games because of that.[/quote']

 

That's exactly what we did when Champions 4 came out, and it made the game better.

 

Ah, well.

 

"Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted; Closely held beliefs are not easily released; So ritual enthralls generation after generation."

Tao Te Ching; 38 Ritual

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

That's exactly what we did when Champions 4 came out' date=' and it made the game [i']better[/i].

 

On the other hand, one can always point to Fuzion as a counterexample. Different isn't always better.

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

to making one high roll for hit-and-damage (if that play-tested well for new/naive players)

 

 

Gads, no. Single-roll combat resolution already ruined one system revision (the new White Wolf), don't even suggest it for HERO.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Or maybe the DoJ crew doesn't agree with those who think it's a problem...

I think it's some of both. DOJ was in a real pickle restarting HERO, and a major philosophy, I think, was very much "let's be careful not to piss off the loyal base with 5th Edition, as much as possible." And similarly I think it will be a while before they deviate from that, if ever (it may be ingrained behavior by now).

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

(snip)

 

(or better yet a licensed Incredibles book - dream on)

 

Ah, such a beautiful dream! If Brad Bird or even Pixar held those rights I'd say a letter-writing campaign would be in order for that 1 in a million shot, but since it's Disney, well, I'm far too pessimistic (in fact I think that writing them letters could backfire - they might think "Hmmm, licensed RPG? GREAT IDEA - let's call Hasbro! : )

 

But I wouldn't want people to be told to re-write their Star Hero, Fantasy Hero, Pulp Hero and so on games because of that. Let the phonebook be the phonebook. Don't mess with the Dark Champions and Champions guys who are already having fun.

 

Eh, as bblackmoor says, some changes can be for the better. I think some of the changes in 5th such as recosting Duplication and general consistency on 1/5 relationships related to that were a boon. The changes in Aid costing and other Adjustment Power changes I think were silly because without restructuring/simplifying Adjustment Powers such little changes are sort of like peeing in the wind, if you'll pardon the expression. Other changes, such as Damage Shield, can be annoying and debated, but I'm indifferent on those as they're really in the weeds of details and all people can really do is agree to disagree on specific cost values.

 

Bear in mind, too, people really just do what they want for the most part initially and only those changes that "everbody" likes end up getting adopted into long-running games. Lemming and I (coincidentally, as our gaming roots are from entirely different environments) both still run the range mod as -1/3" rather than what was introduced in 4th and remains.

 

PS - I gotta echo Kristopher - single die roll combat resolution sucks! But, hey, that's just me! I can understand the notion/value of such, but I do think that it really fudges too greatly and conflates the dexterity/accuracy parameter too much with the damage-inflicting parameters.

[David Blue]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Eh' date=' as bblackmoor says, some changes can be for the better. I think some of the changes in 5th such as recosting Duplication and general consistency on 1/5 relationships related to that were a boon. The changes in Aid costing and other Adjustment Power changes I think were silly because without restructuring/simplifying Adjustment Powers such little changes are sort of like peeing in the wind, if you'll pardon the expression. Other changes, such as Damage Shield, can be annoying and debated, but I'm indifferent on those as they're really in the weeds of details and all people can really do is agree to disagree on specific cost values.[/quote']My expectation is that further changes are likely to be for the worse rather than for the better.

 

Hero is already quite a lot broken as a simulation and roleplaying game, because it encourages and rewards meta-gaming and munchkining lavishly, and punishes naive accuracy in simulation and simple roleplayer thinking. It's getting more like that, not less, with one of many symptoms being the seemingly endless elaboration of rules such as Adjustment Powers that are important because in number crunching terms they are potent, even though in simulation terms they are a bad joke. I don't like anything I hear about vehicles either. (If I had liked the news, I would have bought Ultimate Vehicle by now.)

 

When there is a simplifying option, Standard Effect, it is clearly and needlessly inferior to protracted die-rolling - punishment for those who like simplicity and speed, not rococo elaboration. (Where you gain from Standard effect is when you abuse it savagely with Killing Attacks that cut through normal defences - again typical of what's wrong with Champions.)

 

Killing Damage, with the infamous STUN lottery, is a mess, and it makes the typical villainous attack superior/unbalanced versus straight-ahead heroic Normal Damage. What has Hero done about that? Create the added STUN multiple, a good deal for which Normal Damage dealers get no equivalent.

 

If you try to build a "normal" good, old fashioned character to stand up to the rip-slash rules-abusers, you can't do it, because in effect the game designers become your enemy. The game is rigged for the bad guys and the munchkins and the cheats. I feel strongly about that. (not smiling)

 

And I heard Steve Long would like to recost strength, which whether that happens or not is a straw in a breeze that blows steadily in exactly the wrong direction, from my point of view.

 

I think there is zero, absolutely zero, chance a revision of the rules regarding foci would improve things now. Because I think that from my point of view the people directing the game's development would find it more natural for it to move towards more of the Adjustment Powers style malarky they have soaked themselves in too long, and away from what I like.

 

I don't want everyone's foci recosted, and bblackmoor got me dead to rights with this:

"Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted; Closely held beliefs are not easily released; So ritual enthralls generation after generation."

Tao Te Ching; 38 Ritual

 

But more to the point, I see "grandfathering" as the only thing that's slowing the otherwise-inexorable progression:- simple --> complex --> rococo --> rubble. Therefore, news that grandfathering is becoming entrenched is sweet to my ears. (now a smile)

 

Foci point bonuses are very important, but they are one issue within a greater problem.

 

Bear in mind' date=' too, people really just do what they want for the most part initially and only those changes that "everbody" likes end up getting adopted into long-running games. Lemming and I (coincidentally, as our gaming roots are from entirely different environments) both still run the range mod as -1/3" rather than what was introduced in 4th and remains.[/quote']Good point.

 

PS - I gotta echo Kristopher - single die roll combat resolution sucks! But' date=' hey, that's just me! I can understand the notion/value of such, but I do think that it really fudges too greatly and conflates the dexterity/accuracy parameter too much with the damage-inflicting parameters.[/quote']Could we take this to prestidigitator's thread Flipped Die Rolls?

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29611

I outlined my idea there in detail, in the context of more important ideas that prestidigitator has on making the game look simpler without changing at all how it plays or how character sheets are written. I would like to hear your ideas in more detail than would be appropriate in this thread, but I think they might be appropriate there.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

My expectation is that further changes are likely to be for the worse rather than for the better.

 

I dunno, I think Steve has done some very positive work as well as negative work. So I'm not so pessimistic, though I'm also not so optimistic. My feeling is DOJ will likely release a 6th edition (if they stay around to do so) that will be a continuance of 5th in having some things improved and others faling apart.

 

Hero is already quite a lot broken as a simulation and roleplaying game, because it encourages and rewards meta-gaming and munchkining lavishly, and punishes naive accuracy in simulation and roleplayer thinking severely.

 

I understand most of what you're saying here (I disagree as to "quite a lot broken" but most of that I'll address below) and it's generally reasonable at the least as a contention, except I don't understand why you say "punishes naive accuracy in simulation and roleplayer thinking severely" - would you please elaborate on that?

 

It's getting more like that, not less, with one of many symptoms being the seemingly endless elaboration of rules such as Adjustment Powers that are important because in number crunching terms they are potent, even though in simulation terms they are a bad joke. I don't like anything I hear about vehicles either. (If I had liked the news, I would have bought Ultimate Vehicle by now.)

 

When there is a simplifying option, Standard Effect, it is clearly and needlessly inferior to protracted die-rolling - punishment for those who like simplicity and speed, not rococo elaboration. (Where you gain from Standard effect is when you abuse it savagely with Killing Attacks that cut through normal defences - again typical of what's wrong with Champions.)

 

I think you're overstating a bit as the difference is not so great, however, it is also very easily fixed. Re Standard Effect, people can easily declare it to be the precise average extended - I think HERO didn't do that for two reasons, the first being that predictability (I believe) IS a reward so it's offset by a small price, but also just to avoid one more accusation of being math-heavy. I tend to agree with both concerns. And personally I don't see this as detracting from any given approach or being a "punishment".

 

There's an interesting tangent here - I'm not at all concerned with things that are very easy to fix and almost obviously so, and also can be fixed with ease and without hurting the system elsewhere. This falls in that category for me - just make it 3.5 per dice instead of 3 and it's auto-fixed and there's no wider system ramifications, if that is one's general concern. To me, these are the normal sorts of things in a system which scream out for tinkering and I can't really be concerned therefore, if the obvious fix is also one that doesn't hurt other stuff. So for Standard Effect or (below) Stun Multiple, I personally can't get excited. I'm much, much more concerned with structural issues.

 

Killing Damage, with the infamous STUN lottery, is a mess, and it makes the typical villainous attack superior/unbalanced versus straight-ahead heroic Normal Damage. What has Hero done about that? Create the added STUN multiple, a good deal for which Normal Damage dealers get no equivalent.

 

Discussed elsewhere so won't belabor, but I like the STUN lottery, and it's easy to change if desired. Just a quick 2 cents.

 

If you try to build a "normal" good, old fashioned character now to stand up to the rip-slash rules-abusers, you can't do it, because in effect the game designers become your enemy. The game is rigged for the bad guys and the munchkins and the cheats. I feel strongly about that.

 

I think this is way more of a player-group issue. I honestly don't see where the system has changed since at least 4th edition in this regard, generally. Even in 3rd and before these were potential issues, mitigated (I think) solely by a lack of options presented in the book. But from what I have heard/seen of various conduct under older editions, I don't see where this issue has changed much even there. If people will be munchkins or cheats, I can't see how this kind of system (a universal system intended to give you the ability to "build anything") can prevent that. Re villains, that's just a GM issue, isn't it? I'll stop reacting and just ask - why do you feel strongly it's so rigged, and why/how is that a change (if it is)?

 

And I heard Steve Long would like to recost strength, which whether that happens or not is a straw in a breeze that blows steadily in exactly the wrong direction, from my point of view.

 

Well, I tend to agree here. I would hope that the STR thing is more of a couple options. I can see why/where STR might be a desirable thing to recost for some people, but the way it's been has its strengths, too, and this whole discussion on STR has always seemed also very genre-influenced, either way.

 

I think there is zero, absolutely zero, chance a revision of the rules regarding foci would improve things now. Because I think that from my point of view the people directing the game's development would find it more natural for it to move towards more of the Adjustment Powers style malarky they have soaked themselves in too long, and away from what I like.

 

Re Foci, I agree.

 

I don't want everyone's foci recosted, and bblackmoor got me dead to rights with this:

"Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted; Closely held beliefs are not easily released; So ritual enthralls generation after generation."

Tao Te Ching; 38 Ritual

 

But more to the point, I see "grandfathering" as the only thing that's slowing the otherwise-inexorable progression:- simple --> complex --> rococo --> rubble.

 

Foci point bonuses are very important, but they are one issue within a greater problem.

 

Good point.

 

Could we take this to prestidigitator's thread Flipped Die Rolls?

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29611

I outlined my idea there in detail, in the context of more important ideas that prestidigitator has on making the game look simpler without changing at all how it plays or how character sheets are written. I would like to hear your ideas in more detail than would be appropriate in this thread, but I think they might be appropriate there.

 

I'll take a look, I glanced but didn't note it was beyond the initial idea, which I didn't have much to say about in and of itself.