Graduated Figured Characteristics

[Gary Ciaramella]

Originally posted by Gary

I applaud the PC characters with 12 int, 22 dex, or 25 dex. However, the game system punishes them for purchasing those values. A character with 13 int, 23 dex, or 26 dex gets much more bang for the buck. There's a minor problem with the system when characters get punished for trying to stay within conception.

 

With graduated figured characteristics, you can purchase any stat level and not worry about being punished by the system.

 

I wonder why it is that you applaud characters with stats that are a waste of points. I know that RPGs are about playing a role and not about power through superior accounting, but I just cannot bring myself to spend points without getting a return on the investment. And in my opinion, being able to say "Nyah, Nyah, I am smarter than you are!" because a character has a 12 Int when the other guy has an 11 Int is just not good enough.

 

So I agree that the graduated characteristic system is a good idea.... a shame it is not official.

[tesuji]

As a sort of linking of two debates... the strength is too cheap and this one, how about an out of the box, or rather, more in the box in hero terms approach.

 

Get rid of characteristics altogether.

 

make strength not an issue of "i have a 60 vs your 50" and turn it into "i can lift so and so more than you and throw it farther than you."

 

Take all the things that characteristics actually do for you and set them out as individual traits to be purchased.

 

Dexterity would go away and charaxters would buy OCV, DCV, dex skill/check bonuses, actions per round and initiative as individual elements. A character wh had aptitude in lots of these areas would be considered or described as dextrous or agile.

 

Intelligence would go away, and characters would buy per roll bonuses, int skill bonuses, and so on.

 

basically, in HERO speak, you treat the "dex score" as just an FX of the "powers" bought.

 

"+3 with all dex skills 15 pts SFX: dextrous"

 

This seems very HEROesque toi me for two basic reasons:

1. You are buying the effect, the result (OCV DCV etc) on a strictly cost-benefit relationshipwith each effect charged individually and not buying a package which then gives you a variable amount pf benefit per cost.

2. It allows you to buy "what you want" element by element and not as a larger predefined batch of powers... you BUILD your abilities, not select them from a predefined picklist.

 

*********************

 

Another take on this, a more half-way or hybrid, would be to charge a single flat cost for each characteristic. Strength dex con etc would all cost 2 points per rank say. However, each characteristic would give you only bonuses to skill rolls AND half its rank in "figured characteristics"

 

Example... I buy my dex up to 23 costing me an additional 26 points. I now make all dex skill rolls and checks at +5. i also now have 12 cp to spend on "dex related figured characteristics and traits" which can include initiative, speed, OCV and DCV levels.

 

This puts all characteristics in the same boat as to how much secondary benefits you gain... how much "benefit" you take from it. Its no longer that strength gets a lot more figureds than body... both provide 1/2 their rank in "figureds" and both cost the same.

[Yamo]

Under the normal rules there really is no reason to have anything different than a 23 DEX, 23 CON, and 18 INT. If you can pay for the points that is.

 

Incorrect. There are a host of reasons. They are called Adjustment Powers.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Yamo

Incorrect. There are a host of reasons. They are called Adjustment Powers.

 

1 pt of power defense is as cheap or cheaper than any characteristic except comeliness and is going to protect every characteristic and power.

 

Buying "bad breaks" levels of characteristics on the basis of "adjustment powers" is a mathematically dubious notion, to say the least.

[Yamo]

1 pt of power defense is as cheap or cheaper than any characteristic except comeliness and is going to protect every characteristic and power.

 

Buying "bad breaks" levels of characteristics on the basis of "adjustment powers" is a mathematically dubious notion, to say the least.

 

You're only looking at half the picture, however.

 

Someone with, say, 24 DEX is not only farther from the nearest "negative" breakpoint for purposes of Adjustment Powers, he's also closer to the nearest "positive" one. He would benefit more from a DEX Aid just as he would suffer less from a DEX Drain.

 

Can't do that with Power Defense.

[DynamiteKid]

If people take into consideration of the game as a whole there is no characteristic or characteristic value that is worthless. Every characteristic has a purpose if the player considers it more than a number on their sheet. The point of numbers ending with 3 or 8 is valid if all you're looking for is the best trickle down effect to figured characteristics and skill rolls. However, taking other reasons for "inefficient" characteristic values such as priority in combat order due to higher DEX or a higher CON stun threshold due to higher CON, invalidates the 3/8 matter. If anyone thinks "Well, that's not as important to me.", well you're right. That's not important to you. It's still important to other people so yes, there is worth to a characteristic that isn't at a value of "maximum efficiency. For example, a player chooses 12 INT for their character...because that's what the player behind the character rationalizes for the character's IQ level. I'm not saying abandon logic within the system that you're given to play within but there's more to Hero than just the numbers on your sheet. Be a HERO and not an ACCOUNTANT.

[nharwell]

For example, a player chooses 12 INT for their character...because that's what the player behind the character rationalizes for the character's IQ level. I'm not saying abandon logic within the system that you're given to play within but there's more to Hero than just the numbers on your sheet. Be a HERO and not an ACCOUNTANT.

 

Ok, I'm a "HERO." I buy a 12 INT for my character because it fits my concept. In a game enforcing the idea that "normal" human stat range is to 20, I'm quite a bit smarter than average.

 

Player #2 is an "ACCOUNTANT." He buys an 8 INT for his character. In that context, his character is supposedly much less intelligent than mine -- an 80 IQ vs 120, using your rationale.

 

What's the effect in game? NONE. Both of our characters are equally intelligent. The game mechanics should reflect the character concept. If you ignore the mechanics to play the concept, why use a heavy point-based system at all?

 

At the very least, reversing your logic, I should be able to assign whatever appearance I want to my character. After all COM has not real game affect. Or make him immortal -- does Immunity to aging ever matter in a standard supers game?

 

While I agree that an obssession with points takes the focus away from having fun with the game, I so often see people post on these boards how a player shouldn't get anything for free -- he gets only what he pays for. Shouldn't the reverse be true as well? Shouldn't whatever you pay for have some game effect?

[Trebuchet]

Something else is being overlooked here. The system is already "non-granular" to a large extent. How? Because the numbers are not applied directly against each other, but require a CHAR roll. The system is not set up so that 13 STR always beats 12 STR at arm wrestling. One gets 2 dice, the other 2½. Oh wow.

 

Let's look at a character with a 13 INT vs. one with an 18 INT. One gets a INT roll of 12-, the other a 13-. But they still have to roll. The one with the 12- might well roll a 3 and completely outwit/outthink the one with the 13-. So the "smarter" one only has a higher probability of doing something better. This requirement provides all the fuzziness between the edges of Characteristics numbers we need. We are not comparing characters with 11 vs 12 in a Characteristic, we are comparing the likelihood of success at any given task.

 

Even as applied to STR, easily the most quantifiable Characteristic in HERO, this still occurs. With a good roll, a 45 STR brick (9d6) can do more damage or break the Grab of a 60 STR brick (12d6).

 

The higher Characteristic character has higher averages to succeed, but that's no guarantee he'll win. In essence, a character pays points to get to the next "step" in the probability scale, but that's still a far cry from being "granular."

[tesuji]

Suppose i am building my character and i am now deciding where to spend those cp to represent my character. i am doing all this math to make sure my character turns out right. I just saved 2 cp from flawing my multipower slot to full phase... what do i do?

 

I weigh the options between +1 OCV with my lightning bolt or +1 con...

 

+1 OCV is a flat out conrete thing. i know what I am getting.

 

So I look at +1 CON... which costs the same.

 

For my 2 pts there i get 1 higher threshold for con stunning, 1 higher value for adjustment effects, and 2 more endurance... (assuming a 21 con before the 2 points)

 

no, wait, i get for my 2 points, 1 higher threshold for con stunning, a higher value for adjustment powers, 2 more endurance AND +1 con checks AND +1 recovery AND +1 ED and +1 stun (if the con was 22 before spending.)

 

frankly, i really prefer the latter value for my 2 cp rather than the former. it sure looks like 2 points buys either a little or a lot and not a consistent amount.

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by tesuji

frankly, i really prefer the latter value for my 2 cp rather than the former. it sure looks like 2 points buys either a little or a lot and not a consistent amount.

 

True, but you're talking about adding to a 21 CON vs. a 22 CON. So, FOUR points are buying a "lot" more. Those two "spare" points might apply better to a point break, but if you didn't spend the points to be on the edge of the point break level, they wouldn't. Hero's a pretty complex system, and nothing works in a vaccuum.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

True, but you're talking about adding to a 21 CON vs. a 22 CON. So, FOUR points are buying a "lot" more. Those two "spare" points might apply better to a point break, but if you didn't spend the points to be on the edge of the point break level, they wouldn't. Hero's a pretty complex system, and nothing works in a vaccuum.

 

so for 2 pts i get X and for four points i get X plus 4 pts of figureds (rec stun ed) and a bonus to con checks...

 

thats the lesson you are trying to teach me?

thats the "see, the system works" example you prefer?

 

Instead let me ask you to consider an alternative viewpoint...

 

Why would it be wrong or inferior or not the way things should be if every point spent on con (or every 2 points rather) got you the same amount of benefit? Why would it be wrong for "2 pts spent on con" to have a consistent value in terms of the benefits it provides?

[DynamiteKid]

Ok, I'm a "HERO." I buy a 12 INT for my character because it fits my concept. In a game enforcing the idea that "normal" human stat range is to 20, I'm quite a bit smarter than average.

 

Player #2 is an "ACCOUNTANT." He buys an 8 INT for his character. In that context, his character is supposedly much less intelligent than mine -- an 80 IQ vs 120, using your rationale.

 

What's the effect in game? NONE. Both of our characters are equally intelligent. The game mechanics should reflect the character concept. If you ignore the mechanics to play the concept, why use a heavy point-based system at all?

 

An 80 IQ is not the same as an IQ of 120. The only reason that the INTs of 8 and 12 are no different to you is because you're just considering whether or not they give a bonus to INT checks...which are hardly the sole purpose of having an INT value. They do have an in-game affect: How you play your character. Your logic seems to pretty much go by "If this score and that score result in the same rolling for a characteristic check, they're the same.". Take STR for example. A 15 STR is lower than a 17 STR. The STR chart shows that a 15 STR has a lower weight lifting capacity than a 17 STR. Yes, they do both have 3d6 for HtH damage and have the same dice/value for STR checks. That doesn't mean that they're the same in terms of in-game value just because their "rolls" are the same. I mean, when you have to lift something, if there's a weight that's over the 15 STR limit but within the 17 STR limit, the 15 STR character has to push in order to lift the weight while the 17 STR character doesn't. It does have an affect in the game. Characteristics such as COM are less overtly applicable but as long as you RP, there is a time and place for any characteristic/skill/power/disadvantage/etc.

 

My logic is: Assign characteristics as your character concept calls for. If I want my character to be somewhat below average in terms of "intelligence", I'd assign a 7 or 8 for INT. If I want above average "intelligence", I'd assign a 12 or 13. This is under the assumption that an INT value of 9 - 11 is "average". The fact that I'd gain or lose a die roll or whatever doesn't factor in. The game is what you make it. If you want to make every part of your character matter, then there's nothing that isn't important. RPGs are wasted on so many people because they can't seem to get over the Role-play vs. Roll-play matter. Both are important and neither should dominate. Your info on your character sheet should enhance your character's existence in the game. Every stat and power further defines your character. At the same time, your character concept should be a little more concrete than simply being a super PC with no other purpose than to simply excel in rolls. I'm sure most people can come up with more than, "Oh, he's a super person and...he's a good guy.". Psychological limitations, "useless" skills like knowledge skill in baseball statistics...these and more may not have an immediate in-game impact all of the time but they help you and your GM get a better idea of who your character is. In my experience, it's quite rewarding to see a character come to life out of your own imagination. The system and mechanics of Hero actually are quite good for helping people come up with great characters. I would think that the involved character generation process in the Hero system would imply to most that you should be getting a more, if not fully, realized character once you're finished making a character.

 

While I agree that an obssession with points takes the focus away from having fun with the game, I so often see people post on these boards how a player shouldn't get anything for free -- he gets only what he pays for. Shouldn't the reverse be true as well? Shouldn't whatever you pay for have some game effect?

 

Again, it's not about getting something or losing something. And again, everything has an affect in game if you choose to play it that way. Even skills like seduction say that you can't just rely on the success or failure of the roll. You have to RP it out too. My point is that if your focus is: "What do I get for a value of x for (insert characteristic here)?", you're losing the full experience of the game. The game is more than skill/characteristics checks and to-hit rolls. Just take a look at comic books. What series ever had panel to panel combat scenes? I can't think of a comic book series that didn't involve character development. In Hero, some of the character development is handled through coming up with a well realized character. The rest is in role-playing over time, which would be partially directed by your fleshed out character.

 

I'm not saying that the characteristics system doesn't need improvement. I'm saying that it's easy to work within the system, especially if you have RP in mind. I haven't read a post where someone has said that the mechanics are actually seriously detrimental to the game. It's pretty much come down to people griping about stuff like the value you can get by paying for a 23 STR versus paying a more costly 24 STR. Well, if you have good idea of what you want your character to be capable of, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You'd know that your secret agent character should have near peak human abilities so making a choice in the 17 - 20 STR is what you'll need to worry about. There's a difference between player A who thinks: "Okay, he's strong but not Captain America strong. A 17 or 18 STR should do just fine." than Player B who thinks: "Okay...well an 18 STR gets the same dice as a 20. Let's get 18 because I'll save 2 points and be able to do as much damage as a 20 STR player.". Guess which player will have more fun in a game run by a good GM?

[tesuji]

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

Guess which player will have more fun in a game run by a good GM?

 

Ohhh Ohhh, can i try?

 

drum rolls....

 

"In a game run by a good GM, both would have the same fun, because a good Gm is making sure all of his players have fun and are treated fairly and equally and that he doesn't show favoritism towards any player or bias against another player."

 

Is that right? Did i get it? Do I win a prize?

 

I hope so...

 

i almost checked the box which said...

 

"The player who chose to limit himself to 17 will have more fun because the good Gm will, as a matter of course, show favoritism to him and make sure he has more fun, while he punishes the guy who took the 18 because that "dared to take an 18" player must be a bad person or a bad gamer and deserved it. A good GM would be doing his job just right if the "dared to 18" guy was less happy or having less fun than the "takes a 17" guy."

 

I decided at the last moment that this description might actually fall under the "bad gm" section.

 

I hope i made the right choice as to what you would earmark as a "good GM." I really really do.

 

Waiting anxiously for my score...

[sbarron]

Originally posted by tesuji

Waiting anxiously for my score...

 

Sorry, tesuji. You get an A for sarcasm, but a D- for content. The correct box was...

 

"The player that is actually role-playing a character with distictively unique abilities and personality will have more fun (and a more fulfilling role-playing experience) than any player that is roll-playing numbers he wrote down on a sheet of paper, regardless of the GM."

 

Keep studying, though. I'm sure you can do better next time.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by sbarron

Sorry, tesuji. You get an A for sarcasm, but a D- for content. The correct box was...

 

"The player that is actually role-playing a character with distictively unique abilities and personality will have more fun (and a more fulfilling role-playing experience) than any player that is roll-playing numbers he wrote down on a sheet of paper, regardless of the GM."

 

Keep studying, though. I'm sure you can do better next time.

 

This answer boils down to "a player that roleplays in a roleplaying adventure will have more fun than a character that doesn't." Really? Gosh.

 

But, unfortunately, this answer holds true whether or not the character is min maxed or anything else.

 

Role playing, and number crunching are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

I can, and do, have some of the most unique characters and personalities that most of my GMs have ever seen. Lots of hooks, role playing possibilities.

 

And, yet, each and every one of those is minmaxed to some extent. Normally quite an extent.

 

Joe can have the biggest piece of crap (numbers wise) character

and still have a horrible time because all his characters want to do is fight.

 

They just do it really badly. And they still don't roleplay.

 

So, in my book Tesuji gets an A.

 

D

[zornwil]

When Steve Long says figured characteristics are getting to be more trouble than they are worth, that's an interesting statement.. I am starting to see eliminating figured/derived characteristics and values (even things like Leap) might be a nice way to resolve both the mathematical rounding dilemma (when to do it) and get towards a system where you buy the real effects and don't lump anything together, even if logically related. In fact, the "even if logically related" can easily be resolved with the existing EC framework or Linked modifiers if handled properly (such as buying up STR, PD, Leap, and STUN, when each are otherwise bought seperately, would be fine under an EC if not too aggressively done). Of course I say this without doing the math. But given the right constructs and some ready-made packages, this could be much more elegant.

 

The problem is it's more to think about in character creation (though most die-hard HERO fans won't care) and might be more easily unbalanced than the "lump" way of doing things now. It also might demote so many heroic genre conventions it isn't worth doing, though I'm unsure.

 

Overall I really am starting to think it wouldn't bother me at all if HERO did recost the basic characteristics and recreate the figured characteristics as additional base characteristics.

[DynamiteKid]

Originally posted by tesuji

Ohhh Ohhh, can i try?

 

drum rolls....

 

"In a game run by a good GM, both would have the same fun, because a good Gm is making sure all of his players have fun and are treated fairly and equally and that he doesn't show favoritism towards any player or bias against another player."

 

Is that right? Did i get it? Do I win a prize?

 

I hope so...

 

i almost checked the box which said...

 

"The player who chose to limit himself to 17 will have more fun because the good Gm will, as a matter of course, show favoritism to him and make sure he has more fun, while he punishes the guy who took the 18 because that "dared to take an 18" player must be a bad person or a bad gamer and deserved it. A good GM would be doing his job just right if the "dared to 18" guy was less happy or having less fun than the "takes a 17" guy."

 

I decided at the last moment that this description might actually fall under the "bad gm" section.

 

I hope i made the right choice as to what you would earmark as a "good GM." I really really do.

 

Waiting anxiously for my score...

 

Actually, you've missed my point entirely, which would be surprising if you read my entire post. The "dared to take an 18" player took the 18 in my example because it was cheaper than paying for a 20 STR for nearly the same amount of benefit. Bang for your buck. In my example, the sole reason for taking the 18 was because of cost saving and had nothing or very little to do with RP/character concept. This is what I'm talking about. Player mindset. That's the key to enjoying RPGs to their full extent. Anyone who thinks that taking a 17 STR for RP reasons is "limiting" pretty much falls into the category of an accountant. Also, to think that a GM would punish a player for merely being cost efficient is also on the lines of an accountant who is somewhat paranoid about the way they choose to create their characters. I don't know where anyone would perceive any part of my post that insinuates that my opinion of a "good GM" is one that caters to a certain division of players.

 

A "good GM" would set up games with a little bit of everything. Some RP heavy scenes, some combat heavy scenes, and whatever else in between. Basically a balanced campaign. That's a "good GM". I believe that I said that neither Role-play or Roll-play should dominate in a game but remember that both are important and have their purpose. It's about balance so that everyone can enjoy the game. That's what good GMs/GMing is about. Clear enough?

 

How the issue surrounding player attitude/mindset got deflected to the validity of what my opinion of a good GM is...I don't really know. The GM certainly has an integral part to play in helping the game be fun but a player's outlook is just as vital.

 

To sum things up for anyone who wants to just skip to the end: A player who isn't focused on a single aspect of the game(Roll-play/number crunching) will have more fun in a game run by a good GM(one who creates balanced campaigns). I don't think that it's such a far out notion that a player with a mindset of centered on the mechanical aspects of Hero would get bored/not have fun a lot sooner in a balanced game than a player that has a mindset that is centered on playing a role-playing game.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

I don't know where anyone would perceive any part of my post that insinuates that my opinion of a "good GM" is one that caters to a certain division of players.

"Guess which player will have more fun in a game run by a good GM?"

 

Well for all your revision, this question still stands out.

 

The question certainly seems to indicate that you feel that in a game run by a good GM the number cruncher will have less fun.

 

Now, perhaps you can view the amount of fun each player in a game having as some how independent of the GM, somehow define this difference in fun in the game as NOT being the result of the GMs choices, somehow the GM is now not responsible for this outcome... i cannot.

 

Hence the apparent differences in what we call "good GMs".

 

A good GM doesn't foist the blame onto his players for their enjoying his game less than others and IMO doesn't just dismiss this as "their fault" or some other silliness.

 

In other words, when the GM like you seems perfectly fine with thinking enjoyment variances because of the PLAYER are the way things are, as opposed to seeing one player enjoying the game more as a failure on the GMs part to run his game fairly and respectfully towards all the players, then there is a disconnect.

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

A "good GM" would set up games with a little bit of everything. Some RP heavy scenes, some combat heavy scenes, and whatever else in between. Basically a balanced campaign. That's a "good GM". I believe that I said that neither Role-play or Roll-play should dominate in a game but remember that both are important and have their purpose. It's about balance so that everyone can enjoy the game. That's what good GMs/GMing is about. Clear enough?

So, if a GM had players who were not all that interested in roleplaying but more interested in having a weekly throw down to blow off steam, then he would be a good GM if he still forced on them about an even split between rping and fighting?

 

in my world, the "good" GM does not just define his campaign based on some arbitrary notion of "evening out" a number of different elements in spite of the players. instead he chooses the flavors and environments anf focuses based on the desires of the players.

 

The players are not "the problem." Its not "the players fault" if the enjoyment levels are noticably different.

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

How the issue surrounding player attitude/mindset got deflected to the validity of what my opinion of a good GM is...I don't really know.

You asked the question about which player would be happier or was it having more fun in a game run by a good Gm and contextually provided the answer to be one of them, not both.

 

That establishes that in your eyes a good GM is not necessarily one who makes sure all his players enjoy the game equally.

 

That raises the question of what you see as a good GM.

 

If you did not want that issue to be raised, then you should not have asked the question.

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

The GM certainly has an integral part to play in helping the game be fun but a player's outlook is just as vital.

So, its the player's fault?

 

If the GM does not provide situations that make that player as happy as the others, its the player who is to be held accountable?

 

The GM is still doing well, is still a good GM even though he doesn't run games which balance out the fun for the players?

 

 

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

To sum things up for anyone who wants to just skip to the end: A player who isn't focused on a single aspect of the game(Roll-play/number crunching) will have more fun in a game run by a good GM(one who creates balanced campaigns).

Alternative viewpoint... when a GM allows a player into his game, he acdepts a responsibility to make the game enjoyable and fair. Part of fairness means not showing favoritism and that means in part making the game AS FUN for every player he accepts as any other. A "good GM" does this, sets this as his goal, and does not fost the blame off on "its the player, he doesn't get it" when that player's enjoyment is less when dealing with the plots, the scenes, the stories the GM provides him.

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

I don't think that it's such a far out notion that a player with a mindset of centered on the mechanical aspects of Hero would get bored/not have fun a lot sooner in a balanced game than a player that has a mindset that is centered on playing a role-playing game.

 

Well, unless you automatically decide the ROLL player does not like the roleplaying but the ROLE player does like the ROLL playing, then it would seem that in a game with even splits both would be as bored by the oppositie's time in the sun, as the other.

 

You seem to keep perpetuating the notion that its the role player who is better off and passing this benefit for him and flaw for the other as THEIR FAULT or THEIR CREDIT.

 

I keep coming back to the notion that a "good GM" does not run a game with these two mythical guys that produces the result you describe.

 

I submit that running a game in which it is accepted thata SELECT SUBSET of the players "getting bored/not having fun" is expected and is even their own fault and not the GM's is not the trademark of a "good GM".

[DynamiteKid]

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

"Guess which player will have more fun in a game run by a good GM?"

 

Well for all your revision, this question still stands out.

 

The question certainly seems to indicate that you feel that in a game run by a good GM the number cruncher will have less fun.

 

Now, perhaps you can view the amount of fun each player in a game having as some how independent of the GM, somehow define this difference in fun in the game as NOT being the result of the GMs choices, somehow the GM is now not responsible for this outcome... i cannot.

 

Hence the apparent differences in what we call "good GMs".

 

A good GM doesn't foist the blame onto his players for their enjoying his game less than others and IMO doesn't just dismiss this as "their fault" or some other silliness.

 

In other words, when the GM like you seems perfectly fine with thinking enjoyment variances because of the PLAYER are the way things are, as opposed to seeing one player enjoying the game more as a failure on the GMs part to run his game fairly and respectfully towards all the players, then there is a disconnect.

 

I understand that you're basically saying that it's not the player's fault for enjoying/not enjoying the game. I agree, it isn't. However, you seem to think that I'm saying that it's all the player's fault. I stated that both the player and the GM are part of the equation of a game in terms of people having fun. I am, however, concentrating on the player aspect in this discussion. First of all, I'm speaking from a pure player's point of view. I've never GMed but I know what I like as a player in a game and that's variety. RP and combat, not just one or the other. That's why a number cruncher wouldn't have more fun in my opinion: Because the number cruncher is concentrated on a single aspect of the game. If the game had just combat or just RP, it wouldn't be a "balanced game" now, would it? It should be assumed that if a GM doesn't "run his game fairly and respectfully towards all the players" that the GM is not a good one. No one likes to be treated unfairly and without respect. That's easy to understand. Since I took that as a given, I only touched upon the GM aspect by saying that a good GM runs balanced campaigns.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

So, if a GM had players who were not all that interested in roleplaying but more interested in having a weekly throw down to blow off steam, then he would be a good GM if he still forced on them about an even split between rping and fighting?

 

in my world, the "good" GM does not just define his campaign based on some arbitrary notion of "evening out" a number of different elements in spite of the players. instead he chooses the flavors and environments anf focuses based on the desires of the players.

 

The players are not "the problem." Its not "the players fault" if the enjoyment levels are noticably different.

 

First of all, no one forces a player to play a game that doesn't appeal to him/her. Second of all, I'd assume that the GM, when inviting players, would say "This is the type of game I'm running." and then the players would be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play in the game. Also, there seems to be an assumption that balance via "RP, combat, and everything else in between" constitutes a static ratio of 40/40/20 out of 100 or something to that affect. There'll be sessions where there's more RP or more combat or whatever. I'm speaking about a campaign in general in terms of balance. Your example of a weekly throwdown has nothing to do with the topic of player attitudes within a balanced campaign. If we were talking about GMs that didn't listen to player opinions/suggestions, then we'd be getting somewhere.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

You asked the question about which player would be happier or was it having more fun in a game run by a good Gm and contextually provided the answer to be one of them, not both.

 

That establishes that in your eyes a good GM is not necessarily one who makes sure all his players enjoy the game equally.

 

That raises the question of what you see as a good GM.

 

If you did not want that issue to be raised, then you should not have asked the question.

 

Now that I've explained what I see as a good GM for the purpose of this discussion, it should be clear. Basically a GM that sets up campaigns with something for everyone. Again, to go further into the subject, we could talk about the GM's treatment to the players but I'm sure that's clear to as to how I and most people feel about how we prefer to be treated.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

 

The GM certainly has an integral part to play in helping the game be fun but a player's outlook is just as vital.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

So, its the player's fault?

 

If the GM does not provide situations that make that player as happy as the others, its the player who is to be held accountable?

 

The GM is still doing well, is still a good GM even though he doesn't run games which balance out the fun for the players?

 

Ah...this is another confusing point. "The GM has an integral part to play in helping the game be fun but a player's outlook is just as vital.". How this leads to meaning that it's the player's fault, I don't know. Part of the problem is probably connected to your foregone conclusion that my view of balance means equal parts of everything all the time, which is incorrect. Again, "a little bit of everything for everyone", emphasis on everyone and this does include fun.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

Alternative viewpoint... when a GM allows a player into his game, he acdepts a responsibility to make the game enjoyable and fair. Part of fairness means not showing favoritism and that means in part making the game AS FUN for every player he accepts as any other. A "good GM" does this, sets this as his goal, and does not fost the blame off on "its the player, he doesn't get it" when that player's enjoyment is less when dealing with the plots, the scenes, the stories the GM provides him.

 

Again, misunderstanding. I never said that there should be favouritetism. You've seemed to latched on to my "anti-number cruncher" opinion and think as if I were to GM, I'd cater to RPers rather than anyone else, thus punishing number crunchers. You're going way too far into this whole issue of GMs. Do I really need to say that a GM needs to consider his/her players needs and balance that with his/her plotline and story goals? It's something else that I would think is a given. Again, I was just touching upon balanced games run by "good" GMs in order to get my point across about the types of players and how they would enjoy/not enjoy games in a certain environment(A balanced game(RP/combat/other stuff).)

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

Well, unless you automatically decide the ROLL player does not like the roleplaying but the ROLE player does like the ROLL playing, then it would seem that in a game with even splits both would be as bored by the oppositie's time in the sun, as the other.

 

You seem to keep perpetuating the notion that its the role player who is better off and passing this benefit for him and flaw for the other as THEIR FAULT or THEIR CREDIT.

 

I keep coming back to the notion that a "good GM" does not run a game with these two mythical guys that produces the result you describe.

 

I submit that running a game in which it is accepted thata SELECT SUBSET of the players "getting bored/not having fun" is expected and is even their own fault and not the GM's is not the trademark of a "good GM".

 

Once again, this conspiracy against roll-players as well as the notion of a blanced game constituting a constant fixed ratio of combat/RP. You assume that my view of a GM involves someone who doesn't make adjustments during the progression of a game when players are not having fun. Let's clear something up. By roll-player, I mean someone who is focused on the mechanical aspects of RPGs. By role-player, I mean someone who is focused on most/all aspects of RPGs. I'll put it this way. We have two people eating dinner. One is a carnivore(roll-player/number cruncher). The other is an omnivore(role-player). If they're both given a balanced meal(game) that has meat, vegetables, etc., who do you think will eat or enjoy their entire meal? That's what I'm talking about. In general, a good cook(GM) will make a balanced meal(game). Now if the carnivore makes a special request for steak(wants a weekly throwdown), then of course the cook will oblige. None of this had anything to do with the GM not complying to player wishes/requests.

 

My point about the whole characteristics debate is that the players(diners in my meal example) are griping about something minor. The characteristics system can use a revamp. It doesn't mean that it's so broken that you have a crippled game. That's where my "two cents", which has grown to several hundred dollars, originated from.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

I'll put it this way. We have two people eating dinner. One is a carnivore(roll-player/number cruncher). The other is an omnivore(role-player). If they're both given a balanced meal(game) that has meat, vegetables, etc., who do you think will eat or enjoy their entire meal?

I think that if the food is good both will eat what they like. its my job as host to make sure both have what they like and sufficient amounts of it.

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

That's what I'm talking about. In general, a good cook(GM) will make a balanced meal(game).

And thats where we part company. If the GM knows his players preferences, he should be preparing a meal to their tastes, not a meal that is considered 'balanced" by some other groups standards.

 

A good cook would have foods for the omnivore as well as foods for the carnivore that they like and get their fill of. he should NOT as a good GM give them what he considers balanced and ACCEPT your premise... that the picky eater should not be as satisfied as the less picky eater. He should not nod and wink and ask questions like "who do you think will enjoy their meal more?" Sound familiar?

 

Since i do cook and have friends who definitely fit the carnivore role, I have frequently had to take time and effort to make sure their needs were covered... separating out some spaghetti sauce before i add the 'shrooms and peppers, fixing plain hamburgers od the side, and the like. If i wasn't going to bother to take those steps to make sure the meal was AS ENJOYABLE for them as for everyone else, i would be doing them a disservice by inviting them. I am a better host than that.

 

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

Now if the carnivore makes a special request for steak(wants a weekly throwdown), then of course the cook will oblige. None of this had anything to do with the GM not complying to player wishes/requests.

If the question of "which will enjoy the game more?" is acdeptable for this good Gm as showing an inequity he is not serving all his players well.

 

 

Originally posted by DynamiteKid

My point about the whole characteristics debate is that the players(diners in my meal example) are griping about something minor.

If its interfering with their enjoyment of the game, even if you consider it balanced, then that is not a minor issue.

 

The currency by which a game is measured is the amount of fun, not how "balanced" it is.

 

At the point that you accept the notion given by your question... that it SHOULD BE EXPECTED that a "balanced" game run by a "good" GM WILL produce inequities in his players enjoyment... thats its somehow acceptable for one player to be getting less fun than another in a GOOD game, then you have lost sight of what a good game or even a GOOD GM is, IMO.

 

A good GM by my syandard tries and succeeds at making his game fun for everyone and does not just accept that his game will be "not as much fun" for players he permits to join.

 

"not as much fun" should be the enemy the GM faces off against, not an ally he takes under his wing.

[DynamiteKid]

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

I think that if the food is good both will eat what they like. its my job as host to make sure both have what they like and sufficient amounts of it.

 

I totally agree. I think the problem with my posting was that I had extreme cases in mind, specifically for the number-cruncher. I wasn't trying to imply that balance means rationing out something like 40/60 of RP/combat consistently. Depending on the needs of the players, the ratio will change. As long as the game suits all of the players, which would mean that it involves more than "just RP" or "just combat" all of the time, that's balanced in my opinion. The type of player I was thinking of is the kind that would not settle for anything but what they wanted out of the game. Even when the GM does their best to provide for each player, sometimes there's bound to be one person who just can't get enough of what they want. That's why I used the "balanced game" as the control factor. In my postings, the balanced game has something for everyone. Add in the GM that will do what he/she can for the players in order to help them enjoy the game. Even then, the only person who wouldn't be able to enjoy it would be the extreme gamer who just wants one thing(combat, rp, whatever.).

 

Here's an example: After finishing a climatic battle with a major villain(Monglor), the heroes begin helping the city clean up the rubble and assist the wounded. Skills such as paramedic are used to just decide at what rate the players can help out. This is an opportunity for a bit of downtime after an intense combat scene. It's also an opportunity for the players to put non-combat skills to use and just get into a bit of soft RP. The exteme player goes, "Enough of this. Let's go out and fight more bad guys.". No consideration was made for the other players' opinions. No attempt at giving an IC reason was made. Even a simple "Hey, Monglor's henchmen are still on the loose!" would suffice and the GM could quickly set things up for a manhunt for the henchment. Basically a player that has nothing else on their mind except for what they want and when they want it. That's what I mean by extreme player attitudes.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

And thats where we part company. If the GM knows his players preferences, he should be preparing a meal to their tastes, not a meal that is considered 'balanced" by some other groups standards.

 

A good cook would have foods for the omnivore as well as foods for the carnivore that they like and get their fill of. he should NOT as a good GM give them what he considers balanced and ACCEPT your premise... that the picky eater should not be as satisfied as the less picky eater. He should not nod and wink and ask questions like "who do you think will enjoy their meal more?" Sound familiar?

 

I'm here with you too. Simplest terms, by balance, I mean possessing elements that all can partake in and enjoy, whether it's RP or combat or just goofy scenes. What I mean about players not having as much fun isn't from the angle of a GM/Cook saying "If you don't like it, tough. See Jimmy over there? He likes what I made/ran. Why can't you?". It's more of a situation where the carnivore player goes, "Why didn't you just make hamburgers? You wasted your time on that vegetable crap. If you didn't, we'd have more hamburgers to eat.". This is what I mean. When a player wants only one or two things to the detriment of other players, I consider it unbalancing. So there are indeed some cases where you, as a GM, can do all in your ability to serve each player the type of gaming aspects they like but still not satisfy the rare minority of an extreme player that only wants one thing. So in that case, the only way to satisfy that player is to basically go, "Okay guys, let's drop everything and just do what carnivore boy wants.". In such a case, wouldn't the other players be the ones that are losing out because of one player's desire? This goes for any situation. If it's all one thing that someone wants all of the time, it's difficult to make everyone else happy too.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

Since i do cook and have friends who definitely fit the carnivore role, I have frequently had to take time and effort to make sure their needs were covered... separating out some spaghetti sauce before i add the 'shrooms and peppers, fixing plain hamburgers od the side, and the like. If i wasn't going to bother to take those steps to make sure the meal was AS ENJOYABLE for them as for everyone else, i would be doing them a disservice by inviting them. I am a better host than that.

 

Same situation here. I see eye to eye and it's just that I didn't make it clear enough that I was talking about the attitude of extreme players/diners.

 

Originally posted by Tesuji

 

If its interfering with their enjoyment of the game, even if you consider it balanced, then that is not a minor issue.

 

The currency by which a game is measured is the amount of fun, not how "balanced" it is.

 

At the point that you accept the notion given by your question... that it SHOULD BE EXPECTED that a "balanced" game run by a "good" GM WILL produce inequities in his players enjoyment... thats its somehow acceptable for one player to be getting less fun than another in a GOOD game, then you have lost sight of what a good game or even a GOOD GM is, IMO.

 

A good GM by my syandard tries and succeeds at making his game fun for everyone and does not just accept that his game will be "not as much fun" for players he permits to join.

 

"not as much fun" should be the enemy the GM faces off against, not an ally he takes under his wing.

 

I agree with all except for one part. I think a GM can be good without successfully making the game fun for everyone and it's for the reason I brought up earlier: Some people just will not be happy unless they get what they want out of a game and have little regard for the other players' wants. Nine out of ten times, you can get a decent group together. It's the one out of ten that an extreme player is involved and well, their the ones with the attitude of "It's my way or the highway.", you know? What can a GM do in that case? Abandon the rest of the group to make the one player happy?

 

There's always going to be players with preferences leaning towards one area more than the others. That's fine. Like you said, Tesuji, GMs see what the players want and need and makes adjustments. The problem lies in players that are total number-crunchers or total role-players(the type that disregard the game mechanics in favour of total immersion) or total whatever. These are the kind of players that can't enjoy a game that isn't concentrated in one area of their preference. A GM can only do so much to provide sustenance to his players. When extreme players are involved, you pretty much have to cross the line to satisfy the few extremists at all the other players' expense. Nothing less than total throwdown sessions or free-form role-play sessions will satisfy the extreme crowds. That's not a bad thing. They just need to sign up with the right games for them. The rest of the players out there, even with their personal likes and dislikes, will be able to have a lot of fun in a game that has something for everyone and that is run by an adaptable GM.

[tesuji]

Ok just a few points to wrap this up and move back on topic...

 

What would a Gm do with a "totally me" case where a player wanted the gme to do one thing he likes all the time... well that would hopefully have come out in the early campaign prep, when he talked to that player or if not, in the first few sessions, a warm up period in my games, where the GM throws the variety of things at them to gauge their reactions. Whether it comes out pre-game ir in warm-up, this goes right back to what I have already said... if the good gm feels he cannot satisfy this player in this game, which he obviously wont be unless all the other players are also total types, then you tell him "sorry its not gonna work. my gming is not good enough to handle this maybe this other Gm would be a possibly more in line with you so sorry but ..." direct the player if possible to another game but do not bring him in.

 

**************************

 

Now, i am much more clear on your initial post. When you were referring to the differences in those who take 17s for character and those who take 18s for points and which one would be having more fun under a good GM, you were actually ONLY referring to the small percentage of "entreme total me" types and not your typical gamer whether he be a take 17 for fun or take 18 for points.

 

Would it be safe to say then that for the majority of those who do efficient out their characters and who are likely to be choosing an 18 over a 17 or a 23 over a 22, that they are not being disucssed at all by your srgument about the various issues of characteristics? You were just lumping the small percentage of total me cases in, right?

 

If so, thats great but I figure way too much space has been spent on this relatively small percentage of players. Perhaps we should return to the discussion of characteristics and scaling and such and try to keep in mind the majority of gamers who do not fit within that "extreme" category.

[Mentor]

Re: Graduated Figured Characteristics

 

Originally posted by Gary

One problem with Hero is that certain breakpoints for characteristics seem to be most efficient. For instance, con should always end in 3 or 8 for maximum efficiency. I was thinking of gradually giving figured characteristics instead of a big burst at the efficiency breakpoints.

 

For Str:

 

1 +1 stun

2 +1 PD

3 +1 stun

4 +1 Rec

5 +1 stun

6 +1 PD

7 +1 stun

8 +1 Rec

9 +1 stun

10 no bonus (except for the +1D6 damage)

 

For Con:

 

1 +1 stun +2 end

2 +1 ED +2 end

3 +1 stun +2 end

4 +1 Rec +2 end

5 +1 stun +2 end

6 +1 ED +2 end

7 +1 stun +2 end

8 +1 Rec +2 end

9 +1 stun +2 end

10 +2 end

 

For Dex:

 

1 +1 Dex rolls

2 +1 OCV or DCV

3 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 2)

4 +1 Dex skill rolls

5 +1 OCV or DCV

6 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 5)

7 +1 Dex rolls

8 +1 OCV or DCV

9 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 8)

10 +1 Dex skill rolls

 

For Int:

 

1 +1 Perception with 1 sense

2 +1 Int skill rolls with up to 3 skills

3 +1 Int rolls (non skills or perception)

4 +1 Perception with all senses (not cumulative with 1)

5 +1 Int skill rolls with all int skills (not cumulative with 2)

 

I was thinking that this system could allow efficient characters with 21 con or 17 int or 22 dex instead of most characters having 23 con, 18 int, and 23 dex.

 

Thoughts?

I guess I fall into the never had a problem with the figured CHA category. On the other hand, your formula has those who want every CHA point to a a fair and even value covered. In our campaign, we have plenty of conventions that precede and/or are a tad different from the FRED strictures so I'm no system purist. I would have no trouble with a PC designed to your system. I don't mean to sound apathetic, but we handpicked the players in our campaign for roleplaying ability and maturity. The average age of the players is Mid 30s (including my 13 year old son) so you get the idea.

[DynamiteKid]

RE: Tesuji

 

Generally, you can find out who in your group of players may not be best suited for your game. Most of the time, you can tell if someone may be better for another game under another GM. Sometimes, it may not be apparent until you actually play a session with them. When that crops up, just as you said, "I'm sorry but it doesn't seem things are going to work out..."

 

Yes, it was all about the extreme players. Efficient for the sake of being efficient and little to do with a character's concept. Whether someone just takes a 17 or an 18, if they both have their character concept in mind during creation, that's great. I have no problem with being efficient when it's not the only reason for choosing characteristics.

 

So yeah, a lot of time has been spent on a topic that doesn't apply to too many players out there. Back to the show...

[PhilFleischmann]

Zornwil said, "When Steve Long says figured characteristics are getting to be more trouble than they are worth, that's an interesting statement.."

 

When and where did Steve Long say that?

 

For the record:

I don't think they're more trouble than they're worth. I think that the people who complain about having to do "so much math" are whiners. The math in HERO does not go beyond anything you learned in the sixth grade - no algebra at all - just simple arithmetic.

I do occasionally have problems with the "granularity," but not so much that I'd want to drastically change the char cost structure.

The only real issues I have are:

* INT (8=12 in game terms, as previously mentioned)

* fights between slightly different normals (a guy with 11 STR should have a slight edge over a guy with 10 STR, all other thing being equal).

 

I have my own house rules to deal with the above two minor problems (which rarely come into play anyway).