Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

[Trebuchet]

Inspired by the ubiquitous "Is ____________ too (in)expensive?" threads, I thought I'd start a discussion on how the economics of alloting limited resources (Character Points) influences character design. For reasons of simplicity I'll deal strictly with Champions, although similar forces work in other genres.

 

All resources are finite. In any human endeavor, something which is too expensive will tend not to be used as much. Something which is too inexpensive will tend to be overused. This applies just as much to character design as it does to televisions, cars, and gasoline. Interesting how basic economic theory can apply to game and character-design theory. For example, arguments as to whether DEX, CON, or STR are too cheap can be answered easily with "Does everyone buy lots of them?" Clearly not, because not everyone buys 35 DEX, 30 CON, or 60 STR. In my 23 years of Champions experience the average DEX in most superhero games is between 20 - 26, with certain specialists going higher or lower. Likewise, most supers have a STR between 15 - 25; generally only bricks and demi-bricks exceed this. Most characters have a CON between 20 and 30. This is the baseline for most characters; and is what most characters consider adequate. For an Energy Projector to pump an extra 40 points into STR is generally a waste of points, whereas for a brick it's essential. The EB can spend those points better on more slots in his MP or Skill Levels to offset range, etc. A brick is a specialist; but his DEX is likely to be in the average range (and often on the low side of that). He's no more going to use normal STR and CON ranges than your average car buyer is going to purchase a tank.

 

Yes, some characters do buy numbers that exceed the averages, just as some car buyers opt for high-performance sports cars or Hummers - specialty vehicles for specialized tasks. Likewise, most characters in Hero buy a reasonable amount of STR or DEX - just as most people in the real world buy sedans and minivans rather than tanks or motor scooters. It all depends on whether you're looking for gas mileage, durability in combat, or some other feature in your vehicle.

 

With only so many points to go around, characters have to allot those few points to accomplish their intended role. Spend too many points in one area, and you come up short in another (Formula One racers don't do well cross-country; tanks don't work in the Indy 500.). This is also a reason I've come to dislike Characteristic and/or Active Point caps in my Champions game: They distort the economic system of cost vs. value, and so often end up causing shortages or similarities of results just as wage or price freezes do in the real world; often producing results which are the very opposite of what was intended (In the real world, caps on the cost of bread, gas, or other essentials invariably lead to a shortage of that essential).

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I would agree that many players strive to maximize the effectiveness of their characters. The skills/powers/Frameworks that I find to be of most benefit are:

1)Multipowers

2)Elemental Control

3)Martial Arts (10-15 point package)

4)3 point levels are ubiquious

5)Breakfall

 

As for Stats I like to maximize Speed and Dex. High Strength is beneficial to all characters due to high figured characteristics plus being strong is one of the most useful assets in the game both in and out of combat.

 

There are bargains in the Hero system that many players know about and some that are more obscure as in rl.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

As for Stats I like to maximize Speed and Dex. High Strength is beneficial to all characters due to high figured characteristics plus being strong is one of the most useful assets in the game both in and out of combat.

 

There are bargains in the Hero system that many players know about and some that are more obscure as in rl.

I think you missed my point: Characteristics and abilities are useful, but they are not equally useful for every character archetype. For a brick to have high STR and durability is crucial; for an egoist or energy blaster they usually represent a waste of points that would have been better spent on EGO or an EB. DEX and SPD are useful for any character; but most characters settle for a DEX of between 20 and 26, and a SPD of 5 or 6. Those numbers represent "good enough" rather than a theoretical optimal. Why don't we see more 45 DEX bricks? That's only 105 CP (30%) of a 350 point character; and still leaves 245 points for STR and defenses. Because for most bricks, a 45 DEX is far more than they need to be effective (most other characters have DEX in the 20's) and hence is wasteful of points that might be better spent elsewhere, such as on Flight, Armor, or exotic defenses.

[ThothAmon]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Good argument that reinforces the idea of 'character concept'. Nevertheless, CP caps are IMO necessary whilst AP caps are generally useful as guidelines for all parties.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Why don't we see more 45 DEX bricks?

 

I think that the reason why we don't see more 45 DEX bricks is due to the fact that most GMs will not allow them in the game. Not to mention that responsible players do not want to step on the toes of other characters. It is not that the game system is economically viable but the diligence of fellow players and GMs that keep the game on an even keel. Soft caps of all sorts are necessary to keep players from running amok.

[Edsel]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

As a general rule most of the games I run are heroic, rather than superheroic, in nature. This means that all characters have the Normal Characteristic Maxima disadvantage but get no points for it. If we make up normal heroic characters (75 points + 75 in disads), an alarming number of characters end up with 20 DEX and 4 SPD. Some characters are even willing to shell out two for one to buy DEX higher than 20. To me this says, as far as my group is concerned, that DEX is too cheap and perhaps SPD is as well. The next time I run one at this point level I am tempted to up the cost of DEX to 4 points each, or lower the maxima to 15.

 

My latest game features characters build on 50 points + 50 in disads. This time around it has been very refreshing to see characters who are not maxing out their DEX and SPD.

[Lucius]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Now, that's funny.

 

I've played (usually ran, actually) any number of heroic level games, and in my experience a SPD of 4 is rare, and so is a DEX of 18 to 20. Normally, a player character has SPD 3, 4 is unusual, and I can remember exactly one SPD 2 and one SPD 5 character.

 

What _I_ have a problem with is all the fighter types taking a STR of 20. As cheap as STR is, it's almost inevitable.

 

As far as characteristics go, if anything is costed wrong, I'd say it's probably STR.

I have sometimes thought COM should just be eliminated.

 

Now, if you want to get into skills and powers, we already have threads going on those topics.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the bicephalous palindromedary

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

To me that suggests that the players think it's worthwhile to have that higher SPD and/or DEX, so why not let them buy it? Their opponents and co-players have the same option, of course, so if everyone buys high Characteristics then they won't have those poinnts available for Skills and Talents which are often critical in a Pulp Hero or Fantasy Hero game.

 

The whole point is that in an economic (point-based) system there are almost never enough points to accomplish everything the player wants with his character, and so compromises must be made just as they are in the real world. You buy a special vehicle (character) which is really good only at a limited task (tanks make lousy race cars or plows), or you buy a more general purpose vehicle (character) which does several things reasonably well but not as well as the specialist (a pickup truck), or you buy a less expensive and/or less capable vehicle (character) because you lack the money (Character Points) to buy everything you want - world-class stereo, off-road suspension, high performance engine, GPS, air conditioning (Skills, Talents, Powers, Characteristics). Keeping in mind, of course, that flexibility carries its own cost. A Leatherman tool can do many things; none of them as well as the specific tools it emulates. But it's a lot better than not having those tools at all.

 

Sacrifices must be made; character design (just as in the real world) is a series of compromises.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

To me that suggests that the players think it's worthwhile to have that higher SPD and/or DEX' date=' so why not let them buy it? [/quote']

 

In two words, Game Balance.

 

There needs to be some sort of balance between Offense, Defense and Speed to balance the characters. Otherwise many characters will run amok maxing out lethal combinations that will make the game less fun for everyone. Trust me I know.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I think you missed my point: Characteristics and abilities are useful' date=' but they are not [i']equally[/i] useful for every character archetype. For a brick to have high STR and durability is crucial; for an egoist or energy blaster they usually represent a waste of points that would have been better spent on EGO or an EB. DEX and SPD are useful for any character; but most characters settle for a DEX of between 20 and 26, and a SPD of 5 or 6. Those numbers represent "good enough" rather than a theoretical optimal. Why don't we see more 45 DEX bricks? That's only 105 CP (30%) of a 350 point character; and still leaves 245 points for STR and defenses. Because for most bricks, a 45 DEX is far more than they need to be effective (most other characters have DEX in the 20's) and hence is wasteful of points that might be better spent elsewhere, such as on Flight, Armor, or exotic defenses.

We don't see more 45 Dex Bricks because the GMs blanche when someone builds a non "archetype" character. All Bricks are slow. It's not just a good idea, it's the law

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

In two words, Game Balance.

 

There needs to be some sort of balance between Offense, Defense and Speed to balance the characters. Otherwise many characters will run amok maxing out lethal combinations that will make the game less fun for everyone. Trust me I know.

Yes, but even game balance is a series of compromises between individual players. (More importantly, it's not imposed by the GM but is a voluntary accomodation) One trick ponies are easy to beat. Ah, but a well balanced team can accomplish things no single set of powers or skills can do, much as the military uses combined arms to accomplish the mission. Tanks, aircraft, or infantry alone cannot do things that the three together can do superbly. Having all three (and more) allows a flexibility that no single approach can. Even two-car families recognize this principal with a minivan and a sedan or a minivan and an SUV.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

All Bricks are slow. It's not just a good idea' date=' it's the law [/quote']

[braincraft]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

As a general rule most of the games I run are heroic' date=' rather than superheroic, in nature. This means that all characters have the [i']Normal Characteristic Maxima[/i] disadvantage but get no points for it. If we make up normal heroic characters (75 points + 75 in disads), an alarming number of characters end up with 20 DEX and 4 SPD. Some characters are even willing to shell out two for one to buy DEX higher than 20. To me this says, as far as my group is concerned, that DEX is too cheap and perhaps SPD is as well. The next time I run one at this point level I am tempted to up the cost of DEX to 4 points each, or lower the maxima to 15.

 

My latest game features characters build on 50 points + 50 in disads. This time around it has been very refreshing to see characters who are not maxing out their DEX and SPD.

 

Why do you think DEX and SPD should be kept low?

 

In my experience, and by my logic, if your players want to buy more DEX and SPD, it's because they want to be action heroes and having a lower DEX and SPD makes that harder. If you respect their preferences, you should either let them be action heroes, or at least speak with them about it and try to come to some compromise.

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Yes' date=' but even game balance is a series of compromises between individual players. (More importantly, it's not imposed by the GM but is a voluntary accomodation)[/quote']

 

LOL! How economists blanche at the strong arm of government. Still at times it is necessary. Unfortunately the GM must enforce order for the players own good that is.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Interesting discussion here, BTW...

 

Let's see...45 DEX = OCV 15 & Base Speed of 5.5 for 105 Points, or 30% of 350 (the typical level these days for 5th Ed.) points. The hole in the argument of why Bricks don't do this more often centers around spending that remaining 70% or 245 points. Presuming that 70 STR (14d6) is a typical power level for a baseline brick in the campaign, that's another 60 Points to achieve that level. Presuming no power modifiers for the STR, that means 6 END each phase the STR is used or (presuming we go to 6 SPD for the extra 5 points) 36 END + and used for moves (say 2 END for a typical mode of mobility) for a total of 48 END each turn. Unless the REC is also bought up to compensate for this speedy brick (more points), he or she is going to be sucking wind after only one turn. So, if you continue this trend, you'll spend anywhere from 70% to 90% of your points on characteristics.

 

Some people are into the whole thing of point "imbalances" in the Hero System and IMHO they're barking up the wrong tree. This is supposed to be a role-playing game, not an exercise in combat effectiveness. Villains may be significantly more combat-oriented, but then, they have to fight the authorities of the world (including the PC's). The PC's, on the other hand, have lives, loves and tribulations along with fighting the villains of the world. The reason you see so many bricks compared to other character archetypes is that they have a role-playing aspect -- it's fun to describe what you're doing with all those muscles. Which is why we love adventures where the characters must creatively apply their powers in order to achieve the objective, right?

 

So, if you want to argue the min/max angle, feel free. I play this game to play heroes. Yeah, I like the combat calculus wargaming aspects of this game as well, but I love the characters even more. Are you GM's going to tell me you've never fudged a die roll for dramatic effect during the climactic battle or during that set up scene that gets the characters the information they need to succeed in the adventure? What makes a good game, a team of superior character designs or a team of superior character concepts?

 

If I may be so presumptuous, the answer is self-evident.

 

That's my two cents' worth and now I'm outta pennies.

 

Matt Frisbee

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

You've hit on my central point; which is that one must still spend enough points in order to make any concept viable in play. And those points are still governed by the same fundamental rules of economics that govern goods and services in the real world - never quite enough to go around. Economics isn't about money - it's about allocation of limited resources. Even a battlefield surgeon is applying the laws of economics when he does triage -That particular soldier might be saved; that other one can't possibly be saved so it's a waste of resources (a surgical team and/or operating room) to try saving #2 because then you'll probably lose both soldiers.

 

A high DEX and SPD brick without corresponding increases in defenses and END would make a 70 STR character just another variant of martial artist. Being a brick isn't just about dishing out damage; it's also about taking it. I've seen plenty of MAs and EBs who can do the same amount of damage as a brick in the campaign. Martial artists may hit as hard as a brick, but they typically buy higher SPD and DEX because lacking the defenses of a brick they need to use more of their Phases to avoid getting hit. It's just a different strategy; just as Sony and emachines use different strategies to do the same thing - sell computers. Sony opts for high-performance (and high dollar) PCs; emachines goes for the low performance (and lower cost) approach. Both approaches are successful because there is a niche for both; just as a supers team has room for both bricks and martial artists. How much fun would it be to play a brick on a whole team of bricks? When everyone can do the same things, where's the opportunity to stand out?

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

What makes a good game' date=' a team of superior character designs or a team of superior character concepts?[/quote']

 

I am greedy and I want it all. There is no reason why a superior character concept cannot be backed up by a superior character design dominating both in and out of combat.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I am greedy and I want it all. There is no reason why a superior character concept cannot be backed up by a superior character design dominating both in and out of combat.

That's of course an ideal that seldom if ever gets realized. Particularly since even most players idea of what constitutes "superior" (or even interesting) is hardly etched in stone over the course of a gaming career. My first Champions character Ranger (retired in 1985) had defenses that were over 500% higher than my current character Zl'f. Does that make him superior? Or does the fact she has a SPD which is five higher than Ranger's make her superior? Or do both characters simply reflect changes in my own gaming philosophy which have nothing to do with superiority of design and/or concept?

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

That's of course an ideal that seldom if ever gets realized. Particularly since even most players idea of what constitutes "superior" (or even interesting) is hardly etched in stone over the course of a gaming career. My first Champions character Ranger (retired in 1985) had defenses that were over 500% higher than my current character Zl'f. Does that make him superior? Or does the fact she has a SPD which is five higher than Ranger's make her superior? Or do both characters simply reflect changes in my own gaming philosophy which have nothing to do with superiority of design and/or concept?

 

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My character design rules has changed over time and I try to vary my characters so I have an interesting time playing them as well. My characters strive to be skilled and versatile as opposed to being directly powerful with few attack, defense or miscellaneous options.

[starblaze]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I used to be real point whore, trying to get everything to fit into one character point. Eventually I ended changing all that and decided that having good balance character was better than trying to fit everything into the character.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I used to be real point whore' date=' trying to get everything to fit into one character point. Eventually I ended changing all that and decided that having good balance character was better than trying to fit everything into the character.[/quote']Building a balanced character is where the sacrifices have to be made. A a character which is all attack, all defense, all combat value, or all non-combat will not be very interesting to play or to GM for. And if his one trick doesn't do the job, he's screwed. Any well designed character has a blend of attack, defense, mobility, and non-combat capabilities. How much weight we choose to assign each of these aspects of character creation is largely dictated by concept and individual design philosophy. (We all know players or GMs who we could recognize characters designed by them without knowing in advance who designed that character. Some "signatures" are distinctive.)

 

There was a thread a while back where Gary tried to "prove" STR was too cost effective by building a brick with super-high DEX and SPD. I had to laugh; because you don't prove something is too good by using something else. That's like proving SUVs are too good by road testing a Lamborghini Countach.

[Chimpira]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

A little background on myself for a second. I started out playing about 20 years ago. The first game I ran was a disaster. I let the players build what every they wanted and I put them through my carefully planned module I wrote myself. DC Heroes did not have many at the time. To put it mildly it was a farce. The players ran through the opposition like a hot knife through whipped cream. The funny thing is that I always forget about Robert when I tell that story. He made his character and basically sat there while some of the ubermen handled the action.

 

I did not blame the players. I blamed myself and rightly so. I had not looked closely at their sheets. In truth I had not looked at their sheets at all. I trusted in my players to want to play a game that was full of fun and adventure and to know the boundaries. They made character just for that. The only real problem was that my boundaries and theirs were two different things altogether. I had yet to realize that I had to run a game that found a happy medium for all the players. I had yet to realize that I needed to use a measure of control to make sure that the game was balanced.

 

This put me off GMing for many a year. I went back to playing and along came this little gem of a game called SuperWorld. I played the game and then i really learned the rules for the game. I, then, perceded to rape the rules of the game. I was so good at being efficient and looking for loopholes that the GM felt that he had to try and match me. The game did not last long after that. Which was a pity because it was a great game before I started to min/max, be cost efficient, rules rape, or whatever we are caling it this year.

 

After that I started to GM and something strange happened. Out of the blue I started to talk about the spirit of the game and author's intent and other things my rules raping cohorts were not so keen to hear at first. After that, the strangest thing of all occurred, we played a game where my foot was firmly put down and they loved it. Oh, there was still some problems with the idea of active cost caps because everyone would max these things out, but they were building characters for the long haul and not just a one night stands. The notion that they could grow into giants seemed to work.

 

Fast forward fifteen years. I, now, use the rule of X. Although it is not perfect by a long shot, it has taken away the clone factor in my game. The players get to design characters that fit the needs they are looking for and I get a measure of balance. Attacks or strength that would ordinarily been shot down in my old game are now welcomed with open arms. Oh, they might have a problem of landing these attacks but, hey that is what teamwork is for anyways.

 

At any rate. I acquired a new player last year. He would tell me about his past Champions games. All his stories seemed to revolve around what clever way he bought his power. I, finally, had to stop him. I looked him in the eye and said, "I think there is something seriously wrong with a game when all you have left to talk about when it is over is how cheap you got to buy a power."

 

I hate it when people come to me with this whole efficient use of points deal. I run a campaign and not a onetime slugfest. I want my players to build with the future in mind and not to be complete on 350, 400 or 450 points. I hate seeing people neglecting to buy a skill that their character might have simply because it might be considered an inefficient use of points. If I hear the phrase "But what good would [insert any skill that is not targeted for combat,can give you combat bonuses or sneaking up on someone as a precursor to combat] be in the game?" one more time I will hurt someone.

 

I want my players to use their points wisely. This much is true. I just do not want my game to turn into a contest for who can get more for less, like we are trying to shop for a used car or secondhand clothing. Sometimes we get so caught up in the savings we do not really look at what we bought until it is too late.

 

Sorry for the rant and being so long winded.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Well, if it was a rant at least it was an interesting and informative one. Repped.

 

My own journey was somewhat similar. Fortunately we now have a pretty good group of players and GMs (Five of our eight players also GM) in our group; and most are more than willing to sacrifice "combat power" for things that build the concept. (It helps that as regular players our GMs never lose sight of what players are looking for and vice versa.)

[Black Rose]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I hate it when people come to me with this whole efficient use of points deal. I run a campaign and not a onetime slugfest. I want my players to build with the future in mind and not to be complete on 350' date=' 400 or 450 points. I hate seeing people neglecting to buy a skill that their character might have simply because it might be considered an inefficient use of points. If I hear the phrase "But what good would [insert any skill that is not targeted for combat,can give you combat bonuses or sneaking up on someone as a precursor to combat'] be in the game?" one more time I will hurt someone.

Not saying you do this - in fact, I'm guessing you don't, based on how you described wanting "designs for the long haul" - but some GMs out there don't give clear ideas to their prospective players as to what they can expect in the campaign. If I go into a 4-Color Supers game knowing it has power levels "like the Justice League animated series", I'm expecting quite a bit of high-end combat, and maybe the occasional slice-of-life bits here and there. If the GM says "think Kim Possible" I'm going to go low-end Supers, several "hobby skills", Contacts and Favors, and weird personality quirks out the wazoo. If all I get is "250+150, 80 AP cap, lots of movement, so be prepared" and a bunch of stories about the last campaign in this world - and the mighty battles thereof - I'm going to maximize my combat skills, add Flight (and probably T'port), and throw 15-20 pts toward "personality". Frankly, I won't have any reason tot hink I'll need more.

[assault]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I hate it when people come to me with this whole efficient use of points deal. I run a campaign and not a onetime slugfest. I want my players to build with the future in mind and not to be complete on 350' date=' 400 or 450 points. [/quote']

 

I think you are conflating two different things here: min-maxing munchkinism and building "complete" characters.

 

These days my design style is explicitly aimed at building "complete" characters. The essential idea is that they will seldom if ever receive enough experience to significantly vary from their original state, and therefore should possess all their key abilities right from the very beginning. Ideally, they should be able to spend all of their experience on skills and perks, and not on characteristics or powers. In some cases, adding new multipower slots and similar "greater experience" changes may be appropriate, but should never be necessary.

 

Adopting this approach was a conscious reaction to my bad habit of trying to design characters who did too much, which meant that they could only be rough sketches of a character design which would never actually come into being.

 

But the important thing about this completeness is that it is achieved by limiting the characters' capabilities, not by point crunching. I simply don't try to play a character with life support, enhanced senses and a honkin' big multipower of "stuff", and instead play one who is more focussed on just being a brick. And, of course, such characters are, or can be, every bit as interesting.

 

In other words, instead of playing the 1938 Superman, I settle for playing Hourman.

 

With this kind of build, experience is gravy, rather than a way of patching up deficiencies in the design.