Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

[zornwil]

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

 

Treb, I think what you really mean and want to concentrate on is, "What's important to Zornwil..."

 

[Gary]

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

 

You've really reinforced my point - that even in real world economics purchases are done according to priorities and not simply cost, much less a simplified game system with price fixing.

 

If I have $100 per week to spend on gas, food, clothing, books, utilities, cat food, etc., then I still have to prioritize those needs and desires. I can't just buy $100 worth of frozen dinners and hope I don't run out of gas or cat food until next week. Nor can I fit $100 worth of gas in my minivan even if I wanted to any more than a PC with a 352 PD is a viable character. If my cats starve or I lose my job because I couldn't get to work then I've also hit the point of "diminishing returns." I have to prioritize based not only on what I can afford but what I need; and if I run low on cash then I've got to cut back on something. The same fundamentals apply in Hero: Character Points are resources; and there are never enough resources to go around. For one thing, not everybody values the same things. I spend about $800 a year on books; I know people who haven't spent that much on books in their entire lives but spend thousands a year on fancy cars or CD collections whereas I couldn't care less about either.

 

STR is generally more important to a brick than to an MA; and DEX is generally more important to an MA than to a brick. That doesn't mean a little bit of either isn't quite useful to both. How much of each is up to the individual. That's my biggest problem with all "_______ is too cheap/expensive" arguments (and one reason I started this thread):

 

_______ simply isn't equally important to everyone.

 

That's Economics 101.

 

That says nothing about whether an ability is under or over priced. Again if PD cost 1/10, I'm sure even you would agree that PD would be too cheap despite the fact that nobody would spend every point on it.

[i3ullseye]

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

 

I see the point made here... but I disagree with 2 basic statements.

 

1) The standard free market economic dynamics don't really apply. Nothing but strength is strength. So it isn't actually competing with Dex or PD or anything else for position or 'sales' as it were.

 

We are prioritizing things that have an internal balance within a constolled system. Str does a certain number of things for every 5 Hero points. When you start looking at Energy Blasts, or Hand Attack, or any other variation on the things that strength (or more specifically 5 applied active Hero points) can do, there is a set guideline of internal checks and balances.

 

No, it isn't perfect. And yes, some characteristics have innate benefots over powers or skills or other ways to spend those points. But the basic internal balance and integrity is pretty consistent.

 

Which leads to....

 

2) Game Balance is a sham.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth in this system. We have to remember to compare apples to apples here. 15 points in Strength yileds roughly the same net gain as 15 points in Energy Blast. While hard to quantify, it also yields roughly the same amount of return when applied to Dex or PD or anything else, normally just within differrent arenas of the game.

 

And yes, this means a 250 pt character is indeed 'equal' to another 250 pt character. However, withing certain circumstances the higher abilities of one character become more important to the situation than a lower characteristic of the other.

 

NONE of this means they are balanced against the game world as a whole however. If 3 charactyers at 250 pts each go up against one villain at 250, the villains doesn;t have much chance normally. Thats 750 against 250. But a 750 pt character will easily trounce the 3 heroes in most cases. So the game itself produces imbalances by neccessity. Unless you always fight an equal number of villains as there are Heroes, with the same points totals.... which woudl get real boring real fast.

 

It is the GMs task to make sure the game world ISN'T completely balanced for the heros. They shoudl almost always be outgunned by a bit, or put in situations where their points might not be at their most efficient use. Thats what generates challange. A GM doesn't even need to balance their villians points really, but doing so gives them a rough estimate of what power scale the heroes will be facing up against.

 

But the heroes themselves are indeed very balanced within themselves, and to each other at campaign start. And that is very important.

 

One are where the game IS like real world economics is over saturation of a market. If everyone in a 3 mile radius sells nothing but Pizza, then Pizza loses it's value. But this also means Pizza is covered no matter what, but a hamburger is nearly impossible to come by. So how does that relate?

 

If every character in your game is a fire blaster, with flight and force field, and also higher strength, your game gets real boring real fast. If every character can pick locks, but none of them drive, things get over saturated.

 

It is also the GMs job to ensure not much overlap occurs with characters. You want to prevent saturation of any certain abilities, and ensure each player feels needed and unique within the group.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

That says nothing about whether an ability is under or over priced. Again if PD cost 1/10' date=' I'm sure even you would agree that PD would be too cheap despite the fact that nobody would spend every point on it.[/quote']Of course PD would be too cheap at 1/10. So what's your point? Any Characteristic will sell far more if it were repriced at 1/10th of its listed price. Economic factors still apply. We'd undoubtably see characters with higher raw PD's as opposed to FF or Armor, but they still need DEX, SPD, CON, Resistant defenses, etc., in order to be viable within the context of a campaign. But beyond a certain point that bargain-priced PD becomes superfluous. It may reach that point earlier because of concept or campaign caps on defenses, but reach it it will.

 

My central point is that the actual value (as opposed to the "fixed value" is self-regulating: At some point any rational character designer is going to say "I've got enough X; now I need to buy some Y." You've mentioned the law of diminishing returns, and I couldn't agree more. No matter how cheap something is, such a point is always going to be reached. No matter how inexpensive something is, at some point in time a person doesn't need more of it enough to buy it any more. It doesn't matter if that something is real estate, collectible cars, CDs, or a particular Characteristic. Other items will have attained a higher priority via the "invisible hand."

 

I'm talking only about the economics of character building. All of this doesn't even take into account character concept; which can (and should!) lead to "sub-optimal" builds simply because the more efficient build doesn't fit the concept; like an MA refusing to buy more STR instead of Damage Classes because the player's concept of his character doesn't include the character lifting trucks or because a higher STR uses too much END and/or makes his PD, REC, and/or Stun too high.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

The standard free market economic dynamics don't really apply. Nothing but strength is strength. So it isn't actually competing with Dex or PD or anything else for position or 'sales' as it were.

That's just as applicable in the real world as in Hero. A car is not a home computer either' date=' but most people have only a finite amount of money to spend on either so the car still competes with the computer. The limited resource in question isn't cars or computers, it's [i']cash.[/i] They might buy a better car and a cheap computer or vice versa, but they still have to prioritize. In Hero, the limited resource is Character Points. STR must still compete with DEX and CON and Skills and many other possible buys because there's only so many CP to go around. A brick will generally value that STR more than an MA or mentalist. (Heck, a mentalist might well decide to sell STR back.)

[zornwil]

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

 

 

2) Game Balance is a sham.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth in this system. We have to remember to compare apples to apples here. 15 points in Strength yileds roughly the same net gain as 15 points in Energy Blast. While hard to quantify, it also yields roughly the same amount of return when applied to Dex or PD or anything else, normally just within differrent arenas of the game.

 

And yes, this means a 250 pt character is indeed 'equal' to another 250 pt character. However, withing certain circumstances the higher abilities of one character become more important to the situation than a lower characteristic of the other.

(snip)

 

Well, as I said above, I'm not disregarding it and may overstate, but I can compare any number of pairs of 250 point PCs and find where one player is amazingly effective and another ineffective, let alone the nuances of construction types and combinations of abilities. The translation of points to "screen time", to narrative contibution, to combats, to non-combat, and so on are not only unequal in their parts but very often even in the whole. That being said, is it a useful guideline? Surely. Does it allow an objective perspective to something otherwise extremely difficult to quantify? Of course. But I would say those are inadequate to measuring campaign world impact (however we measure that) of characters, which is the true PC effectiveness that matters.

[Manic Typist]

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

 

I think Trebuchet is approaching this from a purely free enterprise, capitalistic viewpoint, in which the market is self-regulating.

 

However, as great as capitalism is, it shares one trait with communism: what it says SHOULD happen often DOES NOT happen. It makes the same mistake as communists and idealistic GMs- it assumes a world of rational individuals who will make logical, realistic, and responsible decisions.

 

Pure capitalism is not realistic, because it has strong downsides. Some regulation is necessary.

 

At least, I think that is the disconnect in the communication here.

 

An aside: As I was typing, I started to get ahead of myself and missed a few keys. For some reason, now when I try to type an apostrophe, the "Find Text" box appears at the bottom of the screen (I am running Firefox) as if I had just hit "Control+F." What have I done, and how can I undo it?

[Markdoc]

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

 

Well' date=' as I said above, I'm not disregarding it and may overstate, but I can compare any number of pairs of 250 point PCs and find where one player is amazingly effective and another ineffective, let alone the nuances of construction types and combinations of abilities.[/quote']

 

True, but I have seen two players with essentially identical characters, one of whom was extremely effective (in and out of combat) and the other was more like a disadvantage the whole party got no points for.

 

Under normal circumstances, equivalent points should give the players equivalent *potential* - how they exploit that depends on the players themselves, on the playing style and on the player/GM interaction.

 

That's not something that can - or perhaps even should - be part of Chargen. I see it as an emergent property that cannot be predicted.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vestnik]

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

 

A Leatherman tool can do many things; none of them as well as the specific tools it emulates.

 

I think "Leatherman Tool" was the name of a gay biker bar I saw once.

[zornwil]

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

 

True, but I have seen two players with essentially identical characters, one of whom was extremely effective (in and out of combat) and the other was more like a disadvantage the whole party got no points for.

 

Under normal circumstances, equivalent points should give the players equivalent *potential* - how they exploit that depends on the players themselves, on the playing style and on the player/GM interaction.

 

That's not something that can - or perhaps even should - be part of Chargen. I see it as an emergent property that cannot be predicted.

 

cheers, Mark

Yes, that is my point.

[Markdoc]

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

 

I think Trebuchet is approaching this from a purely free enterprise' date=' capitalistic viewpoint, in which the market is self-regulating.[/quote']

 

Well, yes - that was kinda the point, wasn't it?

 

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with him - in fact, it's hard to think of a more perfect model, since unlike the real world, there are relatively few restraints on "the market": if you have the points, you can usually get what you want and you get feedback in real time.

 

I also agree with Treb that point caps are unnecessary (in fact, evil) - in general, they seem to be a straitjacket. Otherwise reasonable players seem to take point caps as "GM's recommendations" and rush to max them out as fast as possible, leading to "samey" characters.

 

The one place I disagree is over the "price of X" question. It does affect the outcome, and I feel perhaps his experience with his current group, which has "matured" in terms of game style has colored his perception a bit.

 

In most of the Champs games we played over the first few years, DEX soon ended up in the 30-40 range for almost everybody. That makes several important points. First, it suggests that DEX *is* too cheap. Second, (and of more concern to me) it eliminated some archetypes - when the team bricks have DEX 32 - 36, a few CSLs and 6-8 SPD, the martial artist archetype starts to become non-viable (as does the DEX 23 brick - he might take a fair bit more punishment, but since he never gets to hit anybody, his only role is meat shield).

 

The same applies to STR - for HTH, martial artists became an endangered species, because although they could keep pace in terms of damage output, it took them two-three hits to put down "quick bricks" while the "quick brick" would almost always put them down in one - and the martial artist with only a thin edge - if any - in CV couldn't count on getting three clean hits, before he became paste on a wall somewhere. As a side effect, the most effective energy projectors became what we called "energy punchers" - high movement, high STR combined with "augmented hittiness" (Ki power, electricity, HKA, etc).

 

We moved away from that eventually, but only through a conscious decision to create characters who were *not* cost efficient and to try different concepts.

 

Sticking with the economic approach, to me that suggests - exactly as Gary said - that we have an underlying market distortion. It's like countries where the goverment subsidises some useful product - you inevitably get higher usage.

 

DEX I have not done anything about (and perhaps as a result, only 6 months into the current game, we are seeing marked DEX inflation). Because I run mostly FH games, STR *was* a problem and I fixed the market distortion by changing the cost, so that we have a significant spread from 21 (with NCM!) down to 10, with most people in the middle.

 

cheers, Mark

[zornwil]

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

 

I haven't really seen DEX inflation or STR inflation in this group, though STR has traded around the group a bit (the team brick mutated and it took a while for the group to adjust). SPD inflation has been much more marked than any inflation save INT.

 

I think most players respond more to where the GMs put challenges. For the most part DEX and STR haven't been the competitive drivers, but I have tended to run higher-SPD villains, so voila...

[Gary]

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

 

Of course PD would be too cheap at 1/10. So what's your point? Any Characteristic will sell far more if it were repriced at 1/10th of its listed price. Economic factors still apply. We'd undoubtably see characters with higher raw PD's as opposed to FF or Armor' date=' but they still need DEX, SPD, CON, Resistant defenses, etc., in order to be viable within the context of a campaign. But beyond a certain point that bargain-priced PD becomes superfluous. It may reach that point earlier because of concept or campaign caps on defenses, but reach it it will.[/quote']

 

A central tenet of this thread for you was that you didn't think anything was (under)overcosted because people have to buy other things. I feel Str and Dex are both undercosted (obviously not to the extent of 1/10 PD), so I'm not understanding how your arguments in this thread support that both are priced right.

 

My central point is that the actual value (as opposed to the "fixed value" is self-regulating: At some point any rational character designer is going to say "I've got enough X; now I need to buy some Y." You've mentioned the law of diminishing returns, and I couldn't agree more. No matter how cheap something is, such a point is always going to be reached. No matter how inexpensive something is, at some point in time a person doesn't need more of it enough to buy it any more. It doesn't matter if that something is real estate, collectible cars, CDs, or a particular Characteristic. Other items will have attained a higher priority via the "invisible hand."

 

I'm talking only about the economics of character building. All of this doesn't even take into account character concept; which can (and should!) lead to "sub-optimal" builds simply because the more efficient build doesn't fit the concept; like an MA refusing to buy more STR instead of Damage Classes because the player's concept of his character doesn't include the character lifting trucks or because a higher STR uses too much END and/or makes his PD, REC, and/or Stun too high.

 

 

Yep, unless the ultracheap item is something like a cosmic VPP where if it's priced less than 1 pt including control cost, every character would spend every point on it.

 

I think you're also assuming a complete "free market" in terms of character building. In reality, it's more of a Socialist system where the government (GM) assigns point levels and mandates certain limits on character builds. Thus it wouldn't be a true free market. Obviously some GMs are more Socialist than others, but no one that I know would allow an Earth Lightning type build which would otherwise be possible if the GM sets no limits.

[Kenn]

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

 

True, but I have seen two players with essentially identical characters, one of whom was extremely effective (in and out of combat) and the other was more like a disadvantage the whole party got no points for.

 

Under normal circumstances, equivalent points should give the players equivalent *potential* - how they exploit that depends on the players themselves, on the playing style and on the player/GM interaction.

 

That's not something that can - or perhaps even should - be part of Chargen. I see it as an emergent property that cannot be predicted.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I disagree with the "cannot be predicted" aspect. It cannot ALWAYS be predicted, but sometimes it can be predicted. The example I gave before about the campaign I joined recently is proof of it. Jim (the GM) and I successfully predicted that my level of skill as a player could allow me to overshadow the other much less experienced players. And we did let it influence the chargen process. We consciously diminished the character's potential.

 

Markdoc and Zornwil are right. Equivilant points should mean equivilant potential. But having equivilant potential doesn't matter!

 

A mature enough group of players will recognise that inequities exist in the source material. Henry Pym was not built on the same number of points as Thor. Aquaman wasn't built on the same number of points as Superman. Cyclops wasn't built on the same number of points as Logan. And the mature group will grasp onto those inequities, and use them something to role-play off of.

 

The less mature group is the one that will want everything to be equal to avoid hurt feelings. So all the characters are built on the same number of points. And the hurt feelings happen ANYWAY! Which means the main reason for having all the points balance didn't happen.

 

Now, are the points still useful for judging a characters potential? Yes. Are they useful as a tool for creating opponents? Yes. But as a tool to keep things balanced or fair? No.

 

Or a simpler situation. A group of gamers games regularly. Six months after the game start, a new player comes in. Now, the fair thing is to have that new character start with the same potential the others did right? But, short of numerous no-shows, what will it take to actually get the new character truly equal to her new teammates?

[Supreme Serpent]

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

 

Henry Pym was not built on the same number of points as Thor. Aquaman wasn't built on the same number of points as Superman.

 

Very true. Ant control and whale summoning get expensive!

[Zed-F]

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

 

There are always some limits. The question is where those limits arise from. Do they arise from GM imposition, or do they arise from the players themselves? This is the heart of the caps vs. no caps debate.

 

The people who advocate no caps generally have players with well-established visions for their PCs and know where those PCs fit relative to one another, relative to the main opposition they expect to face, and relative to the rest of the game world. They enforce their caps by virtue of sticking to concept, and by virtue of ensuring those concepts fit into the expected power level of the campaign. If they fail to enforce their own caps effectively within the group as a whole, the game suffers. Markdoc's example had a couple of Bricks running around with DEX 32-36 and SPD 6-8, which left little room for MAs or lower DEX bricks. It sounded to me like there was a disconnect between what the speed bricks' players thought the power level of the campaign ought to be and what everyone else thought the power level of the campaign ought to be. After all, I'd think a MA with DEX 45 and SPD 10+ could hang with those speed bricks quite comfortably, as could a power brick with enough STR, defenses, and AoE attacks or a willingness to rip up scenery.

 

The people who advocate GM-imposed caps usually don't have the luxury of knowing what sort of players they will have, or know they will have players who can't be trusted to build characters that will fit into the expected power level of the game without some form of caps. Instituting caps is one way of attempting to communicate from the GM to the players about the expected power level of the game. It's not the only way, of course, and is often insufficient on its own, but it is a fairly standard one.

 

Earth Lightning isn't a problem in a game where everyone else has similarly high-powered and min-maxed concepts, and the GM is willing to play by those rules. There are countless ways to min-max the system, each more unbalanced than the one before. Earth Lightning is only a problem in a game where the rest of the PCs and/or game world are not constructed to the same efficiency standards. Every GM has a different comfort zone as far as efficiency goes, after all.

 

Those who've said that there is no such thing as point balance do have a point. There are so many other factors in consideration, such as what the expected power level of any given game is, how much point efficiency is expected / tolerated within that game (and of what sorts), what sorts of situations the characters will have to deal with, what sorts of inter-character synergy you can expect to see, how tactically each player plays his PC, and how much PC-environment interaction the GM allows, that in many cases, point balance is largely moot.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

A central tenet of this thread for you was that you didn't think anything was (under)overcosted because people have to buy other things. I feel Str and Dex are both undercosted (obviously not to the extent of 1/10 PD)' date=' so I'm not understanding how your arguments in this thread support that both are priced right.[/quote']I'm not saying they're "priced right" at all. I saying that the "right" price depends on the individual character and/or player. To price them "right" would require a sliding price scale on the order of "whatever the market will bear." Clearly this is totally impractical in a role-playing game. STR might well be too cheap for a brick; it might be way overpriced for a mentalist or EB who never engages in fisticuffs. The official costs are merely convenient averages; a general benchmark for usefulness which may or may not apply to any given character.

 

[snip]

 

I think you're also assuming a complete "free market" in terms of character building. In reality, it's more of a Socialist system where the government (GM) assigns point levels and mandates certain limits on character builds. Thus it wouldn't be a true free market. Obviously some GMs are more Socialist than others, but no one that I know would allow an Earth Lightning type build which would otherwise be possible if the GM sets no limits.

Well, in truth the "free market" isn't 100% free either. It can't be, or it would be pure anarchy. The government still enforces order and imposes certain restrictions on business practices to prevent abuses by unscrupulous or incompetent businessmen and con men. That's no different fundamentally than any good GM does with enforcement of campaign parameters within his game. Within those parameters anything goes, but there are still limits to what is permitted whether those parameters are explicit or implicit. Walmart can offer me things at a discount price, but they can't hold a gun to my head and make me buy from them. I can always go to Target, or simply not buy it. Same thing applies in Hero - Just because STR or DEX might theoretically be a good buy doesn't mean I have to buy them, or that I place precisely the same value on them you do or Zornwil does. It depends on the character and/or concept. And in the source material, superior strength, toughness, and/or agility seems to be almost de rigueur for action heroes, so any theoretical underpricing by the original designers of Hero on these particular Characteristics may just represent general adherence to genre conventions. If that's the case then I'd consider that a design feature and not a flaw. YMMV.

 

Considering how underpriced STR supposedly is, why does Zl'f use a STR 15, Sacrifice Strike, and 3 DCs to do 10d6 damage instead of buying 50 STR? Because 50 STR would use 5 times as much END per Phase; and with a 9 SPD that would make her unable to fight for even a full Turn (plus, as I mentioned upthread, I don't want her lifting trucks, and a 50 STR would make her base PD, REC, and STUN too high for her core concept of "agile but fragile"). Concept, not mere build efficiency, dictated that STR was not a better buy for this particular character. DEX, OTOH, was a good buy. It was also her single greatest point expenditure, so I don't think it was underpriced either (If it were, I'm sure I would have spent some of her current 70 XP to increase it further. But her DEX has remained exactly the same since Zl'f was rebuilt for 5th Edition.).

 

No successful campaign I've ever heard of starts in a complete vacuum. GMs and players alike need some idea of what the campaign's parameters are going to be before they ever set character on paper. Those parameters can be spelled out in detailed point and damage caps and pages of house rules, or they can be far less formal as they are in our group. But they must exist nonetheless.

[Manic Typist]

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

 

Is it possible that things can also be "differently" priced based on the point ranges?

 

For instance, in a 350 point Champions game, some might say STR is underpriced, while in a 100 point Fantasy game, it could be argued that STR is overpriced?

 

Just like in different regions of the world, different products are considered afforable or expensive, based on the resources of the consumers.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

The one place I disagree is over the "price of X" question. It does affect the outcome' date=' and I feel perhaps his experience with his current group, which has "matured" in terms of game style has colored his perception a bit. [/quote']I wholely agree with this, but permit me to observe that this was a conscious decision on our part and not accidental. Our campaign is by invitation only; and our primary requirement is personal compatability with the other players. We've just flatly refused in this campaign to permit munchkins and rules rapists to play. Several members of this campaign also play in other campaigns with less... particular... requirements. That's their right, but speaking for myself, life is too short to game with cheats and jerks. To use the business analogy again:"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Bad players simply don't get into this campaign.

[Gary]

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

 

I'm not saying they're "priced right" at all. I saying that the "right" price depends on the individual character and/or player. To price them "right" would require a sliding price scale on the order of "whatever the market will bear." Clearly this is totally impractical in a role-playing game. STR might well be too cheap for a brick; it might be way overpriced for a mentalist or EB who never engages in fisticuffs. The official costs are merely convenient averages; a general benchmark for usefulness which may or may not apply to any given character.

 

There is somewhat of a sliding scale, but for the most part something like Dex is an excellent purchase for most character concepts.

 

 

[snip]

 

Well, in truth the "free market" isn't 100% free either. It can't be, or it would be pure anarchy. The government still enforces order and imposes certain restrictions on business practices to prevent abuses by unscrupulous or incompetent businessmen and con men. That's no different fundamentally than any good GM does with enforcement of campaign parameters within his game. Within those parameters anything goes, but there are still limits to what is permitted whether those parameters are explicit or implicit. Walmart can offer me things at a discount price, but they can't hold a gun to my head and make me buy from them. I can always go to Target, or simply not buy it. Same thing applies in Hero - Just because STR or DEX might theoretically be a good buy doesn't mean I have to buy them, or that I place precisely the same value on them you do or Zornwil does. It depends on the character and/or concept. And in the source material, superior strength, toughness, and/or agility seems to be almost de rigueur for action heroes, so any theoretical underpricing by the original designers of Hero on these particular Characteristics may just represent general adherence to genre conventions. If that's the case then I'd consider that a design feature and not a flaw. YMMV.

 

Considering how underpriced STR supposedly is, why does Zl'f use a STR 15, Sacrifice Strike, and 3 DCs to do 10d6 damage instead of buying 50 STR? Because 50 STR would use 5 times as much END per Phase; and with a 9 SPD that would make her unable to fight for even a full Turn (plus, as I mentioned upthread, I don't want her lifting trucks, and a 50 STR would make her base PD, REC, and STUN too high for her core concept of "agile but fragile"). Concept, not mere build efficiency, dictated that STR was not a better buy for this particular character. DEX, OTOH, was a good buy. It was also her single greatest point expenditure, so I don't think it was underpriced either (If it were, I'm sure I would have spent some of her current 70 XP to increase it further. But her DEX has remained exactly the same since Zl'f was rebuilt for 5th Edition.).

 

No successful campaign I've ever heard of starts in a complete vacuum. GMs and players alike need some idea of what the campaign's parameters are going to be before they ever set character on paper. Those parameters can be spelled out in detailed point and damage caps and pages of house rules, or they can be far less formal as they are in our group. But they must exist nonetheless.

 

I don't think any GM I've ever met would allow a 50 Str, 43 Dex, 9 SPD character (Timberwolf or Spiderman?) with martial arts in a 350-400 pt game. Aside from concept, game balance would forbid it.

 

If points spent on different categories were hypothetically equal, then the points spent in those 3 areas would suck away such a large percentage of the character's points that other characters would balance out. But anyone who has any reasonable amount of experience with Champions knows how deadly that Stat combo is.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

There is somewhat of a sliding scale, but for the most part something like Dex is an excellent purchase for most character concepts.

 

 

 

 

I don't think any GM I've ever met would allow a 50 Str, 43 Dex, 9 SPD character (Timberwolf or Spiderman?) with martial arts in a 350-400 pt game. Aside from concept, game balance would forbid it.

 

If points spent on different categories were hypothetically equal, then the points spent in those 3 areas would suck away such a large percentage of the character's points that other characters would balance out. But anyone who has any reasonable amount of experience with Champions knows how deadly that Stat combo is.

 

Gary - not everyone agrees with you, but I don't want to waste a few days argueing with you. Consider this my token objection.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

There is somewhat of a sliding scale' date=' but for the most part something like Dex is an excellent purchase for most character concepts.[/quote']Sure, if it's in concept. High DEX simply isn't for everyone despite it's obvious advantages for any character.

 

I don't think any GM I've ever met would allow a 50 Str, 43 Dex, 9 SPD character (Timberwolf or Spiderman?) with martial arts in a 350-400 pt game. Aside from concept, game balance would forbid it.

Why not? He'd have the same SPD and DEX as Zl'f and do exactly the same damage as she does. Why is she valid and said hypothetical PC not? Because balance is more than just raw numbers; or rather one number doesn't suddenly change the character from balanced to unbalanced. It's a process, not an event.

 

If points spent on different categories were hypothetically equal, then the points spent in those 3 areas would suck away such a large percentage of the character's points that other characters would balance out. But anyone who has any reasonable amount of experience with Champions knows how deadly that Stat combo is.

The system already takes that into account. That's why STR costs 1 CP, CON costs 2, DEX costs 3, SPD costs 10, etc. You can argue, of course, that these are mispriced. But it doesn't seem to be so egregious that you'll find anything approaching universal agreement about that possible cost error amongst players and GMs. And it can always be corrected within an individual campaign with house rules. The system itself still provides a good starting point.

[Gary]

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

 

Sure' date=' if it's in concept. High DEX simply isn't for everyone despite it's obvious advantages for any character.[/quote']

 

Right, and this is where economics fails to model the situation. For conception or game balance reasons, people deliberately make "suboptimal" choices for purchases.

 

Why not? He'd have the same SPD and DEX as Zl'f and do exactly the same damage as she does. Why is she valid and said hypothetical PC not? Because balance is more than just raw numbers; or rather one number doesn't suddenly change the character from balanced to unbalanced. It's a process, not an event.

 

He wouldn't have the same fragility that makes Zl'f a viable character. A "tough" Zl'f would be unbalancing.

 

The system already takes that into account. That's why STR costs 1 CP, CON costs 2, DEX costs 3, SPD costs 10, etc. You can argue, of course, that these are mispriced. But it doesn't seem to be so egregious that you'll find anything approaching universal agreement about that possible cost error amongst players and GMs. And it can always be corrected within an individual campaign with house rules. The system itself still provides a good starting point.

 

Well, this same system values 100 Str, 100 Con, and 125 Stun at 6 pts less than 40 Str, 50 Con, and 120 Stun.

 

So +60 Str, +50 Con, and +5 Stun is worth -6 pts.

 

If you don't believe me, take a look at Eclipsar in Champions Worldwide and do the math.

[TheRavenIs]

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

 

I have played Champions for over 25+, the next longest player 20+, The last two have 10+. We always set caps, Base Points; Disad's; PD/ED; rPD/rED; AP's; DC's.

 

It doesn't create probleams, what it does is makes the players create C's that meet concept. We all work for a common goal----PLAYABILITY, and FUN. We are all long time players so it works.

 

Now we did have two players that had 5-10+ experance and then loved to min/max, they got stepped on fast. The C's would be unplayable and would reduce the fun factor.

 

So I find that the economic forces do come in hand and also regulation was important as well.

[Vorsch]

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

 

Gary your a man after my own mind.

 

especially as my names Gary

 

So Treb whats Z'lfs answer to that little conundrom.

 

Vorsch