END -- Do You Need It?

[atlascott]

Is END really necessary for any roleplaying genre?

 

I am tending towards "no." ALlow me to explain.

 

I have run about 3 supers campaigns, and 2 nonsupoers HERO games (mini-campaigns). END is cheap to buy, so everyone buys alot of it, or structures their powers so that it is rarely an issue. But it DOES require alot of bookkeeping for player. END is sort of a non-issue in heroic (non-superheroic) campaigns.

 

What is END meant to simulate? A character's power that is so taxing it can only be used rarely? What about just buying it as a charge? A power which is effective but wipes the player out? Buy it with a limitation that drains the PC's STUN by so many dice when the power is used.

 

I submit that heroes that shoot their EB and then rest just doesnt happen in the genre. And wouldnt be real fun to play, either.

 

Now I know, some may defend END by reference to comics where a long, arduous battle takes place between evenly matched supers and they pause to 'rest' and soliloqy. But, with cheap END plus REC working the way it does in the HERO system, would this scenario ever even happen in the HERO system? I'd submit not, unless a player SPECIFICALLY bought his character this way. In which case, one of the other approaches cited above works as well or better to fit genre convention, especially in those cases where a hero needs to push their power and passes out from the strain, but is able to save the day.

 

So, why not do away with END? Well, as a practical matter, with advantages and disadvantages in the system, it throws off the point balance. But, if ALL characters, heroes and villans, PC's and NPC's, all play by the same rules, then there is less of a problem. Obviously, having a high number of charges is no longer an advantage. Low number is still a disadvantage.

 

So, what do you think: is END indispensible? Or do I have a point?

[Vondy]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

In general, endurance is a non-issue and I tend to agree that its nice to have from an options perspective, but not really critical in most cases. On the other hand, when used in conjunction with the optional long-term endurance rule it can be very useful for modelling abilities that wipe the character out without resorting to overly-complex constructs like stun drains, which don't equate to fatigue, anyways.

 

I've never had an endurance critical situation crop up in a supers game, but I have had them crop up in heroic games. One construct I've used, that I like, is to slap increased endurance (-X) on a spell along with (costs long term endurance -1). The mage isn't getting anything back for taking a recovery. They actually have to rest. Whether or not you need it depends on what you are trying to do.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It's not absolutely necessary. We've done END-free games before, and they've worked out fine, as have the games using END.

 

Overall, I like using it for Supers. There are plenty of times in comics where people are weary/tired and are having problems fighting at full effectiveness - END can represent this pretty well. Human Torch KO'ing himself using his Nova flame is another instance.

 

It's another balance mechanism/another choice people have to make with their points - get a little more power, or become more END-efficient? There are some characters who can go all day at a reasonable level, others who can spend a few very powerful phases going all-out, but then need to tone it down. I don't mind that. The more gradual nature of END vs charges, END being more effecient at lower levels than charges, charges being more efficient as power progresses, and END being an easier "mechanic" than charges for drains, etc. to work on all make me generally like END more.

[Fox1]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I would tend to agree that END's jusification based upon the genre is limited. You can press the point either way without reaching an agreement.

 

Even so, I use it and wouldn't do away with it.

 

The reason is simple, it results in better game play and balance for my group's style.

 

Since I run a "points don't matter" Marvel based game, the differences between the characters are defined by niche and method of function. Thus characters with END, END Batt, and Charges are all very different in play, requiring different tactics.

 

Sometimes it's key in controlling a character.

 

Phoenix of the X-Men for example pays END for nearly everything, a factor that is one of the few constraints on her even given her 80 END and 24 REC. Removing it would in effect unleash her upon the battle field with a vengeance. I've ran battles where the core tactical approach of the villains against her was to run her out of END.

 

Dropping it also gets rid of all those cool END drain/transfer effects. I certainly don't want that. Besides, no matter what- those ARE genre.

 

So in it stays.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

V&V's old mechanic of "Power" worked pretty well - sort of a combined End/Stun stat. Doing things took away Power, and you could soak some damage into Power instead of hit points. The lower your Power got, the less damage you could convert into Power loss. Pretty similar to burning Stun for End, just used one stat for it instead of two.

[Storn]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Our House Speed rules (somewhere on these boards) do not HAVE a free Post 12 REC. You have to take a Recovery action (ie burn an action resting). So EVERY battle has END issues. Even 1/2 END advantage on Powers will not forestall END problems if the battle lasts a long time.

 

But this house rule speeds up combat, because there is no STUN recovery either (unless one takes an action to do so). And villians often times have to take an action instead of pressing an attack. So it affects both sides.

 

But I agree, bookkeeping END is a bit of chore (and often, I'm the only one at the table who seems to be doing so accurately, Dodge costs 1 END that seems to be foregotten often.) I also agree that we rarely see combat in comics where the heroes and villians are dragging their knuckles in exhaustion... Doomsday vs. Superman, which lasted hours and hours is the exception.

 

I always thought that a reduction in RECOVERY would be a more elegant way to go. The fight goes on a long time, the less Stun one gets back when you take that rest/pause in combat.

 

But in RDU, we've had very dramatic stories driven by END limits. We have pushing rules that use 1 END for every active pt pushed....plus the original cost... and one can push up to 1/2 the active pts of your power. So, 14d6 (70active pts), one can push for 35 active pts, another 7d6. But its costly, the total cost is 42 END (35 +7 for the original power cost). Remember, NO Post Seg 12 REC. So, yeah, ya can do it...but it is 1/2 or more of your END.

 

We've had people knocking themselves out Pushing or using their abilities and going into negative END. Its pretty cool.

 

But the tough part of END is not on the players, it is on the GM who might be running 10 protagonists at once. That gets abstracted by Neil in our game. But he is pretty good at it.

[BlackSword]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

We don't track END in our supers game. Fights are typically short enough that it wouldn't matter anyway. If it is critical for a villain then I will probably track it for them. Ie, if the goal is that the heroes can't beat him with punches and energy blasts, but have to wear him down, then I will probably track END for the villain only. Since we haven't played with it for a long time I don't plan on adding it back in now.

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Our House Speed rules (somewhere on these boards) do not HAVE a free Post 12 REC. You have to take a Recovery action (ie burn an action resting). So EVERY battle has END issues. Even 1/2 END advantage on Powers will not forestall END problems if the battle lasts a long time.

 

But this house rule speeds up combat, because there is no STUN recovery either (unless one takes an action to do so). And villians often times have to take an action instead of pressing an attack. So it affects both sides.

 

But I agree, bookkeeping END is a bit of chore (and often, I'm the only one at the table who seems to be doing so accurately, Dodge costs 1 END that seems to be foregotten often.) I also agree that we rarely see combat in comics where the heroes and villians are dragging their knuckles in exhaustion... Doomsday vs. Superman, which lasted hours and hours is the exception.

 

I always thought that a reduction in RECOVERY would be a more elegant way to go. The fight goes on a long time, the less Stun one gets back when you take that rest/pause in combat.

 

But in RDU, we've had very dramatic stories driven by END limits. We have pushing rules that use 1 END for every active pt pushed....plus the original cost... and one can push up to 1/2 the active pts of your power. So, 14d6 (70active pts), one can push for 35 active pts, another 7d6. But its costly, the total cost is 42 END (35 +7 for the original power cost). Remember, NO Post Seg 12 REC. So, yeah, ya can do it...but it is 1/2 or more of your END.

 

We've had people knocking themselves out Pushing or using their abilities and going into negative END. Its pretty cool.

 

But the tough part of END is not on the players, it is on the GM who might be running 10 protagonists at once. That gets abstracted by Neil in our game. But he is pretty good at it.

 

To just build on what Storn says...

 

1) Yes, I think END has real Role Playing advantages. When it comes to the fact that a character may have to push most or all of their END to actually hurt the villain (that 14d6 EB up to 18d6 or 21d6 max, as an example) and this really puts a desperation in battles can be tres cool.

 

2) It is a flexibility thing. I can also have low level villains that can do big things, at the risk of exhausting themselves. I've done this a few times where players are more concerned with a villain because of one big shot... where in truth the villain is a bit of a paper tiger, but it was dramatic enough to get the heroes to hesitate a bit.

 

3) As a GM, I build my villains accordingly. I only have END cost on abilities I think will play into the story, and I factor Zero END cost for everything else. That way... certain abilities have that END number next to them, and it stands out, and limits how many times they can really do this. I've had villains exhaust themselves, and had to spend actions recovering... going totally defensive, etc. It really adds to the ebb and flow of combat, even if the players don't always see what is going on.

 

4) As for the "At least 1 END per action" if combats go on long enough (over five rounds in my system) then I try to remember to say, "Hey, scratch a coupld END off your sheet for the simple maneuver END... and let's keep things going!"

 

I've never really spent time on this... but I alwasy wanted an abstract Medium and Long Term END concept. Something that would likely work out as an Exhaustion Chart. Something that generalizes how many fights have you been in? How much rest have you had? What other activities have you been doing? Etc. Probably something like Five Levels of Exhaustion with descriptors.

 

Burnt - End of the day, been in a fight, traveled long distance... -1 to Ego Roll for pushing or other activities.

Tired - Hard days work, been in a couple of fights or a really long one, almost a full cycle without sleep, dealing with really weird stuff... -2 to Ego Roll when needed, -1 over all CV

Weary - Non-stop activity over a cycle, combat has become warfare, utterly bizarre events... -2 to Ego & INT roll, -2 overall CV

Exhausted - more than two cycles of activity/combat, no rest, divorced from any normal support systems... -3 to everything

Staggering - pushed to the brink, beginning to disassociate, dead on your feet... -4 to everything

 

(Note: I'm making this up as I write, so it certainly would need more work.)

 

Characters who are superhuman and beyond would be able to buy something like "Life Support" that would make them relatively immune to levels of this. 3 points per level or something... so for 15 points Superman would never even get "burnt" except in the most extreme situations.

 

Again... this is more of a Role Playing guideline... but often the longer term effects of stress and combat and travel and activity are the more interesting effects... where actual combat usually only needs an occassional "hands on hips gasping for breath recovery" before getting back to the action.

 

Anway... just a thought.

[BlackSword]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Actually, I need to edit my response. When I played a speedster I counted my END. It was interesting because he was powerful, but burned END. He could do a lot of manuvuers, cause mayhem, and then would have to take a breather before he started his next round of butt kicking. Never got to play him much (the campaign started to fold when I introduced him) but he would be a challenge in a long fight. I think I could go a full round without a recovery, but by the second round of combat I would have to take at least one recovery or risk getting way too low on END.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I think you can do away with basic END very easily by getting rid of PS12 Recovery for END only. However, taking a Recovery can restore END which allows for things like pushing and other END uses.

 

That's how my heroic games go and it is a lot of fun. END is still an issue, but not usually a critical one.

 

In a fantasy supers game we track END and it does matter - a lot. So it really is a matter of taste and what you are trying to represent. I like tracking END, especially when you fight in extreme situations (e.g. under water, in gas, etc.).

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Get KO'd, wake up with very little END. Utterly excellent rule: it means that you need to rest even after waking up: you're not simply back up to full combat efficiency with no penalty. OK there are other ways you could simulate this but this is a simple and elegant way to do so.

 

Moreover, I disagree with the assertion in the original post RE END no being genre appropriate. I've seen any number of comics where Spidey (or whoever) dodges bhind cover for a quick breather, and read any number of fantasy books where the hero has to fling himself into the fray to rescue a comrade who has become too fatigued to continue fighting.

 

I don't think it is 'necessary' but I do think it adds flavour and distinctiveness. In addition it is a mechanic which can be easily severed if you don't like it in your game. I would not like to see the end of END.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I like the effect of END on most superhero combats. It makes Pushing something you don't do casually; and permits even knocking yourself out if you stretch yourself too thin. Without END everyone would Push all the time, and of course END Reserves, Reduced END, and Increased END Multiples would become obsolete and unnecessary.

 

I like the idea of a character forcing herself to go all out to beat the villain(s); and without the mechanic of END use a lot of dramatic situations become markedly less dramatic. When we fought Eurostar back in June '03, Zl'f had to Push almost every attack in order to get through the villains' defenses with her usual maximum 10d6 attack; and came very close to exhausting herself. She finished the battle with 3 Stun and 1 END left.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Actually' date=' I need to edit my response. When I played a speedster I counted my END. It was interesting because he was powerful, but burned END. He could do a lot of manuvuers, cause mayhem, and then would have to take a breather before he started his next round of butt kicking. Never got to play him much (the campaign started to fold when I introduced him) but he would be a challenge in a long fight. I think I could go a full round without a recovery, but by the second round of combat I would have to take at least one recovery or risk getting way too low on END.[/quote']

 

This highlights one of the key balancers I see END bringing into the picture - it provides an offsetting penalty to the benefits of an exceptional Speed. I find most of our characters are designed to go for a turn or two before really feeling the END pinch.

 

The simulation of a hero who's just recovered from KO and is still barelt there having negligible END also creates some good issues - do I lay low and catch my breath, or fire off a shot, knowing the strain will likely puit me back out again?

 

You could certainly pay without it, but I find it adds enough to gameplay to be worth any added bookkeeping.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

My first Champions experience was in a long running campaign that never used END. It definitely made fights last longer. As a campaign rule for use with today's ruleset it might create more work for a GM in a Champions setting if they wanted to use any published characters since most are built with End costs in mind.

 

My namesake character (links in sig below) was built with End costs in mind. He can burn himself out of End in a fight very quickly. He can also be very conservative depending on whether he sticks to a particular fight strategy. This was done (on purpose) by having several slots of his multipower have Costs End Only to Activate as a Limitation to go along with the one slot that has it as an Advantage (Density).

 

HM

[prestidigitator]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I'd just like to say that for speedsters, End can play a major role. They have to spend a lot of points on Speed, and in my experience don't have a lot to put into 0 End Powers. It then becomes a large balancing act to be effective without wasting all that expensive Speed taking Recoveries.

[Guyon]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I like END, Well I did in version 1. I am just coming back and we plan to use END in this game too.

 

END add a quality to the game and while it does add a little book keeping it is not that bad. Though if you don't like it buy off the end with reduced END modifier. You will not be as powerful but be able to fight on forever. :-)

[austenandrews]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

END can add interest to a battle and it's a good tool in the kit for game balance. But to be honest, as often as not it's just an annoyance. I tend to ignore it unless I have good reason not to.

[Furry Fox]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I play a Speedster/Gadgeteer with a Speed of 8. End usage for him can be critical. He can use his gadgets (which helps) but still. Even for other characters END is important. Especially when they want to push. Pushing I find is extremely effective as all the points of damage typically bypass the armor (effectively an NND attack) plus as a bonus add to increased knockback. I think that taking Stun damage from pushing yourself beyond your endurance limits is neat and very in genre with the Champions setting.

So while it is another stat to track it is a worthwhile game adjustment.

[casualplayer]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I have noticed that a lot, a whole lot, of published characters would be wheezing by the end of the Turn if you track END. Too high of SPD and acting every phase, massive attacks w/o enough END storage to maintain them, FF that can only be powered for a minute tops, etc. Either oversight or shoddy workmanship.

 

Without END, rookie heroes develop strangely. Most want to start adding DC with xp, and then the arms race is on, but if you enforce END rules Reduced END, more CON, END or REC becomes the more appealing choice. You get to throw more bangs for your buck then.

 

Also without END an archetype is lost. The nimble distractor is unplayable. Spider-Man and Robin I (most sidekicks for that matter) don't have the incentive to bob-and-weave, wearing their opponents out and drawing their fire. They start evolving into turbo-bricks, maxing out DC and OCV.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I really like the END mechanic and feels it accurately (in a way) accounts for several aspects of real combat and the type of combat we see in source material. After a furious exchance of punches, blocks and counterstrikes, the fighters draw back for a breath as they feel each other out... the team of heroes pause for a moment while they rethink their strategy... the strongman huffs and puffs and slams down the heavy door after several exhausting attempts... We see stuff like this all the time. Without a rule for END, we just couldn't have these things happen in the game (or happen and actually mean something).

 

I know a lot of players like to build their characters in such a way that END isn't too much of an issue for them during play. I can understand this from a game mechanic point of view, but I discourage it whenever I can. I like to see characters who should be able to get tired actually get tired, even if it takes them a while. Being tireless isn't heroic. Not knowing if you've got enough stamina to outlast or overpower a tough opponent and trying in spite of the risk is.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I have noticed that a lot, a whole lot, of published characters would be wheezing by the end of the Turn if you track END. Too high of SPD and acting every phase, massive attacks w/o enough END storage to maintain them, FF that can only be powered for a minute tops, etc. Either oversight or shoddy workmanship.

 

Without END, rookie heroes develop strangely. Most want to start adding DC with xp, and then the arms race is on, but if you enforce END rules Reduced END, more CON, END or REC becomes the more appealing choice. You get to throw more bangs for your buck then.

 

Also without END an archetype is lost. The nimble distractor is unplayable. Spider-Man and Robin I (most sidekicks for that matter) don't have the incentive to bob-and-weave, wearing their opponents out and drawing their fire. They start evolving into turbo-bricks, maxing out DC and OCV.

I don't know if it's an oversight on the part of the game's designers or just reflecting a common practice; I've seen many a PC who could only go all out in combat for one or two Turns. They go for the first-round KO rather than the ability to drag out the fight and wear him down. It's a perfectly valid strategy, but it won't work on all opponents and if you haven't dropped the bad guy by the time you run out of END to keep up your Force Field and Flight you're in serious trouble.

 

As the guy who plays the Nimble Distractor in our campaign, I can attest to the necessity of keeping an eye on END usage. Zl'f has only 36 END and a 12 REC to go with her SPD 9, so if she doesn't watch her END she can run outta juice very quickly, especially since her specialty attacks (AP, PEN, etc.) all use 4 END per use. For that very reason she usually sticks to her 0 END martial maneuvers. But she's managed to outlast plenty of high END users over the years because if she needs to she can use only 1 END per Phase (for her STR).

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I have noticed that a lot, a whole lot, of published characters would be wheezing by the end of the Turn if you track END. Too high of SPD and acting every phase, massive attacks w/o enough END storage to maintain them, FF that can only be powered for a minute tops, etc. Either oversight or shoddy workmanship.

 

Without END, rookie heroes develop strangely. Most want to start adding DC with xp, and then the arms race is on, but if you enforce END rules Reduced END, more CON, END or REC becomes the more appealing choice. You get to throw more bangs for your buck then.

 

Also without END an archetype is lost. The nimble distractor is unplayable. Spider-Man and Robin I (most sidekicks for that matter) don't have the incentive to bob-and-weave, wearing their opponents out and drawing their fire. They start evolving into turbo-bricks, maxing out DC and OCV.

 

Not unrealistic though: after all you don't need to throw your biggest punches every phase, or keep your FF on maximum (if it is 20/20 it may be far more efficient to run it at 17/17 - you save a quarter of the END - and boost it when you are desperate).

 

Watch a boxing match. Most boxers could throw more and harder punches, but they'd be exhausted and easy meat for the other guy, so they conserve.

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Not unrealistic though: after all you don't need to throw your biggest punches every phase, or keep your FF on maximum (if it is 20/20 it may be far more efficient to run it at 17/17 - you save a quarter of the END - and boost it when you are desperate).

 

Watch a boxing match. Most boxers could throw more and harder punches, but they'd be exhausted and easy meat for the other guy, so they conserve.

 

It is this aspect... throwing low and medium level attacks to set up for a couple big ones... that I wish Hero did better. It took me changing the pushing rule to allow for really big attacks to get that feel at all. Now, the 12 or 14d6 attack IS the medium attack... and the big, all out attack is a pushed attack up to half the active points. Happens once... twice if lucky in a combat.

 

What happens then is a change is psychology. I don't have a 14d6 EB... I have a 21d6 EB... but I normally use it at 14d6. More effectively, you'd throw 8d6 around... go up to 14d6 on occassion... but players never do this. They use the maximum dice allowable on their sheet almost every time.

 

There are a couple ways this could be emphasized more... but it is a matter of play style. Many of my players do NOT feel super unless they can throw 14d6 all day long and not worry about END. I wish they could see that 8d6 is their jab... 8d6 is their jab... 14d6 is their round-house knock out punch... but that psychology has never clicked. I got it by allowing 14d6 to be the jab... and pushing to 21d6 is the knockout blast.

 

If the game ramped up END faster... say after 8d6, it cost 1 END per five points instead of ten, you might see this.

 

Also, END book keeping is so clunky. Play needs to be fast and sleek. I'd think a concept like recoverable charges would work better. I've got five charges (Five Big END) and when I use 'em up, I have to take an action to recover. Get all five back, keep fighting. I think something like this would work well... and lead to some of the same... "If I stop to recover NOW... even though I have a couple Big END left... then I can press him harder... or maybe I leave myself open." decisions that you have now, but without too much addition and subtraction.

 

Other than that, like I said before... I really like END as a govenor of character power, actions, growth... and as a mechanic to drive dramatic combat... I just wish it was sleeker... less cumbersome.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I don't know if it's an oversight on the part of the game's designers or just reflecting a common practice; I've seen many a PC who could only go all out in combat for one or two Turns. They go for the first-round KO rather than the ability to drag out the fight and wear him down. It's a perfectly valid strategy' date=' but it won't work on all opponents and if you haven't dropped the bad guy by the time you run out of END to keep up your Force Field and Flight you're in serious trouble.[/quote']

 

Generally our main objective in trying to beat the villains fast is twofold in a supers game: One, to keep them from getting away - if it's a long, drawn out fight that they're obviously losing, many villains will try to escape. Two, supervillains are dangerous folks, and super battlegrounds are unhealthy places. The longer the fight goes on, the greater the chance of bystanders getting hurt, killed, taken hostage, etc.

 

Now, if we're in their base and they aren't going to try to get away...wearing them down is all good.

[atlascott]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Cool idea for longer term fatigue, there, RDU Neil!