Idle Scalability Notion

[zornwil]

Although HERO scales better at higher levels than most games, it still can be a bit hard to handle, particularly because XP are generally awarded in a lineaer fashion but character growth, if invested into any power or characteristic, is really exponential.

 

Aside from limiting XP awards, one notion is to make "stuff" more expensive beyond a certain point, much as how NCM works. Perhaps each time a characteristic or power is x128 the bar for points gets reset and costs doubled. So for characteristics, that means after every 35 points increase, costs might double, so that each characteristic is doubled in price above 45. You could do the same for powers, each points > 45 costs x2. The next break point, keeping with this theme, is at 80, then at 115, and so on. Or something like that. You could as easily pick x256 and go with break points at 50, 90, 130, and so on. Or whatever value.

 

And you could also tweak so that this is not imposed where it fits a character's core schtick or such.

 

It would be more complicated, surely, and imposes a much slower growth pattern. Obviously it would be simpler, basically, just to slow the rate of XPs given, or base XPs awarded both on how it's normally done plus how many CPs the character has if one is working with various points levels.

 

As stated in the topic heading, it's just an idle thought.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

Generally I find that XP doesn't get piled on to a single power or narrow group, but spread around to cover the stuff you couldn't quite afford at creation - those extra skills, a few more PD, or some mental defence, whatever.The other thing to think about is that whilst +5 points of STR may be doubling your strength as far as raw power goes, having 60 STR rather than 55 doesn't suddenly make the character twice as dangerous.

 

I know it is not a popular tool, but the active point campaign cap can, in effect, require that points are spread around, and as points-rich characters tend to have more things to spend points on, this can often deal with the linear/exponential growth problem. I suppose you could combine the AP cap and your idea so that you have a rolling limit: you (say) define the AP cap at 60 points and you can buy points over that but they cost double (so a 70 AP power would cost 80 points). When you feel everyone is butting against the limit you can up it to (say) 95 points - those characters who have invested in double cost points suddenly get a big leap forward. Could add an interesting dynamic to the game...

[Mentor]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

You reptiles are so obsessed with scales.

 

Seriously, what are the problems being created in your campaign at the high end.

 

Getting to the scene of the crime too quickly?

 

Too powerful an effect on the campaign universe?

 

Insufficient challenges without worrying about logic? (In other words, why doesn't Menton already rule the world? Who could prevent him?)

[Silbeg]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I haven't really seen an issue in a superheroic game in regards to xp spending... in fact, there always seems to be stuff that characters can buy that doesn't dramatically increase their power level... versatility, yes, but not necessarily power level.

 

It is heroic games that I have seen an issue.

 

With a heroic character that starts with a 14 DEX, spending a mere 12 xp (say, 4-6 sessions) would dramatically increase their combat efficiency. Of course, 6 levels with a specific weapon or manuever would increase it even more!

 

So, like everything, communication between the GM and players are essential for determining what is valid for character improvement.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I've found it to be a reasonable House Rule or hack to give every character "Normal Concept Maximum" on everything: Chars, Ads, Dis Ads, skills, powers- the whole character concept.

 

This reduces "out of concept" XP spending enormously. Spot Defense and other alien "feedback" XP spending happens much less.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I've occasionally told players that they can't increase a certain Characteristc or Power, by buy a particular Power becuase it's out of concept, but never told anyone they have to pay extra after a certiain amount. To me, that would increase out of concept purchases. Once the brick reached that limit for STR & DEF, things like DEX and SPD, Mental Powers and EBs start looking like good bys. And they are good buys because they'll only cost half as much as something that's more in concept.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

You either hand out more XP than I do, or have lower NCM than I do, or both.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

You either hand out more XP than I do' date=' or have lower NCM than I do, or both.[/quote']

 

I don't have an NCM of any kind. Points are either spent on something or they aren't. The XP I hand out is irrevelant.

 

I suppose having a "concept maxima" that varies from character to character would be better than a flat maxima that applied equally to all characters, but it would be hard to rule what is limited and what is not and at what values for each concept. On top of that, it would restrict certain character growth, especially if someone wanted to play a Mentalist with Martial Arts or a Martial Artist with Mental Powers or something that crosses several archtypes and concepts.

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

You reptiles are so obsessed with scales.

 

Seriously, what are the problems being created in your campaign at the high end.

 

Getting to the scene of the crime too quickly?

 

Too powerful an effect on the campaign universe?

 

Insufficient challenges without worrying about logic? (In other words, why doesn't Menton already rule the world? Who could prevent him?)

It was idle thought. No real issue in my campaign per se, though I "create" an issue for myself because I enjoy rapid XP growth. But that's reasonably handled as the game power increases as well, and the players change their characters into interesting new ways as they develop. The only thing I would like to see is more uses and examples for "uber-skills", skills with base rolls above 25, since I do have those going on and feel I don't do enough to spice up the flavor they should provide. That's a whole other thread, but I've noted very few other GMs allow this sort of "abuse" and besides I'm looking forward to The Ultimate Skill to see what it says on the topic.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I disagree with the central premise, which is that XP becomes exponential. In fact it's exactly the opposite. 5 XP is 1.4% of 350 points, but only 1.2% of 400. So the value of each XP in proportion to the character continually declines throughout the character's entire career.

 

As for a large number of points distorting the character or making him too powerful, we prevent that in our campaign by requiring all XP expenditures be approved by two or more GMs (besides the player if he's also a GM). So far I don't think any player has asked for any abilities that we as GMs considered a problem.

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I disagree with the central premise, which is that XP becomes exponential. In fact it's exactly the opposite. 5 XP is 1.4% of 350 points, but only 1.2% of 400. So the value of each XP in proportion to the character continually declines throughout the character's entire career.

 

As for a large number of points distorting the character or making him too powerful, we prevent that in our campaign by requiring all XP expenditures be approved by two or more GMs (besides the player if he's also a GM). So far I don't think any player has asked for any abilities that we as GMs considered a problem.

Yeah, but you're all a bunch of wusses.

 

Seriously, though, I don't know if you're right in regard to what you mention. I mean, in one sense you're correct it's not exponential simply in that of course the progression technically isn't that, but I was referring to that old canard about +5 = x2. Regardless of that, though, I think there is a valid issue that the more you rise above a minimum point, the more quickly damaging/effective an ability/power becomes. Once you're above the point of most Defense coverage, you are glomming on straight STUN damage. With dice rolls, the leap up each +1 on the 3d6 is more and more important (yields less directly effective results on the top end of the curve, yes, but becomes crushing by comparison in keeping well above any margin of probable failure).

 

Still, as I said, it was also an idle musing and it may not be an issue at all to anyone.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

Yeah, but you're all a bunch of wusses.

 

Seriously, though, I don't know if you're right in regard to what you mention. I mean, in one sense you're correct it's not exponential simply in that of course the progression technically isn't that, but I was referring to that old canard about +5 = x2. Regardless of that, though, I think there is a valid issue that the more you rise above a minimum point, the more quickly damaging/effective an ability/power becomes. Once you're above the point of most Defense coverage, you are glomming on straight STUN damage. With dice rolls, the leap up each +1 on the 3d6 is more and more important (yields less directly effective results on the top end of the curve, yes, but becomes crushing by comparison in keeping well above any margin of probable failure).

 

Still, as I said, it was also an idle musing and it may not be an issue at all to anyone.

I see where you're coming from, Zorn, but permit me two observations:

 

1) The same "+5 = x2" factor applies to defenses as well. And defenses, as we all know, are markedly cheaper than attacks.

 

2) XP are accruing to all characters, so the opportunities for these factors should be reasonably well distributed among the campaign's members. (In our campaign we generally upscale villains somewhat as the campaign progresses to represent "XP" by the bad guys; although not to the same extent.)

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I see where you're coming from, Zorn, but permit me two observations:

 

1) The same "+5 = x2" factor applies to defenses as well. And defenses, as we all know, are markedly cheaper than attacks.

 

2) XP are accruing to all characters, so the opportunities for these factors should be reasonably well distributed among the campaign's members. (In our campaign we generally upscale villains somewhat as the campaign progresses to represent "XP" by the bad guys; although not to the same extent.)

Entirely understood. I think the issue (to the extent there is one) is more about the scale from weak to great characters, not a balance issue per se. Compressing growth on the top end (for all characters) theoretically keeps them all in a sort of general band rather than flat continued increases.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

Entirely understood. I think the issue (to the extent there is one) is more about the scale from weak to great characters' date=' not a balance issue per se. Compressing growth on the top end (for all characters) theoretically keeps them all in a sort of general band rather than flat continued increases.[/quote']Mentor, Blackjack, and I have had a few conversations about that potential problem in our campaign. At what point does a 350 point character concept become unrecognizable due to XP? Mentor's PC mentalist Prodigy or Blackjack's brick Silhouette scale up pretty well, but Zl'f is already approaching a point where I can see problems developing in the not-too-distant future. I defuse the problem somewhat by buying her "fluff" skills, but I just can't see her adding 5 CON, 5 PD, or 5d6 more to her attacks. At what point does Zl'f cease to be Zl'f as I envisioned her and want to play her? My gut tells me that's going to be around 450-460 points; and as she's currently at 404 points 450 isn't all that far off even if I start buying down Disads. Two or three years at most and I'll either have to retire her or find another direction to take her.

 

Maybe a trip to Wudan Mountain...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

Entirely understood. I think the issue (to the extent there is one) is more about the scale from weak to great characters' date=' not a balance issue per se. Compressing growth on the top end (for all characters) theoretically keeps them all in a sort of general band rather than flat continued increases.[/quote']

That does remind me of the classic problem of a new player/character in the game. Do you start them toward the lower end of the existing party, way back where all the characters started in the beginning, or what? It's not quite like D&D, where you can argue that a lower level character will advance faster because (s)he will be gaining mountains of XP compared to a similar character in a low-level party.

 

I'm going to have to admit that I haven't had any campaigns in Hero that ran long enough that I had to deal with this issue. I know in WoD games it is manageable to have vastly different power levels because, well, power levels don't tend to be so vast.

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

Mentor, Blackjack, and I have had a few conversations about that potential problem in our campaign. At what point does a 350 point character concept become unrecognizable due to XP? Mentor's PC mentalist Prodigy or Blackjack's brick Silhouette scale up pretty well, but Zl'f is already approaching a point where I can see problems developing in the not-too-distant future. I defuse the problem somewhat by buying her "fluff" skills, but I just can't see her adding 5 CON, 5 PD, or 5d6 more to her attacks. At what point does Zl'f cease to be Zl'f as I envisioned her and want to play her? My gut tells me that's going to be around 450-460 points; and as she's currently at 404 points 450 isn't all that far off even if I start buying down Disads. Two or three years at most and I'll either have to retire her or find another direction to take her.

 

Maybe a trip to Wudan Mountain...

That's an interesting question, how to develop/evolve PCs and when to retire them. As you allude to, it depends a lot on the character. Some definitely don't withstand too much evolution beyond a core concept, others are more open-ended/malleable.

 

One option might be to allow XPs to go more towards influencing die rolls and the like. That increases the character efficiency and such, but not in a manner which compels change, and it allows one to benefit from XPs same as all others.

 

PS/EDIT - of course naturally there's also a point where a PC just isn't as much fun to play, eiither because they're played out or they simply weren't designed, conceptually, to be as effective as higher levels of play would dictate

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

That does remind me of the classic problem of a new player/character in the game. Do you start them toward the lower end of the existing party' date=' way back where all the characters started in the beginning, or what? It's not [i']quite[/i] like D&D, where you can argue that a lower level character will advance faster because (s)he will be gaining mountains of XP compared to a similar character in a low-level party.

 

I'm going to have to admit that I haven't had any campaigns in Hero that ran long enough that I had to deal with this issue. I know in WoD games it is manageable to have vastly different power levels because, well, power levels don't tend to be so vast.

I've dealt with that and am of two minds.

 

So far, in my longer-running campaigns, I've usually started new PCs at the bottom. However, I award XPs (and Reputation Points, I have a separate but related award system to increase perks and evolve characters sort of like in the comic books) for these PCs at double the rate until they get within 50 XPs of the pack. That's reasonably okay.

 

However, as PCs go further up, that does seem to be more/too imbalanced for players. I probably need to revise it upward. Certainly there's room for fun with lower-powered characters in a high-powered group, but I think there can be issues for players.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

At what point does a 350 point character concept become unrecognizable due to XP?

 

It's funny you should mention this. I've rarely run a game long enough where the characters earned enough XP for this to be a problem. It's come close though. I believe Descant's character in my older campaign was reaching her limit about the time the group broke up. She had earned just over 200 XP over the course of the campaign and didn't see her powers getting any more powerful and has learned just about all of the Sonic Powers tricks we could think of. About all she could do was by Skill and Combat Skill Levels or else have some sort of "accident" and start developing those latent psionic powers.

 

I do know there are limits though. Same player, Descant, and I joined a group that played starting characters around 650 points, and her concept just wouldn't fit with that many points. All she wanted was effectivley a skilled normal with some super sensory powers and ended up with an ubernormal with extremely powerful psionic powers. Not at all what she had in mind for her concept... but she just had too many points to spend and had to spend them to keep up with the group.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

That does remind me of the classic problem of a new player/character in the game. Do you start them toward the lower end of the existing party' date=' way back where all the characters started in the beginning, or what? It's not [i']quite[/i] like D&D, where you can argue that a lower level character will advance faster because (s)he will be gaining mountains of XP compared to a similar character in a low-level party.

 

I'm going to have to admit that I haven't had any campaigns in Hero that ran long enough that I had to deal with this issue. I know in WoD games it is manageable to have vastly different power levels because, well, power levels don't tend to be so vast.

 

This has happened every so often in my group. Either an old player can't play any more so we bring in somebody new, or else a player that has taken some time off is able to rejoin the group but is now way behind in XP.

 

What I generally do is start off new players with enough XP to the nearest 50 point below the group, and award them extra XP for a while as they catch up. For an exisitng character, I'll put them half way between what they were and where the group is, saying their character probably hasn't been idle the whole time and has developed a little (half XP is what I tend to award NPC and the like which is how I determined this value).

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

It's funny you should mention this. I've rarely run a game long enough where the characters earned enough XP for this to be a problem. It's come close though. I believe Descant's character in my older campaign was reaching her limit about the time the group broke up. She had earned just over 200 XP over the course of the campaign and didn't see her powers getting any more powerful and has learned just about all of the Sonic Powers tricks we could think of. About all she could do was by Skill and Combat Skill Levels or else have some sort of "accident" and start developing those latent psionic powers.

 

I do know there are limits though. Same player, Descant, and I joined a group that played starting characters around 650 points, and her concept just wouldn't fit with that many points. All she wanted was effectivley a skilled normal with some super sensory powers and ended up with an ubernormal with extremely powerful psionic powers. Not at all what she had in mind for her concept... but she just had too many points to spend and had to spend them to keep up with the group.

The whole "keep up with the group" thing is an interesting conundrum. On one hand, as roleplayers (especially if one is of the school where they so love to disdain "rollplayers"), we really shouldn't mind/care much about this unless the character concept itself makes that important (which, to be fair, some concepts do indeed). On the other hand, as roleplayers again, we want to be just as important in the story as everyone else.

 

How much of this issue is our own issue as players and how much is something the GM "should" do something about by balancing combat? I'm going to make an assumption that at the least the balance is occurring out of combat just for the sake of this question/discussion, otherwise it does all land squarely on the GM's feet for creating a total imbalance. Otherwise even a lower-powered character should have plenty to do out of combat and plenty of limelight opportunity.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

How much of this issue is our own issue as players and how much is something the GM "should" do something about by balancing combat? I'm going to make an assumption that at the least the balance is occurring out of combat just for the sake of this question/discussion' date=' otherwise it does all land squarely on the GM's feet for creating a total imbalance. Otherwise even a lower-powered character should have plenty to do out of combat and plenty of limelight opportunity.[/quote']

 

I see what you're getting at (I think). I suppose for games where there isn't much combat (or combat doesn't take long or is just something to be done while getting through the door), being able to take part in the combat isn't that important. It's interacting with the other characters, the NPCs and the world in general. Those 23 points in Contacts and Favors become just as powerful as the other character's 194 point Multipower with 43 slots.

 

For a combat oriented game, or a game that features "meaningful combat experiences," being able to take part and have an affect in such encounters is very important. It just so happens that the default design for the game is for this type of campaign, hence how things are balanced (DEX costs more than INT, EB costs more than Contacts, etc.). I suppose it's better that way too. Not just because the Hero System is supposed to simulate heroic action, but it's easier for a GM to turn an action rules game into a drama oriented game than it is to turn a drama oriented game into an action game. Most of that drama stuff is just natural to the players that want to play it and it happens regardless of what the rules for combat are.

[CourtFool]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I was thankful that Hero did not scale advancement. That always irritated me about other systems and I often houseruled it away.

 

All you are really doing is trading one problem for another. Instead of depth of ability you get breadth of ability. Characters start stomping on each other's schticts because there is no where else to go.

[zornwil]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

I see what you're getting at (I think). I suppose ...

 

Just to confirm, yes, you did get it.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Idle Scalability Notion

 

All you are really doing is trading one problem for another. Instead of depth of ability you get breadth of ability. Characters start stomping on each other's schticts because there is no where else to go.

That was a very insightful comment. Are you trying to get repped or something?

[CourtFool]

Trebuchet = the new fight picker or is that nose picker

 

That was a very insightful comment. Are you trying to get repped or something?

 

Insightful?! How dare you, sir! If I had opposable thumbs I would slap you with a glove.