racial package with increased char maxima

[Old Man]

Well if it were an official known policy I would expect most characters to start with 13+ accross the board - isn't that ironic (the 13 thing).

 

But it's not. The thing is, I don't want the rules to artificially alter conception. If a player wants to play a meak and weak character fine. But when the day comes that he wants to be STR 15 instead of 5 I'll tell him "OK, here's what you have to do...first, take this cup and find a dragon..." Well, not really, but you get the idea.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: A Taxing Subject

 

Originally posted by Lucius

Instead of taxation, try regulation. "If you want a primary characteristic above 15, you must have a disadvantage appropriate to that characteristic, such as Distinctive Features: Muscular, or Reputation: Very Agile. If you want any characteristic over the normal "Maximum" (however that is set for the campaign, character type, etc.) you must have disadvantages relating to the characteristic totalling the amount of points you spent on the characteristic." If you are enforcing disadvantage maxima, that should be a deterrent, and of course it is "tweakable" (if everyone still has a STR of 20, try requiring twice the points in disads - if even the Elven acrobat has a Dex of 14, try redefining it as based on points of characteristic, not real points spent, so that a Dex of 20 requires a 10 pt disad, not 30 pts of disads. ) It also has the advantage of being entirely reasonable and realistic.

Yes, that is another valid method. It strikes me as more complicated and less flexible than simply altering costs. I don't see why every exeptional ability must always have some disadvantage associated with it. I don't see that as reasonable and realistic.

 

Another possibility is to link over-the-top characteristics to "packages" of some sort. A rogue can't have a STR of 25 just because he has the points, but a gladiator or wrestler can.

Yes, that's another possibility, even more complicated and inflexible. I realize this is a matter of personal taste in GMing style, but I like to give my players as much freedom as possible within my genre conventions and game world, especially when it means less work for me as the GM. I'm busy creating the world - monsters, NPCs, etc. The last thing I need is to create a huge collection of packages for every type of character a player might want. I don't see any reason why a rogue can't have a 25 STR, nor why every character should have to have a "package" and a one-word summary of who he is and what his abilities are, like "rogue" or "gladiator." It's too B&D for me.

 

But of course, the simplest and best solution is to toss out the whole mess and say "No Hobs over STR 10!" or "No Hobs over STR 10 unless you give me a REAL GOOD REASON"

That may be the simplest, but I disagree that it's the best solution. The "taxation" or "regulation" is to establish the various genre conventions (for the genre, the setting, or individual cultures and races), no to force to PC's to be the typical examples of their kind. After all, the typical Hobbit stays at home and doesn't go adventuring at all! But then again, they don't get books written about them.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

But when the day comes that he wants to be STR 15 instead of 5 I'll tell him "OK, here's what you have to do...first, take this cup and find a dragon..." Well, not really, but you get the idea.

 

I just have to point out that the way figured stats work, you'll almost never see anyone buy their STR down below 10. You just don't get enough points back for the damage it does to your character.

 

To go back on topic, I have known FH campaigns to set limits on points spent on stats vs. skills--the usual restriction is that no more than 50% of points may be spent on stats during character creation. I imagine you'd have to do something like this to make your stat increase guideline have less of an effect on new character creation.

 

I'm inclined to say that part of the problem is that certain stats are just too cheap. If you had three XP to spend, would you increase your STR by 3, or buy Seduction skill? The other half of the problem is that Hero has no system for spending XP. It's all just generic points, with all the pros and cons that implies.

[Markdoc]

I agree with the above posts: saying "No 25 STR thieves" immediately rules out someone who wants to play a Fafhrd- or Conan-inspired character.

 

Arbitrarily setting limits is for sure the easiest route - in my opinion it is also the worst (both as a player and as a GM). That's not to say a game must have no limits. But the limits have to be there for a campaign-defining reason. Is "My father got this drink from the Ents, which made him really big and strong" a good reason for having a 13 STR hobbit? If not, what is?

 

As for the STR 8 mage wanting to double his STR, I require all experience buys to be justified. If he want to improve his diet and spend time working out, then fine. If the brawny fighter wants to learn Pelorian epic poetry - then he'll have to find a Pelorian - or a court poet.

 

I don't feel it is up to me to define how the player defines his character in response to my GM'ing style. If you want puny mages, stop throwing situations at them where STR plays a really big role. If you WANT your fighter to acquire something other than CSLs than give them situations where those other skills are essential...

 

Interesting - thinking about it, in real life as well as games, I am in favour of *encouraging* the behaviour you want, rather than mandating it. The latter approach in both cases tends to encourage a "get around the rules" mentality

 

Cheers,Mark

[Lucius]

The Perennial Topic of Characteristic Maxima

 

First of all - complicated and inflexible? How can anything seem "complicated and inflexible" compared to the Characteristic Max rules? And under the Current Dispensation, it is more inflexible than ever. In spite of what we have been saying about treating species characteristics as "powers" and doing an end run around the rule, that is very much a "house rules" thing and Mr. Long has specifically stated that, officially, "Racial Characteristics" are not powers for the purpose of ignoring the Characteristic Max.

 

And complicated - Gods, this rule gives rise to ENDLESS complications. Anyone who has been around these boards as long as I have knows that. I don't know how many times some aspect of the problem has come up for discussion - it is that very fact that finally convinced me to apply Occam's razor and say we are just plain better off without this needless complication in an already very complicated game. It accomplishes nothing that could not be better and more simply done without it.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

I agree with the above posts: saying "No 25 STR thieves" immediately rules out someone who wants to play a Fafhrd- or Conan-inspired character.

 

Uh, I can't see how. Why do you say that? Fafhrd and Conan are barbarians, and large men. Saying "thief" does not begin to sum up their whole characters - nor does it completely sum up any decent character.

My point is that a "rogue" (to use the term I actually used) should not have a STR of 25 "just because." If he is a barbarian like Fafhrd (a character I love by the way, pity he is not as popular as Conan) or a giant of a bandit like Little John, that is one thing. But if the STR seems to bear no relevance to the character concept, that is another.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Arbitrarily setting limits is for sure the easiest route - in my opinion it is also the worst (both as a player and as a GM). That's not to say a game must have no limits. But the limits have to be there for a campaign-defining reason.

 

Naturally. As opposed to say, the arbitrary "Every point of characteristic over 20 costs double" which has nothing whatsoever to do with any campaign-defining reasons.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Is "My father got this drink from the Ents, which made him really big and strong" a good reason for having a 13 STR hobbit?

 

Yes. Assuming Ents and Entwine are acceptable parts of the campaign, which they often would be if there are Hobbits.

 

Were you thinking for some reason it wouldn't be?

 

It would be a great reason, one giving some depth to the character and his background. Even something I could make use of in the game.

 

"But why does it have to be ME? Can't the Pixies find someone else they trust for this quest?"

The Druid looks bemused and says "I don't understand it either. They say they trust you because you smell like a tree."

 

OR

 

"Hrnm, yes, hmm, I remember you. Not long ago. I took you for an orc. "

"Uh...that was my father sir, he ...told me about you...but I didn't think you'd be so BIG"

"hmm, I remember...your father, you say? But how can that be? It has not been long, at all, at all...."

 

But if a Hobbit's reason for having a STR of 13 is just to get an extra damage class with a weapon, that doesn't add much to the campaign.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

As for the STR 8 mage wanting to double his STR, I require all experience buys to be justified.

 

Great, wonderful, terrific. I sincerely approve. And this is something you can do, and should do, with or without a Normal Characteristic Maxima - so what does the Normal Characteristic Max get you?

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

If he want to improve his diet and spend time working out, then fine. If the brawny fighter wants to learn Pelorian epic poetry - then he'll have to find a Pelorian - or a court poet.

 

I don't feel it is up to me to define how the player defines his character in response to my GM'ing style. If you want puny mages, stop throwing situations at them where STR plays a really big role. If you WANT your fighter to acquire something other than CSLs than give them situations where those other skills are essential...

 

Excellent advice.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Interesting - thinking about it, in real life as well as games, I am in favour of *encouraging* the behaviour you want, rather than mandating it. The latter approach in both cases tends to encourage a "get around the rules" mentality

 

Cheers,Mark

 

A "get around the rules" mentality. Like the end-run we have been describing about defining racial characteristics as "powers."

 

I still maintain, the simplest and best solution is to set certain limits for specific species and say "no going over, without a good justification." That DISCOURAGES excessively high scores without FORBIDDING them. And even if a powergamer's real motive is to squeeze out more CV or another damage class, he is being made to contribute something else to the game besides numbers crunching when he thinks up the justification.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What do you mean, I have to justify having Palindromedary Riding skill?

[Lucius]

The Perennial Topic of Characteristic Maxima

 

First of all - complicated and inflexible? How can anything seem "complicated and inflexible" compared to the Characteristic Max rules? And under the Current Dispensation, it is more inflexible than ever. In spite of what we have been saying about treating species characteristics as "powers" and doing an end run around the rule, that is very much a "house rules" thing and Mr. Long has specifically stated that, officially, "Racial Characteristics" are not powers for the purpose of ignoring the Characteristic Max.

 

And complicated - Gods, this rule gives rise to ENDLESS complications. Anyone who has been around these boards as long as I have knows that. I don't know how many times some aspect of the problem has come up for discussion - it is that very fact that finally convinced me to apply Occam's razor and say we are just plain better off without this needless complication in an already very complicated game. It accomplishes nothing that could not be better and more simply done without it.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

I agree with the above posts: saying "No 25 STR thieves" immediately rules out someone who wants to play a Fafhrd- or Conan-inspired character.

 

Uh, I can't see how. Why do you say that? Fafhrd and Conan are barbarians, and large men. Saying "thief" does not begin to sum up their whole characters - nor does it completely sum up any decent character.

My point is that a "rogue" (to use the term I actually used) should not have a STR of 25 "just because." If he is a barbarian like Fafhrd (a character I love by the way, pity he is not as popular as Conan) or a giant of a bandit like Little John, that is one thing. But if the STR seems to bear no relevance to the character concept, that is another.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Arbitrarily setting limits is for sure the easiest route - in my opinion it is also the worst (both as a player and as a GM). That's not to say a game must have no limits. But the limits have to be there for a campaign-defining reason.

 

Naturally. As opposed to say, the arbitrary "Every point of characteristic over 20 costs double" which has nothing whatsoever to do with any campaign-defining reasons.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Is "My father got this drink from the Ents, which made him really big and strong" a good reason for having a 13 STR hobbit?

 

Yes. Assuming Ents and Entwine are acceptable parts of the campaign, which they often would be if there are Hobbits.

 

Were you thinking for some reason it wouldn't be?

 

It would be a great reason, one giving some depth to the character and his background. Even something I could make use of in the game.

 

"But why does it have to be ME? Can't the Pixies find someone else they trust for this quest?"

The Druid looks bemused and says "I don't understand it either. They say they trust you because you smell like a tree."

 

OR

 

"Hrnm, yes, hmm, I remember you. Not long ago. I took you for an orc. "

"Uh...that was my father sir, he ...told me about you...but I didn't think you'd be so BIG"

"hmm, I remember...your father, you say? But how can that be? It has not been long, at all, at all...."

 

But if a Hobbit's reason for having a STR of 13 is just to get an extra damage class with a weapon, that doesn't add much to the campaign.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

As for the STR 8 mage wanting to double his STR, I require all experience buys to be justified.

 

Great, wonderful, terrific. I sincerely approve. And this is something you can do, and should do, with or without a Normal Characteristic Maxima - so what does the Normal Characteristic Max get you?

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

If he want to improve his diet and spend time working out, then fine. If the brawny fighter wants to learn Pelorian epic poetry - then he'll have to find a Pelorian - or a court poet.

 

I don't feel it is up to me to define how the player defines his character in response to my GM'ing style. If you want puny mages, stop throwing situations at them where STR plays a really big role. If you WANT your fighter to acquire something other than CSLs than give them situations where those other skills are essential...

 

Excellent advice.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Interesting - thinking about it, in real life as well as games, I am in favour of *encouraging* the behaviour you want, rather than mandating it. The latter approach in both cases tends to encourage a "get around the rules" mentality

 

Cheers,Mark

 

A "get around the rules" mentality. Like the end-run we have been describing about defining racial characteristics as "powers."

 

I still maintain, the simplest and best solution is to set certain limits for specific species and say "no going over, without a good justification." That DISCOURAGES excessively high scores without FORBIDDING them. And even if a powergamer's real motive is to squeeze out more CV or another damage class, he is being made to contribute something else to the game besides numbers crunching when he thinks up the justification.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What do you mean, I have to justify having Palindromedary Riding skill?

[AnotherSkip]

Look NCM is a problem. Steve in as much admits its a problem.

 

NCM is decent for supers but it causes problems just about everywhere else.

 

Giants are a good excample

to build an ordinary large man (as a type of giant) costs 51 points. PER THE BEASTIARY.

 

When you throw in NCM it actually costs 51 + 5 for Strength over NCM, + 4 for running NCM= 60 points.

 

Or do you ignore the NCM limts for some obscure/unstated reason?

does Inherent Override the NCM limitation?

 

and why does not NCM apply to horses and warhorses? After all they are a "race" in many worlds with NCM. Yet they blatantly defy the rules of cost. (if you happen to wonder where this is going go read Mercedes Lackey)

 

Personally I disagree with Steve's decision that "NCM is a Genre thing".

 

It is a Gm decision.

 

adjust as you see fit and for heavens sake try to be fair.

 

Steven Long can no more tell me how to run my game than anyone else. Pretending otherwise is silly.

[Tasha]

Just give guidelines

 

I sometimes really hate this "you have to justify everything your character has with story" mentality that some people have. Hell, if I want to run a 20 str Hobbit Barbarian. If it's fun, why not? Sure it can be fun to come up with excuses for excessive stats, but it shouldn't be required. Not everyone likes that style of play.

 

BTW many people come to this game system from D&D where at 1st level you can have a 16 str Halfling/hobbit. I always tell my players that I love Hero because we can make any kind of character we want. Here is one way that we artificially limit that creativity. Just let the player have fun making the character she has always wanted ot play.

 

I just usually give guidelines with the average and the highest ever seen for that race. If someone wants to play a high stat character, fine. Just make sure that the character has some skills or she will feel really left out when we are not fighting something. If there is a skill for it and your haven't purchased it, it doesn't matter how high your stat is. Your roll is 8- at best

 

I have always run with NCM, but keeping the points given at character creation and experience low you shouldn't have much of a problem with running without.

 

GM participation in character creation is the best way to prevent unbalanced characters from slipping through.

 

Tasha

[Old Man]

Re: Just give guidelines

 

Originally posted by Tasha

I sometimes really hate this "you have to justify everything your character has with story" mentality that some people have. Hell, if I want to run a 20 str Hobbit Barbarian. If it's fun, why not? Sure it can be fun to come up with excuses for excessive stats, but it shouldn't be required. Not everyone likes that style of play.

 

To each his own, but what you describe sounds a lot more like a Champions game with a thin fantasy veneer than a FH campaign. The heroism of the usual fantasy hero stems more from wits and bravery than from some freak accident that makes them Like Unto Gods when compared with their peers.

 

To put it another way, the 'feel' of a fantasy campaign includes only a few heroic 'origins'--the ability to work spells, being a member of a neat demihuman race, divine providence, or just being really skilled at a few things. When you start combining these you start breaking out of the milieu--Frodo is believable as a hardheaded halfling, but if he were a hardheaded halfling with the strength of four Men because he happened to drink an ent potion once, you are fraying the rope from which you are suspending my disbelief.

 

To say nothing of the opportunities afforded to the munchkin. Hmm, if I run a halfling I get an extra 3 DCV, and I can still make him 20 STR such that my damage is as high as it can be before I run into the NCM penalties...

[cutsleeve]

what happened to character concept

 

i have always believed that ncm was a good means of simulating the more normal range of humans. but if someone wants to create a character with a higher strength because the concept for his character fine but that strength is gonna cost something. Even in the conventions of sword and sorcery, high fantasy, and many other genre's of fantasy there are a few characters that have higher then normal abilities. Its all character concept thats all sometimes a 25 strength more defines a strong character then just a 20. but that character pays for having that statistic.

 

Now as far as the arguement about elves with 30 strength and ogres with 30 dexs well those characters pay for those statistics and because theyre paying a higher then normal amount for a higher then normal amount they cant use those points in other areas that might be vital to their survival. this is also character concept who says that a person cant have a character who is a unnaturally strong elf who might have been cursed by a vain and jealous ancient god who made them exceptionally strong but nearly inhumanly violent and destructive with animalistic rage and the glee of a child. but this elf has tried to break away from that and has tried to make himself civilised so he can once again regain his immortality in the kingdom of the elves. i can also extrapolate on how the ogre managed to get a 30 dex. which is why its all character concept driven and ncm is the tool for balancing the characters out.

 

on another not of using powers and items to gain strength that higher then ncm. this seems logical to me even in classic fantasy (barring those unique and unnusually abilitied characters) most characters cannot gain statistics higher then normal levels without spells or magic items or some other more obscure way. hence a lil rule tat says a character cant have stats higher then ncm if they suffer under that restriction except through powers and items.

 

hope all that made sense. Basically its all character concept and what the GM (aka: the guy you have to suck up to) will allow.

[Tasha]

Re: Re: Just give guidelines

 

Originally posted by Old Man

To each his own, but what you describe sounds a lot more like a Champions game with a thin fantasy veneer than a FH campaign. The heroism of the usual fantasy hero stems more from wits and bravery than from some freak accident that makes them Like Unto Gods when compared with their peers.

 

To put it another way, the 'feel' of a fantasy campaign includes only a few heroic 'origins'--the ability to work spells, being a member of a neat demihuman race, divine providence, or just being really skilled at a few things. When you start combining these you start breaking out of the milieu--Frodo is believable as a hardheaded halfling, but if he were a hardheaded halfling with the strength of four Men because he happened to drink an ent potion once, you are fraying the rope from which you are suspending my disbelief.

 

To say nothing of the opportunities afforded to the munchkin. Hmm, if I run a halfling I get an extra 3 DCV, and I can still make him 20 STR such that my damage is as high as it can be before I run into the NCM penalties...

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that there are many different approaches to fantasy. My FH games have never felt like champions games set in a low tech past with magic. Again, many players are coming into this game from playing D&D. That is nothing new D&D is the breeding ground for Hero players. I have found however that it is quite a culture shock to go from a game that will let you have your pick from hundreds of spells that you can cast a few times a day to a Game system that allows you a few spells that you can cast as often as you have end. Now with 3rd Ed D&D you have players that want to have their characters do all sort of wild things. So, I am finding it more interesting to go with that flow. I also like to make characters that break stereotypes. So, I let my players have fun and blaze new trails.

 

Even without NCM penalties, that dex 20/str 20 halfling will have spent a lot of points on her stats. That is 6-7 points that they could have spent on skills. I tend to run a talking heads heavy game. There is combat, but I really enjoy character interactions. Having a deep skill list is a real plus in my games. Also, if I had a player who wanted to run a character like that, I would talk to them and see if they would pick one niche or the other. I think that Speed and Dex inflation comes more from the GM not making sure that the players have good solid niches than anything else. Unusual characters make it easy to come up with a hook early in the character's life. If I have the 30 str/20 int Ogre, what would she be like. How would others have treated her when she was young?

 

I still say having good guidelines are better than NCM. I would rather have that than concrete limits with penalties for going over the limit. I would like to think that my players are grown up enough to make decent characters that are fairly balanced. They also know that I look over every character and will strongly suggest changes that need to be made to an unbalanced character.

 

There has always been an issue with races and NCM. The bestiary doesn't make the animals take NCM. It seems like a strange thing to make a PC Awakened Dire Wolf take NCM when the NPC one will not. It is consistancy, that is why the 5th edition was originally needed. To provide a consistancy to the rules that was not really there in 4th edition. It is really like the "Special" rule on healing as it applies to Regeneration. I hate exceptions, they make for a more confusing rule set.

 

Tasha

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: The Perennial Topic of Characteristic Maxima

 

Originally posted by Lucius

First of all - complicated and inflexible? How can anything seem "complicated and inflexible" compared to the Characteristic Max rules? And under the Current Dispensation, it is more inflexible than ever.

"All Char's over 20 cost double." How is that complicated? One simple sentence to describe the rule. It still allows characteristics to go over 20 if a player wants. How is that inflexible?

In spite of what we have been saying about treating species characteristics as "powers" and doing an end run around the rule, that is very much a "house rules" thing and Mr. Long has specifically stated that, officially, "Racial Characteristics" are not powers for the purpose of ignoring the Characteristic Max.

I'm not sure who's been saying this. I haven't. I do not allow "my high stats are really powers" weasels.

 

And complicated - Gods, this rule gives rise to ENDLESS complications. Anyone who has been around these boards as long as I have knows that.

Could you give us an example? I've been around these boards for quite some time, and I don't know of any.

 

Naturally. As opposed to say, the arbitrary "Every point of characteristic over 20 costs double" which has nothing whatsoever to do with any campaign-defining reasons.

Of course it does! That's the entire reason detre for the NCM rule! Haven't you read the posts here? I want my game to be flexible: PCs can have 25 STR if they want; but I want such stats to be rare, so I charge them extra, so only the ones who really want it will buy it. It ensures the consistancy of the genre.

[Lucius]

Re: Re: The Perennial Topic of Characteristic Maxima

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

"All Char's over 20 cost double." How is that complicated? One simple sentence to describe the rule.

 

Well for one thing - it's not one simple sentence to describe the rule. It's not "all Chars over 20 cost double." It's all Primary Characteristics over 20 cost double, all figured characteristics over certain defined points, and also double cost for the Powers of Running and Swimming over a certain point.

 

You are also overlooking "except when your character takes the Age disadvantage, in which case some maxima go up and somee go down."

 

Its also complicated by the "Characteristics as Powers" issue, although admittedly perhaps less complicated than it used to be (see below.)

 

And finally, it is complicated by the fact that some people, at least, would like to play fantasy or science fiction games with rules that make some kind of rational sense for nonhuman characters.

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

It still allows characteristics to go over 20 if a player wants. How is that inflexible?

 

In every other case of something that should be restricted for the same of a campaign - for Active Points of powers, Damage Class of attacks, Defenses, Offensive or Defensive Combat Value, etc - the rulesbook ___suggests____ certain ___guidelines____ and gives advice about how they work together - allow too much Defense as compared to Damage and you can get "untouchable" characters, for example - but leaves it up the Game Operations Director to decide exactly where to set limits and how to enforce them for any given game.

 

On the other hand, the Characteristic Maxima rule is like an on/off switch - it is assumed that if it applies, it applies the same in any game to which it does apply. Even a superhero game, assuming the character took the disadvantage.

 

That's why I call it "inflexible." It is certainly less flexible than any of the alternatives I suggested, especially the one I consider ideal - "These are the recommended limits for various species/races/whatever, don't exceed them without a good reason."

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

I'm not sure who's been saying this. I haven't. I do not allow "my high stats are really powers" weasels.

 

When is a Characteristic a Power? When the guy running the game says it is. Has it occurred to you that without the NCM rule, the question would almost never arise?

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Could you give us an example? I've been around these boards for quite some time, and I don't know of any.

 

Hmm. SO if I use the quote function, it does not include YOU quoting ME originally. I should just go back to cutting/pasting into Word to compose, and transfering back here.

 

This IS an example. Nor is this the first time this particular aspect has been raised. And I remember a LOT of discussion about the "Characteristics as Powers" issue before the Current Dispensation clarified that particular issue, at least in terms of officially saying "Characteristics as Powers always cost normally." But again, if Characteristics ALWAYS cost normally, there wouldn't be an issue here.

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Of course it does! That's the entire reason detre for the NCM rule! Haven't you read the posts here? I want my game to be flexible: PCs can have 25 STR if they want; but I want such stats to be rare, so I charge them extra, so only the ones who really want it will buy it. It ensures the consistancy of the genre.

 

Right. One rule for all nonsuperheroic games ensures the consistency of all genres.

 

It ensures that a 20 yr old man and a 40 yr old man have different rules for characteristics, but a Pixie and an Ogre have the same rules.

 

It ensures that my Ogre pays double for exceptional STR, CON, and perhaps BOD, but your Half-Elf with the Age disad and lots of perception Skills and Powers and EGO based Glamour magick does not pay double for an EGO and INT up to 30.

 

It ensures that my alien from a high gravity planet pays double for high STR , PD, and ED and your psionic with an Age disad does not pay double for high EGO, INT, and PRE.

 

It ensures that my PI character in a lowlevel crimefighting campaign where the most imressive thug he faces probably has PD 6, CON 18, STUN 30, has the same rules for Max STR as my barbarian character in a Hyborian Age game where he regularly fights monsters with PD 10 or 12, CON 25+, and STUN of maybe 50.

 

It ensures that my wizard's energy blast spell, his main attack, costs the same amount per die no matter how many dice I buy it up to, but my gladiator character who specializes in unarmed combat, after buying some martial arts and STR up to 20, must pay twice as much for more dice of HIS main attack, even if his damage classes are still short of the campaign limit.

 

It ensures that the "I have superhuman CON and PRE because I wear the enchanted Sash of Endurance and the Royal Helm" (Focus limitations, in game terms) character pays half as much as the "I have superhuman STR and PRE because I'm a 4 meter

tall Giant" character. Actually less than half, with the limitation. Of course, a Giant COULD take the limitation "Visible" since he is OBVIOUSLY gigantic...

 

You want your game to be flexible. So do we all, I'm sure. But the Normal Characteristic Max rule does not help you have a more flexible game. What you want, of course, is for the game to be flexible but not too flexible - as you put it, you want that "only the ones that really want it wil buy it," you want superior Characteristics to be rare but not impossible. That is easily done - "These are the limits, you can exceed them only with justification." Someone who "really wants" the high Characteristic, or a character concept that implies high Characteristics, will have or invent a justification, adding some depth to the character and/or the game with little effort on your part. Somone who wants a DEX 21 just to get the OCV break, doesn't get to do that - whereas he COULD just by paying an extra 3 pts under the NCM rule.

 

At the risk of repeating myself - eliminating the Normal Characteristic Max rule will streamline and simplify the rules, make them fairer, and takes absolutely ZIP from the game. YOU DON'T LOSE ANYTHING. Where you set the limit and how you enforce it becomes just like the campaign limit on active points - you either say "That's the limit, that's it" or "That's the limit, exceptions judged on a case by case basis."

 

Like I said before, if it were such a good idea, why wouldn't it be applied to everything else?

 

Yes, I have read the posts - all the posts in this threads, and all the posts in previous threads touching on the topic. THAT is WHY I have come to this position - which is not the position I started with. I have never seen anyone show a single purpose served by this rule that is not just as well served without it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

As the palindromedary would put it, this cud's been well-chewed.

[cutsleeve]

: P

 

ok you say that an ogre should get a break on str con and pd and ed because he is an ogre. well what if i wanna make a character who is an amberite he should get breaks on pretty much all the stats and one of them should be half cost. by your reconing. now the ogre who you said should buy stregth as obvious because he's obviously big theres a power for that its called growth. ogre get big ogre get strong makes sense to me pixie get small pixie get a hell of alot harder to hit. and those are powers.

 

no racial or species driven character concept should give people a break on ncm. all characters pay the same amount for those higher the ncm points thats what balances a game that includes ncm as a global constant. if your character is being created as a half klingon half ogre from Haxor 1347 that doesnt mean he should just up and get an arbitrary benny on his stats or a higher maxima he is being built on a character concept and has to abide by the same rules that other races abide by. thats all it is a charcter concept and you should be thinking how can i do this best within the rules.

 

Hero system lets you play any character in any place, time, universe, ect. some people just have a habit of trying to get those few extra points for something (-1/4 cannot be used while asleep) As far as ncm not making sense for seperate races/species it does because all races are build from the same point base and the same amount of points are spent by each on the same thing that doesnt mean a Dorkian cant have a strength 30 he just has to pay for it like all the other races pay for their high stuff thats how you balance it by making it all equal. going out and raising maxima does not equalize the races more it causes problems in balancing.

[xanatos]

theres a power for that its called growth

Note that you shouldn't use Growth for ogres! This is one of those 4th ed. things that have been changed.

 

The truth is that we should look at what NCM is...

Is it the ceiling of human maxima (so is it an instrument to define how a top-human is made and why it's so rare) or is it a a campaign balancer? Probably the second, perhaps both.

First we have to thank the gods because the cost for the attributes is linear... Now think if the cost had been non-linear (1 point from 10 to 11, 2 from 11 to 12, 3 from 12 to 13 for example). Now think how many ways to "optimize" attribute we would have... I buy a ring that gives me a +1 STR, a pair of boots that gives me a +1 STR, I have +1 STR because I'm from a beautiful race, and a +1 STR because my father was blessed... And I buy these 4x+1 separately, because I'm a munchkin! Now... At least we only have the problem of NCM!

NCM works very well in a human-centered nonmagical world, or in a human-centered low power fantasy setting, where you can't buy attributes as powers (or at least they are very very very rare) where everyone has the same potential. In this genre NCM is both a campaign balancer and a human ceiling.

In a standard Fantasy Setting it's only a play balancer.

In a high-powered Fantasy Setting it's a false play balancer (you think that you gain play balance, but you aren't gaining anything, because players have learned that they can buy attributes as powers and then they can tell you a very beautiful history of faeries and ents)

[PhilFleischmann]

I think we're going in circles here. I'll see if I can clarify.

 

Originally posted by Lucius

And finally, it is complicated by the fact that some people, at least, would like to play fantasy or science fiction games with rules that make some kind of rational sense for nonhuman characters.

IMO, the NCM rule is not for making sense for non-human characters. It's for balancing PC's with one another. If I'm running a campaign where all the PC's are Ogres, I'd set the NCM for STR at 30 or so. If I was running a campaign where players can be anything from 50 STR storm giants to 50 CON dragons, to 50 EGO angels, then I wouldn't use NCM at all. Perhaps when I said "enforcing genre conventions" I should have said, "subgenre conventions." If I'm running a "standard" fantasy campaign where the PC's are all more-or-less "human" (humanoid, demi-human, whatever you want to call them), then yes, I'll use NCM, because I wnat them to be comparable to the normal people they'll come into contact with. If one player in the party wants to be an ogre, he'll have to pay double for his exceptional STR, not because it makes sense for ogres to be merely as strong as humans, but because of fairness compared to the other players. I want 30 STR ogres adventuring with humans and elves to be at least as rare as 30 STR barbarians.

 

On the other hand, the Characteristic Maxima rule is like an on/off switch - it is assumed that if it applies, it applies the same in any game to which it does apply. Even a superhero game, assuming the character took the disadvantage.

I do not assume that at all. I do not use it that way. I've said as much. I even suggested a mutli-tiered NCM that could be used in some cases, e.g., double after 20, triple after 30. I've never used such a system myself, but I would if I thought it would work for a particular campaign I was running.

 

IIRC, GURPS uses such a non-linear stat system, as does D&D (when you use the "buying stats" method), and probably many other game systems use it as well.

 

That's why I call it "inflexible." It is certainly less flexible than any of the alternatives I suggested, especially the one I consider ideal - "These are the recommended limits for various species/races/whatever, don't exceed them without a good reason."

Perhaps this is where I don't understand you. I am suspicious of vague notions like "good reason." What exactly is a good reason? Anyone can come up with a reason why their character should have a 30 STR. It's easy: "I'm an ogre." "I drank an Ent potion." "I'm Conan." "I'm half-giant." "I've been blessed by the gods."

 

When is a Characteristic a Power?

This is a separate (and significant) discussion in itself. IMO, the answer is, "almost never." Extra STR for any of the above reasons is not a power if I'm the GM.

[AnotherSkip]

I think part of the problem is with Steve.

 

now then don't get me wrong im a Fan of What Steve and 5th has Done for this system, but honestly everyone has their blind spots and I think this is Steves.

 

Steve Admits there is a problem.

 

Steve has not officially _solved_ this problem. Though he has had a few opportunities to do so.

 

We as gamers have come up with a temporary solution to increased characteristics problem presented by NCM. IF I AS A GM SET THE RACIAL STAT INCREASES AS POWERS IT IS MY DECISION AS A GM. Im not talking about +10 Str im talking about +/-1-5 and "negative powers" to boot. All under the purview and decision making of the Gm

 

"IMO, the NCM rule is not for making sense for non-human characters. It's for balancing PC's with one another".-PhilFleischmann

 

I happen to disagree with you on this particular quote for several reasons.

I do have as possible PC characters Non-human characters. I agree they should be balanced with other Pc's but they should be _different_

than what Joe Schmoe can do. If i have a Character who has the shape of a horse for _whatever_ reason I feel that His NCM should be no different than any other horse. Not spending a buttload of points (that any joe Schmoe with the points could do _anyways_ if allowed) so that he costs twice as much as a horse so that he can be "balanced" with the Hummies. We are trying in case you don'

t get it to make the races different with different advantages and disadvantages for choosing each race. a Halfling with 13 STR is just as unusual as a human with 23 STR, not as powerful, but certainly as rare.

 

Therefore i propose to you that NCM _Must_ make sense for Non-human as well as human. Hell if you are going to argue that it doesn't make sense for non-humans then ill Play non-humans and not have the NCM limits and Do Exactly what I am doing _with_ NCM and the Characteristics as Racial Powers. What the heck is the point then?

 

 

Now then in case someone brings up buying Increased NCM stats for points I laugh in their face. I spent _23_ fricking points to buy a Dwarf(more accurately to buy up the maximum stats for a dwarf, most of which I would never use!). I could have spent those 23 points as a human and built a better human that the fricking Dwarf!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

"I'd set the NCM for STR at 30 or so. ".-PhilFleischmann.

 

Actually, According-to-Steve you can't do that IIRC.

Otherwise i'd reset the racial NCM's as I so desire (and if they flippin fall exactly where they'd be if I used Racial Characteristics as Powers Ooooopps!) and we would not be having this discussion!

 

Oh yeah Old Man, I recommend using a Phisical limitation: Hobbits to repersent STR 5-10 double after that.

[PhilFleischmann]

I can understand and accept the fact that people will disagree on this, but my reasoning is very simple:

 

In HERO, you only pay points for things that have a *game effect*. You don't pay points for special effects, you don't pay for the rubber-science explanation of your powers, you don't pay for your character's personality, you don't pay for your character's history. If you want to cast a fireball, you pay for the amount of damage you can do, not for the SFX of "fire." If you want to see the future, you pay for Clairsentience with Precognition, not for the fact that the power was granted to you by the gods. If you're a born leader and everyone likes you, you pay for PRE and PRE-based skills, for *What You Can Do,* not for *Why You Can Do It.*

 

At least, that's how I see the system working. Yes, you may be able to find examples from the published books where this idea is violated. Those are precisely the areas that I would argue with as "flawed" or "mistaken."

 

And I see the same principle applying to races. You don't have to pay for being an ogre, you only pay for what being an ogre allows you to do. And of course the converse it true as well: You don't get anything free, just because of a special effect, personality, character history, etc., and that includes race. Just because you add the character detail "ogre" doesn't mean you should be allowed to buy STR for less than what other players have to pay.

 

This is the way I see it and the way I handle NCM and races. It seems the fairest to me. I go back to the central idea of the system: You Get What You Pay For, and You Pay For What You Get.

[Markdoc]

Phil has expressed my feelings pretty well, but one thing that I had sort of "assumed" - and it seems that Phil shares - is that NCM is actually "Human NCM".

 

We can all agree that the old system of paying to raise the maxima was just whacked, and I never used it.

 

Likewise the idea that NCM applies to with the same levels to pixies and ogres, nut not to horses, elephants and palindromedaries is, well, just silly.

 

However, I find the *concept* of NCM thoroughly useful - just as I find the Disadvantage of "Age" useful. And I apply it the same way. "Age 40+" is different from "Age 60+". Players can choose to have either or neither. Likewise, "NCM, human" is different from "NCM, centaur" - both are 0 point disadvantages in my game, but they could well be worth points in another game.

 

To take a simple example in an FH game. One player wants to play a Dark Elf assassin with two swords :-=. In addition to his regular skills, he wants to have a very high DEX, the ability to see in the dark, etc.

 

The GM then has three choices. He can say No. Or he can say "OK, good character concept, you are allowed a DEX of 27. But I don't want everyone in the game to have really high DEX, so no, Blog the Unworthy has to stick to the campaign limit of DEX 20."

 

In a few months the GM has an adventuring party consisting entirely of Dark Elves, Minotaurs and Ghosts....

 

Otherwise, he can say, OK, we'll scrap the campaign DEX limits - and then deal with fighters with DEX 27 and SPD6 (and hey, as far as I am concerned, that's perfectly valid FH, it's just not where I like to run most of my games...)

 

My approach is to set out the allowed races and their NCMs - which generally total 0 as far as raised/ lowered Stat.s go - and say to my players: you all get NCM, but you can chose NCM: ogre, NCM: human, NCM: slimy thing that lives under the floors of houses, but if you want to go outside the normal range of Stat.s, there is a penalty to be paid.

 

NCM gives me a control mechanism that is unbiased (at least as far as players go - it may favour certain races over others). It allows me to weasel out of having to decide what constitutes a "good reason". I have long since learned that even with good players, the definition of what constitutes a good reason often varies wildly from what I would like. Telling a player his character concept sucks is not something I enjoy.

 

so in conclusion, i thingk it is fair tp say the problem is not NCM. but the notion that NCM is a flat limit that applies to all species. I think this is where Phil is coming from with his comment that NCM only makes sense applied to humans.

 

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Actually my point is just what you guys in the last two points have been arguing _FOR_.

 

NCM works fine for an all human campaign.

It breaks down the further you get from "one race to rule them all and in the darkness bind them".

 

It gets tossed right out of the window when you allow Characteristicas as Powers from Spells.

 

The races i do Certainly keep the flavor and restrictions of NCM well within the realm of possibility.

 

im certainly not advocating the wholesale removal from the game, What "I" am advocating is Either for Steve to Solve the NCM vs. Multible Races OR flipping allow our mods.

 

Sorry, but building races with +10 STR(non-powered), just makes the cap all the more painfully obvious.

 

The point of Greatest Agrravation with Steve is the simple fact that "he" has decided (incorrectly IMNSHO) the NCM is a Genre thing.

 

It isn't, it's a GM thing.

 

I don't suddenly see a great increase in non/demi-human characters in my campaign because I build them, not the players. Just like in the real world you did not "design yourself" there are some things that you are just born with and have to deal with.

 

I certainly Agree NCM is useful, I just want to be able to adjust it. However appearently Steve feels that it is too too for us poor incapable of balancing Gm's, much less players.

 

I dont want to have to flipping have to have each races NCM in a chart, I just want certain factors to be listed and be done with it.

 

PhilFleischmann- "I go back to the central idea of the system: You Get What You Pay For, and You Pay For What You Get. "

And IF a GM so chooses he can give you a 10,000,000,000,000 point spaceship, make the Everyman skills build up onable, by the rules of the game, and NO he cannot modify NCM without houseruling it.

 

THE GM can give you whatever he want's _except_ modify NCM.

 

Sorry, your argument is kinda baseless for that reason.

 

And keep in mind guys this is a GM freaking arguing this, not a player.

 

Steve has put the artifical limits making it an on/off switch, Im merely arguing for moderation on the offical stance.

 

the simple problem is if you buy +10 Str Orcish Muscles Racial ability you smack right up against the limit, now it costs you twice as much to raise it, few are going to buy an Orc unless they want the +10 STR and few are going to increase their Str beyond the racial min/max.

 

If you buy +10 STR Orcish Muscles Racial Power now Orcs will have Str between 20-30 on average with few others outside of that range.

 

if you buy +10 Str Spell of Orcish Muscles, IIF Hair, Incantations you only spend 7 points to get 10 points of Str _AND_ it leaves your NCm just as intact as the second way.

 

Besides What the H e Double-hockey- sticks happens when you have a 60+ equivalent ORC with the Age Disadvantage?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!

in case one the Orc just paid to double his Str with doulbe the points but the other two cases it does not matter.

 

Sorry, but NCM Should be adjustable so it can aplly to all the races appropriately at Gm's discretion. after all that is what the rest of the book is all about.

[Heroman]

I have always seen NCM not as a method of balancing PC against each each other, but one of several mechanisms to maintain capabilities below a certain level because of the expected power level of the game.

In general, if I run a lower power game (like Heroic), I would like to make sure people have an incentive to work within the power levels I expect without strict cutoffs. In example, for a Heroic game, it is expected that characteristics would be between 10-20 (h5, p15). I find that NCM helps people keep in that area, but gives allowances (at a cost) if they want values higher. Heck, since NCM is normal for heroic level, I would dare guess that the values chosen for NCM are based on the character ability guideline table for heroic level; a restriction to help maintain the suggested values but provide allowances to exceed it.

 

As far as ogres vs humans, I would never give a price break (since I find the NCM more of a campaign thing than a per character thing). If an ogre wants a 40 STR, he needs to pay for it. Not all racial packages are equal. If a player wants to play a racially stronger species, he will pay for it. If he wants to exceed the general guidelines for power level of a characteristic, he will pay for it regardless of race (hey, I must be an equal opportunity GM!)

 

As far as characteristics bought as powers not counting vs NCM, I find that to be the biggest crock ever and a very stupid, stupid rule made to Make Math Easy. God forbid we make players count CPs....You basically get a free advantage (or maybe better described as a non-impeding -1 limitation) on Chars when you stick something stupid on a characteristic. I let it in my current games, but my house rule for the next campaign I run will nix this stupid allowance.

 

'Age', I find, to be a self-imposed further restricting element (of course, to get points). For anyone who would whine about 'but I can make a character who is not restricted by this, really' I would counter with the "Only Elemental Magic' and like restrictions people but on frameworks; I can easily make a character who is not limited, really, by this either.

If I did not have NCM, I would probably make rules to help govern how powerful people should be for the different categories based on the campaign level to insure decent balance. I myself find that I do not need to reinvent wheels, though, and use the NCM as part of my balancing.

[AnotherSkip]

"If an ogre wants a 40 STR, he needs to pay for it. Not all racial packages are equal. If a player wants to play a racially stronger species, he will pay for it."-Heroman

 

I agree

 

However most of the discussion seems to be not whether or not someone _pays_ for the abilities but how and how much.

 

If a "mage" can get away with 200 Str for 200 points then certailny others should be able to get away with that also.

If _no one can _ which seems to be your point then by all means go ahead.

 

I am however merely pointing out that if there are certain cases then the character should not be penalsied for having a good character concept with a good Gm approved race over a Human with a "book O' spells", otherwise you end up with the party of humans with book O' spells and no one want's to play other races.

 

besides I built a NCM, FH, mid level magic character wit 23 str, she paid 16 points for that.

I did not build her with the "its a power, therfore NCM does not apply" even though there were and _Are_ ways to do so. Heck I just rebuilt her to cover a major campaign influence and even though I had the opportunity to add +3 STR to my powers list and get back 3 cp's I chose not to.

 

She is the strongest humanoid in the campaign with nautural strength. there are others (at least two in the party) who have frameworks that allow greater strengths due to their magics. But without magic she is _Rare_ even with magics she is still rare. There is nothing (no dispells or disads) on her Strengths that limit what she can do and others cannot face. (one has the "only when in contact with the earth" the other needs to mod his VPP).

 

in the end though she is not really balanced with the others, she really would have been better off with some magic and a punier Str.

[Markdoc]

>>> Sorry, but NCM Should be adjustable so it can aplly to all the races appropriately at Gm's discretion. after all that is what the rest of the book is all about.<<<

 

NCM *is* adjustable. OK, so I know The Steve says it isn't, but in this case he's just wrong.

 

Time to move on :-)

 

And anyone who tries to buy "Orcish muscles" as a power in my game will be introduced to the Sharp Pencil of Pain...

 

cheers, Mark

[nytflyr]

heres what I amn working on for myown campaign, I like the basic concept of NCM, I dislike its implementation.

 

Half Orc package

+1 STR (21 Max)

+1 BOD (21 Max)

+1 CON (21 Max)

-2 INT (18 Max)

-1 EGO (19 Max)

-2 COM (18 Max)

Cost: 0

 

some cost a little more, up to 5 I believe, thanks to things like natural armor (Lizardmen) and natural claws (cat men)

 

one thing that did bug me though is the cost for night vision, shouldnt it be +4 to PER rolls with Normal sight (4 active points) instead of sight group (8 active points, which includes night vision?). that knocks the real cost down to 3

 

I also like restrainable, but I have added one more limitation to claws, not vs hard targets (ie. you use your claws against metal or stone you are just going to hurt yourself)

[cutsleeve]

characteristics as powers

 

I think a Responcible GM should enforce one simple rule for dealing with characteristics as powers. All characteristics that are bought as powers must be bought with limitations or advantages to simulate that they are indeed powers. If there are no advantages or limitation on them they arent powers they are statistics and conform to all the rules of Purchasing them (such as in NCM and doubling after 20). This is a rule that i used back in 4th edition after seeing defender it makes a kind of sense. Magic items may give adds to strength but they are foci and can be removed from the character. Magical spells that or the ability to Berserk may adjust characteristics temporarily but they are either temporary or require certian actions that could cause them to be aborted, suck as an activation roll or gestures.

 

Thats the simplest way to ensure the characters dont just pick the characteristic power and say im an ogre thats a power. The old characteristics ability under the powers section was so you could stick power advantages and limitations on it just like the old skills ability under the powers section.

 

Of course i dont have my Fred yet but even in the old 4th edition under characteristics it says that they can be purchased with power limitations and advantages and put in frameworks and if this is dont they count as standard powers. I always assumed if this wasnt done then theyre just regular characteristics and should be bought at double point costs after 20 for non figures characteristics.

 

Hope all that made sense.