The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

And to add to that, I'd probably increase the granularity by reducing or increasing the Character Point cost of Characteristics by .50, instead of a whole 1.

 

So for STR, perhaps a cost break would reduce the cost to 1/2 CP per point of STR (like COM). The bottom line of any Characteristic could be 1/4, so that the next level of cost break after 1/2 would be 1/4.

 

Yeah, my 1/2 orcs got 3 STR for 2 points - I wasn't so stupid to reduce the cost to 0!

 

 

I also tried to find funky stuff to put in the package deals, it's amazing what players will do when they get odd knowledge skills and disadvantages through a package deal. One 1/2 Orc got Reputation: Attends Drum Parties - that gave him the fantasy reputation of being a raver and implied drug use and knowledge while his KS: Tattoo recognition was used extensively in game.

 

Players are most creative when you least expect it!

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

I haven't read the whole thread here, so forgive me if I am repeating anything.

 

The Characteristic adjustments that are part of my racial packages are, "bought as Powers," which means they apply after all normally bought Characteristics for the character and ignore Normal Characteristic Maxima. That means that essentially they increase or decrease the NCM. There is one small advantage/limitation.

 

The other thing I tend to find is that buying such a package...well, gives you a whole package of things. Usually the points received from decreasing a Characteristic are used automatically to buy up something somewhere else in the package. This just seems to somehow discourage the expenditure of more points to completely make up for the lack (yes these points could be obtained by selling back those Characteristics bought up in the package, but usually there is some psychological attachment to the benefits of a package that makes me less willing to give them up, and besides, why did the player then choose the package to begin with?).

 

Another way to discourage this is to simply have a very wide variety of packages. If they player picks for metagaming reasons instead of actually wanting to play the race (s)he chooses, at least there is one that is likely to match his/her desires (and that you can then use in an appropriate fashion to your setting). For example, if the player wants to be really strong but not clumsy he might choose to play a half-orc (reduced Pre and Com, maybe) instead of a treeman. Now you, as GM, have a great excuse to place him in an orc tribe rather than the comfy forest next to some elves, and to send some orc xenophobes against him.

 

And if the player really wants a dexterous treeman or a hearty elf, so what? Let it be done. It's not like it couldn't happen; that's why characters can buy their Characteristics above the Normal Maxima, after all.

 

Remember that in Hero we pay for the benefits--the effectiveness--of the construct, not (for the most part) whether they happen to fit within the concepts of the setting; it is up to the GM to enforce and balance the latter. I think Characteristics work very well along these lines as is. I don't want to go to some vastly different buying scale just because some packages for one setting and the way some particular players are using them are bugging someone (even if that someone happens to be me).

[Duke Bushido]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

We had similar realizations years ago, in our Sci-fi campaign.

 

To combat it, we stopped using 'base 10' characters to build aliens and instead built up from base 0.

 

It's involved, and really not of a lot of interest to anyone not doing it, but it had the nice effect of changing default NCMs, etc, and the prices changed accordingly.

 

Of course, we had to 'break' the figureds, at least for the base template, to make it work right.

 

It led to some interesting things such as races who pay 15 cp to raise DEX, or 2 pts for STR, etc.

 

But I warn anyone wanting to do something like it:

It's a _lot_ of bookkeeping to make a template, and more again when it's time to build on it.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

Her's my idea:

 

Physical Limitation: Reduced Lifting Power (This character has the amount they can lift based on their strength decreased by X).

 

Physical Limitation: Uncoordinated (The character suffers a -1 penalty to all DEX skills and to DCV)

 

etcetera. Throw OUT reduced CHA maxima altogether.

[Mike W]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

Even Characteristic costs work great for Hero. It's designed into the system and you can't really change it without running into balance issues. HERO is designed to be even more generic than GURPS or *shudder* Palladium in many ways. The GM has to enforce "common sense" rules on people. And really, if you apply a Racial Modifier to both the starting and Max values, then it DOES have an effect on the cost. It just doesn't seem to be as much because HERO characters are built on a smaller number of points. Most Fantasy Hero characters start at 150-175 points(in my experience anyway). So having to spend even 3 or 4 extra points on a characteristic has a significant impact. Let's look at STR, which is the cheapest. We'll start with a Human

 

STR 10 Cost 0 PTS. Gets 2 PD, 2 ED, 5 STUN, 2D6 damage 2 REC

 

If that Human spends 5 points on STR, the new figures are:

 

STR 15 Cost 5 points, Gets 3 PD, 3 ED, 8 STUN and 3D6 damage. 3 REC

 

Max for a human:

 

STR 20 Cost 10 points, Gets 4 PD, 4 ED 10 STUN 4D6 damage, 4 REC

 

A Gnome will be given a -2 STR adjustment, so starting value is now 8

 

STR 8 Cost 0 PTS. Gets 2 PD, 2 ED, 2 REC, 4 STUN , 1.5 D6 damage

 

If the Gnome spends 5 points, he only has 13 STR and his stats are:

 

STR 13 Cost 5 points Gets 3 PD, 3 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN, 2.5 D6

 

At Max the Gnome has 18 STR:

 

STR 18 Cost 10 PTS GEts 4 PD, 4 ED, 4 REC 9 STUN, 3.5D6 damage

 

So the gnome loses 1/2 D6 of damage, which is significant at that level, plus gets 1 less STUN and actually loses alittle bit of jumping ability as well. Plus, he can't carry quite as much weight or lift quite as much. It may not seem like a lot, but that two point difference will put him as a slight disadvantage in lots of ways. To buy all that stuff back would cost more than the two points the STR difference would actually cost. And if he spends 2 points to get that STR back, it probably costs him a skill or a point of CON or something else that would be useful. And the cost to get a gnome a 20 STR , the max for humans, is 4 extra points(and probably requires a heck of a justification).

 

But of course, all of this goes out the window if the GM allows him to "just buy it back" simply to negate the penalty. It's part of HERO that the GM must arbitrate many more of these kinds of decisions that affect flavor and play balance. Again, just because you CAN do something in HERO,or any system, doesn't mean you SHOULD. The flavor of the character can still be there, but because HERO isn't as characteristic heavy as other systems where your "raw talent" is far more imporant than your education or training, you have to work a bit more or look a bit harder to see where the effect is.

[zornwil]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

That's the best idea since sliced bread. It may not be as "balanced" as some would like, but I never cared about balance anyway.

 

I'd never have thought of that, Doc. Mad props. I don't know if it's something I'd actually use, but it seems like it could work.

I think you just stated the issue perfectly and why it is as it is, and what you can do to fix it. It's the whole balance thing, and as rjcurrie points out the divorce of SFX. So you get this system. A gnome "only looks like a gnome" IF you say it's a gnome BUT then stat it out not to be one. The point is, a gnome is a gnome IF it's statted correctly, not because the player says "I am a gnome" but then proceeds to only look like one.

 

Although I will add, I've always been interested in exponential growth for chars. I don't think it fits Hero well, personally, largely because of the trickiness of balance. But I'm like you, I sweat balance less, though in this case I haven't really been tempted enough by my interest to change it in Hero, and I suspect it would lead to many other changes (given how it influences STUN and other stuff, which all plays into combat, and consider that attacks are all +5/1DC and so on).

[Sean Waters]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

There's been some really good ideas here about how to represent different races. Here's how I do it;

 

1. I have a selection of chin-wigs I make the players of dwarves and gnomes wear, and

 

2. Players of shorter races have to stand further away.

 

You may like to wax the elf-players, but that can be more trouble than it's worth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm....I like Doc Democracy's idea, but I am cynical enough to think that many players would just take the Michael, and I've been burned enough to know that changing characteristic costs is a tricky proposition. Here's a comproise solution:

 

1. Reduce the NCM breakpoint to 15 for ALL characters. Rule that characteristics should not exceed 20 in a heroic game without permission.

 

2. Keep characteristic costs the same but adjust the NCM for races to 10 for 'low characteristics and 20 for high characteristics (as opposed to the 'new normal' 15. Make sure the plus and minus characteristic costs balance, so, for instance, elves have a 20 NCM for DEX and INT (4 characteristic points) so we need to lose 4 points - say CON and BODY are at 10 NCM: they tend to be hard to hit and tricksy, but once you have one tied down, they are easy to make squeal*.

 

 

 

 

* : you wax them**

 

 

 

** Erm all this talk of tying down elves and waxing them....I don't want any of you reading too much in to this....it's just those cute little pointy ears make me...too much information, huh?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

Hmmm....I like Doc Democracy's idea' date=' but I am cynical enough to think that many players would just take the Michael, and I've been burned enough to know that changing characteristic costs is a tricky proposition. [/quote']

 

Now there goes an experienced GM!

 

Here's a compromise solution:

 

1. Reduce the NCM breakpoint to 15 for ALL characters. Rule that characteristics should not exceed 20 in a heroic game without permission.

 

2. Keep characteristic costs the same but adjust the NCM for races to 10 for 'low characteristics and 20 for high characteristics (as opposed to the 'new normal' 15. Make sure the plus and minus characteristic costs balance, so, for instance, elves have a 20 NCM for DEX and INT (4 characteristic points) so we need to lose 4 points - say CON and BODY are at 10 NCM: they tend to be hard to hit and tricksy, but once you have one tied down, they are easy to make squeal.

 

That's not a bad idea either. You are simply making new NCM templates for the different races. My problem with this in Hero is that the characteristics aren't differentiated enough as it is - tying people down to 15 makes things even worse.

 

If I was going to do this then I think that I'd change the valuation of the skill system so that each point counts - something like CHA - 2. That would mean that Tightrope Walking would start at 8- (26% success rate) with DEX 10 and maxing out at 13- for DEX 15 (84% success rate).

 

Every point of the characteristic then has some value in the skills - which are far more important in a Heroic game.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

That's not a bad idea either. You are simply making new NCM templates for the different races. My problem with this in Hero is that the characteristics aren't differentiated enough as it is - tying people down to 15 makes things even worse.

 

If I was going to do this then I think that I'd change the valuation of the skill system so that each point counts - something like CHA - 2. That would mean that Tightrope Walking would start at 8- (26% success rate) with DEX 10 and maxing out at 13- for DEX 15 (84% success rate).

 

Every point of the characteristic then has some value in the skills - which are far more important in a Heroic game.

 

There was a thought in 4e (IIRC) to:

 

(a) make characreristic boosts ands reductions equal in magnitude (so 4 points gained in some stats was offset with 4 lost in others).

 

( Treat these racial adjustments as not only changing the base stat for that race, but also their NCM breakpoint. Thus, if Elves had +2 DEX, +1 INT and +2 COM, offset by -2 CON and -2 BOD, their NCM for DEX and COM was 22, for INT 21 and for BOD and CON 8.

 

An Elf with 23 CON was therefore much more costly than a Dwarf with 23 CON, motivating races to fall into line with their stereotypes.

 

This would be tougher with races having a lot of bonuses, but you could always change maxima without changing the base. For example, a tough, hardy race with +10 STR and +5 CON might have no penalties to any base stat, but have an NCM breakpoint for DEX set at 15, INT at 17 and Ego at 19. The average member of the race isn't any worse in thgese stats than a human, but the race has a much lower "standard deviation" and don't often get dextrous (especially) as humans of superior agility.

 

Of course, this depends on the feel you want. Many like the fact Hero is not a "classed" game. The traditional D&D type racial modifiers are also a form of class-based system (in fact, some versions of D&D in the past used the two interchangeably - you could be a Human Fighter, Cleric, Thief or Magic-user, or you could be a Dwarf, an Elf, or a Halfling). In a non-classed system such as hero, some of the allure may be the ability to say "Yes, the typical Dwarf is tough, hardy and slow. MY dwarf is agile and nimble, but sickly. Your fighter knows spells and can pick pockets, so quit hassling me for having a non-standard characrer as well."

[rjcurrie]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

Of course' date=' this depends on the feel you want. Many like the fact Hero is not a "classed" game. The traditional D&D type racial modifiers are also a form of class-based system (in fact, some versions of D&D in the past used the two interchangeably - you could be a Human Fighter, Cleric, Thief or Magic-user, or you could be a Dwarf, an Elf, or a Halfling). In a non-classed system such as hero, some of the allure may be the ability to say "Yes, the typical Dwarf is tough, hardy and slow. MY dwarf is agile and nimble, but sickly. Your fighter knows spells and can pick pockets, so quit hassling me for having a non-standard characrer as well."[/quote']

 

Yeah, you pretty much summed up my feeling on this situation. What difference should the race make in the costs paid for characteristics or the characteristics that are chosen? Of course, if a player chooses to play a weak dwarf, then he can expect that dwarf to picked on being inferior by other dwarfs. I would expect derrivations to be reflected in other areas of the character design such as Disadvantages (psych lims, social lims, reputation) or Perks such as repuation if they are way above average.

 

On the characteristic cost, why should my human pay more to have a STR 25 than your Giant when it has exactly the same effect in game terms?

[Super Squirrel]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

A huge problem I've always had with Hero System is the fact that Package Deals don't carry much weight. Say someone who selects an Elf Package Deal gets a +2 to DEX and -2 to CON as part of the package. Well... it doesn't make any difference at all in terms of chargen. The +2 DEX, -2 CON mean nothing, because there is no particular benefit or penalty associated with the adjustments. In either case, the player could resell or buy the DEX or CON values up or down to what they would be for a normal human character.

 

What creates this problem? Because of even Characteristic costs at all levels. Buying 1 point of a characteristic costs the same amount of Character Points, no matter WHAT your current score is. If my DEX is 19, it costs me 3 CP to buy it up to 20. If my DEX is 12, it costs 3 CP to buy it up to 13. And no matter what, NCM remains 20 across the board (for basic characteristics). So characteristic adjustments due to package deals have no meaning.

 

I'm not touting GURPS here, but GURPS Characteristics cost exponentially more the higher you buy them. 10 is the GURPS "average" for all characteristics, and having a 10 is free. Buying a characteristic up to 11 (I'm using fanciful numbers here) might cost 10 points, while buying the same characteristic up to 12 from 11 might cost 15 points, while buying it from 12 to 13 would cost 25 points.

 

This means that characteristic adjustments actually have meaning. Because if you have a -1 racial modifier to STR, you have to PAY to have an average score, and it will always cost you more to reach the same characteristic level as someone without the characteristic adjustment. By the same token, if you have a +1 adjustment to a characteristic, you pay LESS to have the same characteristic level as someone without the adjustment.

 

I think Hero should be amended somehow (if only by fans) to give characteristic adjustments more meaning, and I think exponential characteristic progression is the way to do it. That's just me, though.

I shift NCM based on Package Deals. The Elf has 20's in all Characteristics except for the 18 in CON and the 22 in DEX.

 

The same goes for characters with Physical Limitation: Size

[GAZZA]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

A couple of points:

• Unless I'm being thick, it would seem to me that 4e GURPS has pretty much jumped on the Hero bandwagon as to how this works. That doesn't invalidate the problem, but it does make it a suboptimal example.
  
• If you do change NCM, you have to make it a -0 limitation/+0 advantage (in other words, it costs nothing and is not worth a bonus). This is because you will find that those who have elves (+2 DEX NCM, -2 STR NCM, -2 CON NCM) will "just happen" to have STR 18 DEX 22 CON 18. They have paid 6 points less than a human would for their DEX, and not been disadvantaged by the STR and CON compared to a human. One can argue that only being able to have a STR 18 is itself a disadvantage, but it's not: the player that wanted a higher STR than that will simply not play an elf.
  
• I think the suggestion that these things are simulated without direct characteristic adjustments is the way to go. So a dwarf, instead of having a higher base CON, might have Power Defense against poisons and diseases, and have a social limitation "gruff" rather than a lowered PRE. An elf might have +2 combat levels with a bow and +2 to DEX skills, and a vulnerability to represent greater frailty. In a FH game you can't just buy powers willy-nilly, so racial powers such as these cannot be easily duplicated by other races.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

If you do change NCM, you have to make it a -0 limitation/+0 advantage (in other words, it costs nothing and is not worth a bonus). This is because you will find that those who have elves (+2 DEX NCM, -2 STR NCM, -2 CON NCM) will "just happen" to have STR 18 DEX 22 CON 18. They have paid 6 points less than a human would for their DEX, and not been disadvantaged by the STR and CON compared to a human. One can argue that only being able to have a STR 18 is itself a disadvantage, but it's not: the player that wanted a higher STR than that will simply not play an elf.

 

My response to that would be the opposite of "if something does not limit the character then it is not worth any points".

 

If I was to have a normal NCM of 20 for all the stats and was then to have someone buy NCM that changed stuff and believed those changes would advantage the player picking them then I think I should charge for that.

 

I would have the package deal contain some things that players might not want to deal with as part of their racial package deal. Or I'd call it something other than a package deal.

 

 

Doc

[GAZZA]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

My response to that would be the opposite of "if something does not limit the character then it is not worth any points".

 

If I was to have a normal NCM of 20 for all the stats and was then to have someone buy NCM that changed stuff and believed those changes would advantage the player picking them then I think I should charge for that.

The problem here is that -2 to a NCM (or +2 to an NCM) is not intrinsically worth anything at all. It affects only those who have characteristics at or above the new NCM; for all other characters, it does not benefit or limit them in any way.

 

Many FH characters will have an EGO score (for example) in the 10-14 range. It can therefore be deduced that an NCM adjustment (up or down) to EGO that leaves 14 underneath the threshold will not affect the majority of characters. Conversely, many FH characters will have a high STR (in order to wear armour, if for no other reason), so an NCM adjustment downwards here affects characters in a completely assymmetrical fashion to adjusting it upwards.

 

4th edition package deals made the mistake of making races pay for increased NCMs and giving them points for a reduction in NCM. For example, the same elf might have paid 6 points to have a DEX NCM of 22 and gotten back 1 point for a lowered STR NCM to 18 and 2 points for a lowered CON NCM to 18 (note that the lowered ones only give back half the points). Unfortunately this means that lots of elves are going to have a DEX of 22, because if they have any less than this they are being screwed on points. Likewise they are highly unlikely to have a CON of more than 18, and if they don't, then they've gotten those points for nothing.

 

Unless you're willing to adjudicate these things on a character by character basis, however, that's really the best that can be done - and if you are willing to adjudicate on a character by character basis, then what benefit are you getting from a package deal?

[GAZZA]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

It should be noted, incidentally, that the above argument also can be applied to state that Normal Characteristic Maxima should not be a disadvantage worth points in a game where they are not assumed (eg a supers game). Very few players are going to construct a character that cost more in exceeded NCMs than they get back from the disadvantage.

[Sylevus]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

IMHO the template only significantly matters for normals. If I want to display a normal of that race, I slap on the template and there you go. For PCs in the HERO system, its not as significant except as far as how it compares to the norm for the race. The gnome with an 18 str, would get comparable response from gnomes as the human with 20 str, but when he bebops into Human town thinking he is all that he finds out different. Now, since characters don't exist in a vacuum, and he may have run into a few bull humans before, maybe he works all the harder and walks into town with that 20 str. With shifted normal characteristic maxima he just had to pay more because of the limitation in the package to be competitive with other thick neck ruffians in the game. With the nature of point buy in HERO, he did not have to do it, but if its important to the concept that the toughest gnome on the block does not get out armwrestled by the average human blacksmith, then he will spend it.

 

The point is.. the concept determines the significance. The story highlights the difference. The average GM may not recall that an 18 dex is way above average for a cloddy orc, but a good one will play it up when dealing with other orcs..

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

If you do change NCM, you have to make it a -0 limitation/+0 advantage (in other words, it costs nothing and is not worth a bonus). This is because you will find that those who have elves (+2 DEX NCM, -2 STR NCM, -2 CON NCM) will "just happen" to have STR 18 DEX 22 CON 18. They have paid 6 points less than a human would for their DEX, and not been disadvantaged by the STR and CON compared to a human. One can argue that only being able to have a STR 18 is itself a disadvantage, but it's not: the player that wanted a higher STR than that will simply not play an elf.

 

Let's be realistic - the NCM adjustment approach servies only to motivate playing a character who closer typifies the racial norm. High DEX wioll naturally equate to "elf", nnot "it doesn't matter since it costs the same for everyone".

 

By the same token, however, I could argue that many disadvantages and limitations should have no value since you have chosen to play that character. After all, playing a Devout Cleric or Paladin of the Faith, you will always want to be following the dictates of your religion, right? So why should you get a limitation on all your spells and powers for that - it's the character you wanted to play in the first place!

 

Some existing in-game constructs provide a bonus for building a character a certain way - altering NCM's is another way of doing that. If you want to provide such bonuses, this is probably a decent way of doing it. If you don't, this will serve only to exacerbate that problem, so you won't adopt it.

 

[Why do I see this turning nto the old question of whether an Elemental Control gives too many points when you should have a tight character concept anyway?]

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

[Why do I see this turning nto the old question of whether an Elemental Control gives too many points when you should have a tight character concept anyway?]

 

 

I hope not, it does explore an area that I often simply ignore because I don't see the deal side.

 

It is true that the change in NCM only affects those people who choose to exceed the figure and that an increased NCM only benefits those that want to exceed the normal NCM.

 

I was responding to a comment that changing NCMs would be abused as only those players wanting a higher DEX would choose an elf. Well, if there is some benefit that players want to purchase then they should be allowed to purchase that. If you want an increased NCM perhaps you should be thinking of playing an elf rather than an abnormally dextrous human.

 

I have no problem with making being an elf cost more than being a human for that. If a GM is worried that something will get overused then they make it cost more.

 

I see the other side - a purist Hero perspective would say that the elf/human/dwarf labels come after the mechanics - possibly as a way of justifying breaching NCM limits and thus everyone pays the same for their characteristics.

 

Personally - I like encouraging certain things and if I want the majority of dextrous sentients to be of a certain race then I change the rules to encourage players wanting to be dextrous to choose that race - along with any disadvantages and limitations that being a member of that race might entail. Hero is good at allowing things like racial discrimination to be written right onto the character sheet and gives the GM an obligation to ensure that the disadvantage disadvantages the player.

 

 

Doc

[Mike W]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

I think part of the problem with this discussion is that we are all assuming that there should be some benefit or penalty to the adjusted NCMs - but we're focusing too much on the top end. But how many characters really top out in all their stats - or even most? Quick, how many Human characters have any 20 stats to start, or EVER get more than one or two. Probably not many because it wouldn't fit the character to have your light fencer running around with the same STR as the barbarian or the knight in plate mail. But that fencer probably has a higher DEX than either of the other two. I think if you adjust BOTH the Normal Charactersitc Maxima AND the Starting Value one the character has been created, it will work itself out. Characters who are Elves will generally have slightly higher DEX and lower CON than the others - and will have to give up something if they want the CON back. And again, that little bit of difference affects things in all sorts of ways. 2 DEX probably changes your CVs. -2 STR could affect which weapons you can use - or how much damage you get with each one. And so on.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

There's been some really good ideas here about how to represent different races. Here's how I do it;

 

1. I have a selection of chin-wigs I make the players of dwarves and gnomes wear, and

 

2. Players of shorter races have to stand further away.

 

You may like to wax the elf-players, but that can be more trouble than it's worth.

 

I love it! I'm going to make players of short races walk on their knees when they go to the kitchen for another slice of pizza. Elf-players can go to the batchroom outdoors. Players of goblin-related characters will only be able to speak in sentence fragments, and those of orcs/half-orcs will be forced to drool when they talk. Any failure to adhere to these rules will result in no Experience for the session, and the player will have to sit in the corner with a dunce hat if they wish to earn any next session.

 

Oh, and I may award extra experience to dwarf-players based on the rate at which they can grow a beard (including women, of course!).

[zornwil]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

 

I love it! I'm going to make players of short races walk on their knees when they go to the kitchen for another slice of pizza. Elf-players can go to the batchroom outdoors. Players of goblin-related characters will only be able to speak in sentence fragments, and those of orcs/half-orcs will be forced to drool when they talk. Any failure to adhere to these rules will result in no Experience for the session, and the player will have to sit in the corner with a dunce hat if they wish to earn any next session.

 

Oh, and I may award extra experience to dwarf-players based on the rate at which they can grow a beard (including women, of course!).

The beauty is, if you enforced those rules, and people still played, you'd get the gaming group you deserved...

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

I'm still going to argue that the Package Deal adjusted stats have squat to do with NCM and are only there to represent the Average for the race/package at hand. Just like the Average Human is an 8 across the board.

 

Normal Human Package:

-2 STR, DEX, CON, BODY, INT, PRE, EGO, COM

Total Cost -25pts.

 

have you lowered the NCM of Normal Humans to 18? Why do so for everything else?

 

The Package Deals, especially Racial ones, are just guidelines for a base average.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

I'm still going to argue that the Package Deal adjusted stats have squat to do with NCM and are only there to represent the Average for the race/package at hand. Just like the Average Human is an 8 across the board.

 

Normal Human Package:

-2 STR, DEX, CON, BODY, INT, PRE, EGO, COM

Total Cost -25pts.

 

have you lowered the NCM of Normal Humans to 18? Why do so for everything else?

 

The Package Deals, especially Racial ones, are just guidelines for a base average.

"Average Human," is not a Racial Package. IMO, Racial Packages reflect what a member of a difference race with about the same levels of physical and mental training, development, and excercise has relative to a human with the same, and their natural affinities make them that much higher or lower on the skill than the equivalent human. Therefore, an elf at the standard heroic starting point (all 10s for humans) might have Dex 12 and Con 8. An elf who has natural ability or has trained to be the best among elves is equivalent to a human who has become the best among humans (20s), and has Dex 22, Con 18. The equivalent of an, "average human" (all 8s) among elves would have Dex 10, Con 6.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

Personally - I like encouraging certain things and if I want the majority of dextrous sentients to be of a certain race then I change the rules to encourage players wanting to be dextrous to choose that race

 

I think this is a key point. Changing NCM does not encourage the player to select a high DEX if he has chosen to play an Elvish character. It encourages players wanting high-DEX characters to select the Elvish race.

 

Frankly, you'll know pretty quick if you make one race too sweet a deal - everyone will either play one or whine about how good that race has things. Then you rebalance.

[Silbeg]

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

 

Basically, in Hero there's nothing stopping you from buying a gnome's strength up to Arnold Schwartzenegger level, whereas a GURPS gnome would take a much heavier penalty (due to more intensive training needed) to reach the same point. In Hero, the difference is maybe 1 or 2 points -- points you got back to spend where you wanted to, anyway.

 

In fact, I would argue that there is something that would prevent you from doing this (other than the NCM that has previously mentioned)... common sense.

 

You and your GM should be maintaining genre restrictions in all character designs. Now, if in his game world, it makes sense for a gnome to be able to compete with the strongest of humans in the "World's Strongest Humanoid" contest, then go for it. Otherwise, if gnomes are supposed to be weaker and/or frailer, your GM should be, at minimum, asking you why this gnome has super-human strength!!!

 

That being said, perhaps what you would want to play with is moving around the NCMs for different races (there were rules for this in the older versions of Fantasy Hero, but not having the current edition, I couldn't say if they exist).

 

However, I also agree with whomever stated that the HERO character creation system is designed for balance. While there are many ways to munchkin character generation, generally speaking the points are well balanced, IMHO.