Make them Pay!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Here's my question?

 

Many, though not all, of the people who are against "making character pay" points for equipment seem to assume that assigning points to ordinary equipment necessarily means that you are restricting the development of the character in some way.

 

For instance, it is commonly being brought up that a PC might decide not to pick up a sword because the player either doesn't have the points to spend, or wants to spend the points elsewhere.

 

Where is it written that character point totals are relatively fixed and cannot vary freely, but can only slowly increase with experience?

 

Man-at-arms Johann Schmidt is plonking along, a 100 point character. He picks up a Halberd. He is now more effective than he was just minutes ago. Assuming that Johann isn't planning on dropping the halberd, or abandoning it immediately after the next fight against those zombies, why NOT recalculate his total? After all, he's a more effective character, and the points are a rough way of tracking character effectiveness (and the points he'd "spend" on a halberd are probably more directly related to his effectiveness in a quantifiable way than 1 point spend on PS: Rat-catcher.

 

Note that I'm not advocating that Johann Schmidt be forced to spend accumulated XP to buy a Halberd. He has a halberd. He just picked it up, and he's intending to keep using it, rather than use it as a weapon of opportunity.

 

Poof. His points total goes up. Later, a half-maddened half- orc hacks his halberd haft in half with a hand-and-a-half sword.

 

Poof. Johann's points total goes down.

 

Rather than subscribe to the "D&D" mentality of steady, continuous progression via the acquisition and spending of experience, why not reward your characters in different ways, and allow the PCs to be built "as desired" from the start?

 

Why assume that the only way to reward PCs is either with experience points that go to skills and attributes, or with free gear?

 

What would be wrong with going---"You get a suit of armor, it increases your points total by 7 points."?

 

The points are just another tool to track relative PC ability and effectiveness; they don't HAVE to represent the "experience" gained through play, unless you want them to.

 

I think it would be fine to go (as a GM):

 

Hmmmm. The party is having a rough time in this adventure. I'll make sure they find some equipment to make them a little bit more able to compete.

 

Bill doesn't have a lot of experience running a rogue very effectively, and it's lowering his enjoyment. I'll let him find a crossbow, which should reinforce his role as a second-line fighter.

 

You can do either of these WITHOUT altering CP totals, and you can do both of them AND alter CP totals. What's the big deal?

 

 

OK, wait...

 

IF I am reading this right, what you're talking about here is keeping track of the total point VALUE of the characters, including equipment, but not actually making them PAY for the items, right?

 

Basically tracking the Active point value of the characters (Character Points + Items + Followers + Bases + Whatever = Total) to keep a running relative scale of the various characters, as opposed to making them pay "Real" Points?

 

I'd be totally OK with the idea, in that case...

 

So you know that Thrud the barbarian has been mongering and is now runing around at a total of 500 points, while Robby the rogue tips the Real point scale of 260, because he hasn't gotten his hands on much in play except his usual set of knives and theives tools, and the 10 points of wealth he's scrounged up?

 

I wouldn't go all over-controlling with something like this, but it copuld be a good idea to track if you don't trust all your players to "play fair" with the rest of the party.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

That's just goes without saying Ama...the GM should always have an idea of the relative footing between characters and potential abuses of the system. Such things should be tracked but refactoring the point costs of characters to account for the natural accumulation and attrition of gear is just unnecessary.

 

 

If a GM is particularly hellbent to place some boundaries, then there are much better options such as Resource Points (from Dark Champions).

[Korren]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

I think youre heading down a semantic trap Mr. Negative. What you are describing is exactly how "don't make characters pay character points for acquired items" works save that there is no need to refactor characters to account for whatever junk they currently happen to be carrying around. This is an uncessesary chore that is time consuming and accomplishes no real benefit.

 

The system already accounts for this state of affairs anyway.

 

Say you have an item, "magic" or not (and what is and is not "magic" is a purely arbitrary decision in the HERO System anyway), and it has a Real Cost of 30 points.

 

While using the item the character in effect has +30 character points. However, the character does not own those 30 extra points. They cannot cannibalize them into some other ability. If they lose the item they have no meta-game right to get it back or replace it.

 

In effect the points in the item belong to the item, not the character currently in possession of the item. These points are encapsulated into the item...one might say that these points are an independent entity....

 

There is a Limitation that indicates exactly this state of affairs...it is called, unsuprisingly, "INDEPENDENT".

 

So, it's perfectly ok for one PC to be carrying 200 points worth of INDEPENDENT items and one PC to only have 10 points worth... the guy with 200 takes the lead during combat, kills everything, and the guy with 10 just sits back and hopes he can find some items that will allow HIM to have a good time during the NEXT game session.....

 

See? The logical paradox already raises its head. You have a sword on your belt. You know how to use it - indeed you have used it competently for a month of hard adventuring. But today, you can't use it because *now* you have a bow. Or you have a knife on your belt, but for some reason you can't find it, because you haven't paid for it yet. That chainmail you acquired? If you don't pay points for it, it offers all the protection of a fishnet stocking, regardless of whether you are wearing it or not. And so on and so on.

 

It just doesn't make sense.

 

And I still don't see what benefit you get from deliberately introducing a paradox into the game.....

 

cheers, Mark

 

It's PART of the game.... it's what stops one PC from outbalancing all the rest, by having a higher point total.... Why bother using a point based system if any character can have 10 times as many points as all the others, put together, just because he's been collecting items.... stealing, sneaking, convincing others that they're better off in his hands.....

 

And, if you'd read, I didn't say that magic items that weren't paid for had NO effect on the game.... Just that they were not anywhere near as EFFECTIVE or RELIABLE as items a character has paid for.

 

Do people even READ both sides of a discussion before posting?

 

Korren

[Old Man]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So' date=' it's perfectly ok for one PC to be carrying 200 points worth of INDEPENDENT items and one PC to only have 10 points worth... the guy with 200 takes the lead during combat, kills everything, and the guy with 10 just sits back and hopes he can find some items that will allow HIM to have a good time during the NEXT game session.....[/quote']

 

It's ok if the GM let it happen. that particular brand of player is often not invited to play again. In a way it is the GMs fault for letting such items fall into the hands of said player.

 

Of course there are various remedies to such a problem.

 

It's PART of the game.... it's what stops one PC from outbalancing all the rest, by having a higher point total.... Why bother using a point based system if any character can have 10 times as many points as all the others, put together, just because he's been collecting items.... stealing, sneaking, convincing others that they're better off in his hands.....

 

I can see that you're trying to make a point but at least keep it within reason. A GM has to do some serious rethinking if one of the characters has 750 pts worth of stuff and the other have 75.

 

Ohhh...I get it. He wouldn't even have it because he couldn't find it anyway if it was in your game. Got it. All makes sense now.

 

And, if you'd read, I didn't say that magic items that weren't paid for had NO effect on the game.... Just that they were not anywhere near as EFFECTIVE or RELIABLE as items a character has paid for.

 

Still sounds wonky to me but whatever floats your boat.

 

Do people even READ both sides of a discussion before posting?

 

Korren

 

They do but don't always read all of the posts or are concentrating on some sticking point.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

If you really are determined to go down this road, there is nothing to stop you. I would then say that your world would be more like "Earth dawn", where you had to bond with a magical item to get the full effectiveness out of it. By doing this, then there should be no "Independent" limitation on the items. There are still problems with doing this.

 

As Killer Shrike has already stated, if you are really insistent of doing this, it would be better if you used the resource point method from DC.

 

As to players acquiring items in the manner that you are mentioning, I find it hard that one player could acquire all of the good magical items. In a campaign where this would be a problem, other characters should be able to detect if something is magical. IMO this really is only a problem in a High Fantasy campaign...

 

The part that really grinds me about the reasonings for this, is the player mentality that you can just switch items without others noticing. For some reason they are using our mass produced society instead of historical facts as the basis that such actions are possible. In most campaigns, you will not find an assembly line nor any form of mass production. Henry Ford and Eli Whitney are the ones that were responsible for these inventions during our history, which was way after the medieval ages. Now taking this into consideration, no two long swords are ever going to look the same, even two made by the same artisan, as items are not mass produced. Artisan’s during the "normal" fantasy period took pride in making their crafts looking different; each one was a piece of art to them. Perhaps if an Artisan was trying to get a perfect balanced sword, he may have 4 or 5 that look the same, as each one represented another attempt at it. But, even then there would be subtle differences between them. So the only person who lets the players acquire all of these items is you the GM.

 

My opinion is that the other characters would be entitled to a perception check when they found a sword, that one of the party members has been using all along on a corpse. There are numerous things that you can do as well, that would add to the rp of the moment. Have the sword rattle around, as the blade is now smaller than the older sword in the same scabbard. Have the blade sticking a couple of inches out of the scabbard, as it is longer than the older sword. Etc...

[Old Man]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

 

My opinion is that the other characters would be entitled to a perception check when they found a sword, that one of the party members has been using all along on a corpse. There are numerous things that you can do as well, that would add to the rp of the moment. Have the sword rattle around, as the blade is now smaller than the older sword in the same scabbard. Have the blade sticking a couple of inches out of the scabbard, as it is longer than the older sword. Etc...

 

 

No no it doesn't matter. If the character didn't pay the points for it can't be found all the time anyway. After killing lots of stuff and fulfulling certain quests and plot points, the sword will be found all the time and will hit harder too

 

Then it wouldn't matter if another party member took the sword away as they didn't pay the points for it and they would lose it. At which point player A will find the sword back in his scabbard unharmed.

 

You guys just don't get it. It makes perfect sense!

 

Sword Master and Unskilled Serf wander about and find a normal sword. Sword Master can't get it as he has spent all his points so will probably lose the thing or break it. Unskilled Serf will take it as he still has points left over and then can both use it better than Sword Master, will never lose it, and it will never break.

 

I don't see what the problem is.

[Old Man]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

I'm sorry that was rude. I take it ALL back.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

No no it doesn't matter. If the character didn't pay the points for it can't be found all the time anyway. After killing lots of stuff and fulfulling certain quests and plot points, the sword will be found all the time and will hit harder too

 

Then it wouldn't matter if another party member took the sword away as they didn't pay the points for it and they would lose it. At which point player A will find the sword back in his scabbard unharmed.

 

You guys just don't get it. It makes perfect sense!

 

Sword Master and Unskilled Serf wander about and find a normal sword. Sword Master can't get it as he has spent all his points so will probably lose the thing or break it. Unskilled Serf will take it as he still has points left over and then can both use it better than Sword Master, will never lose it, and it will never break.

 

I don't see what the problem is.

 

Perhaps I need to find that sword to cut all the sarcastic irony from Shadowpup in half....

[Markdoc]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So' date=' it's perfectly ok for one PC to be carrying 200 points worth of INDEPENDENT items and one PC to only have 10 points worth... the guy with 200 takes the lead during combat, kills everything, and the guy with 10 just sits back and hopes he can find some items that will allow HIM to have a good time during the NEXT game session.....[/quote']

 

If that happens, then the GM has to rethink his strategy. Using points as rough guide to in-game effectiveness is OK, but don't expect it to run the game for you. It doesn't - and shouldn't - work like that.

 

It's PART of the game.... it's what stops one PC from outbalancing all the rest' date=' by having a higher point total.... Why bother using a point based system if any character can have 10 times as many points as all the others, put together, just because he's been collecting items.... stealing, sneaking, convincing others that they're better off in his hands.....[/quote']

 

In that case, that player is playing well, as long as they do it in-game: taking another player into the bathroom and beating them up for their stuff is generally considered in poor form.

 

Basically the idea that players should be balanced, not just in and of themselves, but also including all the stuff they acquire in the course oftheir adventures - and that includes friends, allies, mounts, property, reputation, contacts, favours and also negative stuff like physical injuries, social limitation and rivals or enemies, as well as physical loot, is only part of the game if you CHOOSE to make it so.

 

So yes, I read what you posted.If you remeber what I posted, we have already tried balancing points for "stuff" and it turned out to be a fiasco. if you choose to do it, well feel free - it's your game. But you did ask for opinions. This IS my opinion: it's a terrible idea and way more trouble than it's worth.

 

cheers, Mark

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Hey I just figured out a perfect analogy for this style of playing....

 

LOTR.

 

Bilbo was all good burning his saved XP on that measly Ring of Invisiblity, but when they changed GM's the new guy ret-conned his ring into an Artifact of Ultimate Power and the poor hobbit player had to make a new character just to be able to afford to keep the ring.

 

"But I liked playing Bilbo! Darnit! Ok, so I'll play another Hobbit, named, uh, Frodo! Yeah. He'll be Bilbos, uh, nephew, or something. I sure hope I get to use the darn thing... I had to spend all my bloody points on it. Even Merry and Pippin have more skills than I do!"

[prestidigitator]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

The converse solution, of course, is to use something like a VPP+spellbook and not charge spellcasters (in Character Points) for their spells either. Instead, spellcasters pay for the ability to cast spells by buying a bigger VPP and Skills in a manner similar to the way fighters pay for Str, Martial Arts, CSLs, etc.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

First up: Hi, I'm new. My first actual exposure to a HERO rulebook was yesterday. But I've been contemplating a particular campaign concept for Fantasy HERO for a little while now, and this very issue arose as I skimmed through the rules yesterday.

 

I'm looking at a high powered game, with one of the central concepts being that every PC has some kind of magical ability -- be it conventional spell use, shapeshifting, a powerful magical sword, MMORPG-like special combat moves, a pack of loyal and dangerous homonculi etc...

 

To some degree, I'm blurring the lines between high fantasy and supers in some respects.

 

So, I'm browsing through the rules and trying to determine whether this is a supers-level or heroic-level game, and tending to think low powered supers. Then I come across the rules being discussed in this thread, and my immediate thought is "nah, character points for mundane gear is nonsensical in this context".

 

But then, I thought about it some more.

 

The PCs in this game will be a chosen few, already great heroes who have now been invested with absolute divine and secular power to defend a new formed and still-emerging empire from foes both within and without. Heroes in their own right already, with signature abilities and equipment.

 

It began to make sense to me, in that context, that the items the PCs use are an important part of who and what they are. And thus, it makes further sense that those items are paid for in character points.

 

Looking at it from that perspective, it seems reasonable to me to allow the PCs to pick up or otherwise acquire equipment for temporary use. If a PC wants to grab a sword off a a slain foe and wield it for a while, that's fine (although, I would expect, suboptimal, since the character will likely be built for some other purpose). But, once there is a discontinuity between scenes ("Three weeks later...") the sword would be forgotten.

 

Similarly, things like rope would not be forbidden, if they are deemed necessary to a course of action, and there is no logical reason why the character couldn't acquire such a thing. However, if the player wants to have a guarantee that rope is available when he needs it, then he pays the CP cost, and it becomes one of his signature items. Which implies an added benefit: you pay for it, you're pretty much guaranteed to have it, short of a major plot point or a conscious decision to leave it behind.

 

Reading through this thread gives me the impression that implementing CP costs for items, in this very specific context and fashion, is workable. Opions from those with more than 24 hours of HERO System experience would be appreciated, however.

 

Edit: It just dawned on me why exactly this should work, and I'd guess it's much the same reason it would work in a Supers game: a warrior isn't going to be spending points on a heap of mundane items just be effective in combat. He'll be spending them on one or two powerful magical items that make him what he is, or on the abilities he uses to turn a mundane item into a bloody whirlwind of doom.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Sable, first of all welcome to the boards.

 

As to the paying for eq, read some of the posts from experienced GMs. The problem is that paying for eq does create a paradox. "Sorry guys I cannot climb that rope, as I did not pay points for it. I know that last week, I climbed one..." At some point one of your players, will not pay for standard eq, knowing that you will most likely allow him to continue to use that rope. If you force them to pay for eq without the "Independant" limitation, then they will always have that rope, even if it does not make sense why. If you use the "independent" limitation, when that rope get stolen/burned/left behind they will have to pay for a new one...

 

Since you are going to be using power-skills, I would assume that your warrior will be investing pretty heavily in those. The balance will be the spell-caster buying spells, and the rest buying power-skills.

 

I assume that your players will be new to Hero as well. If they came from D&D, you are going to have a hard sell as to why they have to pay for the loot they get.

 

Experienced GMs tend to agree that paying for eq, is not a good idea.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Hmm, ok.

 

I'm getting the impression that people see this as a FH-specific problem, and one that does not apply to a modern Supers game.

 

If that's the case, I'm having difficulty following the argument, so some more detail on that front would be appreciated as two what seperates the two in this instance.

 

In any event, I'm quite confident that my players won't have any difficulty adapting to this kind of genre convention, so it should only be mechanics issues that have the potential to cause problems.

 

Edit: ah, and on the Independant thing -- if I do end up going down this road, I will almost certainly treat independant mundane items as replenishing between sessions/adventures if lost or damaged, without a cost required to do so. Whether I do that using official mechanics, or just houserule it, I wouldn't have any idea, not knowing the system yet.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So, it's perfectly ok for one PC to be carrying 200 points worth of INDEPENDENT items and one PC to only have 10 points worth... the guy with 200 takes the lead during combat, kills everything, and the guy with 10 just sits back and hopes he can find some items that will allow HIM to have a good time during the NEXT game session.....

 

 

 

It's PART of the game.... it's what stops one PC from outbalancing all the rest, by having a higher point total.... Why bother using a point based system if any character can have 10 times as many points as all the others, put together, just because he's been collecting items.... stealing, sneaking, convincing others that they're better off in his hands.....

 

And, if you'd read, I didn't say that magic items that weren't paid for had NO effect on the game.... Just that they were not anywhere near as EFFECTIVE or RELIABLE as items a character has paid for.

 

Do people even READ both sides of a discussion before posting?

 

Korren

 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of character points, what they measure, and the degree to which consideration of them should affect events in play.

 

 

Additionally, you seem to be strangely passive as a GM. If the GM allows one character to get and keep a massive stockpile of items that make that character substantially more powerful than other player characters to a degree that is disruptive to the campaign, then that is a fault of the GM -- they aren't doing their job.

 

 

What the GM giveth, the GM can taketh away.

[Markdoc]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Hmm, ok.

 

I'm getting the impression that people see this as a FH-specific problem, and one that does not apply to a modern Supers game.

 

It doesn't really apply to a supers game purely because that's a genre thing, just like wearing your underwear outside your costume. It might make good sense for Superman to carry a radio - or at least a mobile phone - but he doesn't. He relies on his powers. To even the playing field, someone who relies on gadgets also pays for them: those gadgets ARE his powers - even if they are conventional items like a pair of .45s. It doesn't make great sense, but then neither does the fact that Clark Kent can hide his identity from close friends with a pair of fake eyeglasses. Suspension of disbelief allows it.

 

But in other settings you don't (usually) have that same "genre" thang - and without it, suspension of disbelief takes a much bigger hit.

 

However, as you pointed out, *sometimes* it makes sense. In my last long FH campaign, I used a medieval asian background with a kung fu + chambara flavour. In that sort of setting, characters often have a shtick that is sort of superheroic and "gear" is less important. Toshiro Mifune doesn't spend all his time waddling about in armour, for example, no matter how many swordfights he gets into. But then he never seems to hampered by that lack.

 

The way I handled that was not by keeping track of item costs, but simply by gasp! not giving away treasure or magic items. If the players wanted to pick up mundane items and they had the cash, they could. To get even further away from the standard FH theme I kept only a very loose thumb on cash flow. Players had some money, lots of money or no money, depending on circumstances, but I never required players to keep track of how many bu they were toting - so soon they stopped caring too. At that point balance is handled nicely - everybody has access to the same stuff and it was the characters themselves and their "shtick" that counted. So again, keeping track of the cost of mundane items was avoided - and would have added precisely nothing useful if I had bothered.

 

If that's the case' date=' I'm having difficulty following the argument, so some more detail on that front would be appreciated as two what seperates the two in this instance.[/quote']

 

Well, players in a super game usually have Earthshattering Powers . There's not much point in packing a .38 if you can lift and throw an Abrams. If you want to be tough enough to bounce bullets, you can, in which case a flak jacket is passé.

 

In FH, however, players usually don't have such free choice of powers and not so much total power. So a sword suddenly turns into a reasonable force multipler. In other words, the free stuff is actually "worth something".

 

But in a super-fantasy game you can get the same effect as in a regular supers game. If Lord Doom has a blade (paid for with points) that will cut through almost anything, is he going to bother to carry a regular sword? Deft the Archer might carry a regular sword, but if he gets into a fight with Lord Doom, he's probably toast anyway for all that he gets 10 free points of equipment. And frankly he'd probably rather stay out of HTH combat and use his amazing bow skills (which let him use any bow to do 3d6 RKA) to hit anything. If he restricts himself to mundane items, he'll be at a diadvantage, rather than the reverse.

 

So basically in this setting too, keeping track of costs for mundane stuff is essentially irrittating book-keeping which has little influence on the game.

 

And I've been there too: I ran an FH game where all of the characters were immortals with their own clearly-defined funky powers (and built on 250-300+ points). Sure, Death carried a regular sword (and he even used it) - but he was far more lethal with his bony little fists. The Fool had a brace of daggers, but it was his luck-manipulating powers that counted. I didn't bother accounting for mundane items there, either, because their effect on the game was minimal.

 

So it's hard for me to see what keeping track of costs for mundane items is actually good or necessary for, regardless of where you stand on the points scale.

 

For whup-*** magic items, the balance is different. Those *can* affect a game. OTOH, the GM should not just toss them out like candy - if magic items are in play it's either because the players paid points for them or the GM gave them away. In a fantasy setting such as you describe where players have paid-for magical shticks, then yes, it makes sense for them to pay for found magic items, or soon lose them: again, it's a genre thing. They are paying to incorporate them into their shtick. But in most cases, that's not true.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Here is an article I wrote a while ago discussing the points / equipment idea in the HERO System:

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HEROEquipmentDebunk.htm

 

and here is another document on Paradigms for Fantasy, that links out to a number of sub-genre specific documents such as Super Fantasy and High Fantasy (etc etc).

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/campaignParadigms.shtml

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Cool. Thanks for the (continuing) feedback.

 

I've been giving this quite a bit of thought, weighing up the benefits I'm looking for out of Points For Gear versus the potential problems -- and I think I may be on to a way I can get the best of both worlds.

 

The main thing I'm looking for is a way to gently push players towards signature items in a way that I think is not disimilar to Supers -- although, I will readily admit that my understanding of the finer points of the Supers is pretty much limited to acknowledge that there are finer points.

 

At the same time, I can see problems with paying CP for every last piece of thread, chalk, fishing hook etc...

 

So, how does this sound as a solution:

 

First up, encourage players to think in terms of signature items. "Your character is likely to have rope on hand at almost all times? How about giving yourself a magical rope?"

 

Second, introduce a class of nearly-mundane items, that are just a bit better than truly-mundane ones. I'm not sure how easy this will be to do in HERO, since even small modifiers tend to be very useful, but hey, this is supposed to be the game you can do anything with, no? Then, give these items a very attractive points cost. Players then have the option of making do with regular stuff, or getting something slightly better at minimal cost. They can decide for themselves which way they want to go (and obviously, they can mix and match, only selecting costed items that are important to them).

 

Thoughts?

 

Oh, and KS, thanks for the links, I'll check them out. I've already been scouting out your site, mainly because I'm likely to be in for a lot of magic system building in the future.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Could we stop using things like ‘I can’t climb that rope!’ and ‘I can’t pick up this dagger, despite the fact I’m currently being eviscerated!’ as examples of why superheroic-style equipment won’t work?

 

That’s not how superheroic equipment works. And I’m fairly certain that we all know that’s not how it works.

 

Superheroic equipment is basically a deal the players make, ‘If I want to keep this gun/fake Cap shield/plot device,’ I’m going to have to pay for it eventually.’

 

Neither system is perfect, in this respect. Heroic encourages D&D style looting, (Wresting a magic sword from a demon knight is one thing, taking 2d4 copper from the pouch of each dead bandit is another) which is not considered heroic, whatever historical president there may be.

 

There’s considerable historical precedent for recognizing marriages based off of killing your new wife’s current husband and children and dragging her back home, but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable in a tabletop setting (at least, I hope not . . . )

 

Worse, it encourages item collection, hoarding, and two-page long equipment lists, which is a genre kill in almost any game. A characters success or failure shouldn’t depend on whether or not he brought enough Iron Spikes.

 

(And yes, I do remember the rope thing from LotR)

 

It also means characters who aren’t based on equipment have a much harder time, unless the rest of the rules are changed to help them out.

 

Superheroic does have the ‘leave good stuff behind’ problem, and makes it harder to buy a horse or other expensive things, especially on short notice.

 

And it does encourage players to put points in stuff that can be taken away from them, which can leave fighter-types surprisingly inept when stripped of Foci.

 

And if the GM decides to be anal, you can get into ridiculous situations where you have a cold camp every night because no ones willing to pay for flints. (Of course, if the GM is that anal, you can probably expect the two-page equipment list . . .)

 

All these problems can be avoided, of course. Either system can work. I just think the superheroic problems are easier to avoid.

 

Clearly, I’m in favor of going superheroic, as long as you don’t get obsessed with it. I personally think the ‘leave good stuff behind’ thing is exaggerated, unless there’s a TON of magic junk in the campaign, and that the second is easily avoided. The third shouldn’t be a problem as long as the GM doesn’t sweat the small stuff too much.

 

But then, I think most of the good stuff gets lost from Hero somewhere in the transition between heroic and superheroic, so I’m biased . . .

 

---

As an aside: Is there any way to build a rope in Hero that doesn’t suck?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Could we stop using things like ‘I can’t climb that rope!’ and ‘I can’t pick up this dagger, despite the fact I’m currently being eviscerated!’ as examples of why superheroic-style equipment won’t work?

 

That’s not how superheroic equipment works. And I’m fairly certain that we all know that’s not how it works.

So in other words, if we all just agree to ignore the scenarios where paying points for equipment doesnt work or make sense then its all good?

 

 

Superheroic equipment is basically a deal the players make, ‘If I want to keep this gun/fake Cap shield/plot device,’ I’m going to have to pay for it eventually.’

Why is such a "deal" necessary in the first place?

 

Neither system is perfect, in this respect. Heroic encourages D&D style looting

 

Untrue. It enables characters to interact with the trappings of the setting, which is what all objects are whether you attach a label on them as being "magical" or not.

 

It doesnt encourage "looting" any more than paying points for looting discourages it, even if you take as a given that looting is something undesirable in the first place.

 

In a pay points paradigm, characters can still loot stuff and sell it for coin so it is no different from a dont pay points paradigm in that regard save that for some illogical reason characters can't choose to use them instead of selling them.

 

, (Wresting a magic sword from a demon knight is one thing, taking 2d4 copper from the pouch of each dead bandit is another) which is not considered heroic, whatever historical president there may be.

 

Why not let players and the inhabitants of the setting decide what is and is not "honorable" or "heroic" instead of distorting the point accounting of the system to punish / prevent the activity?

 

If for some reason you as the GM feel that characters taking objects by force is dishonorable, then you can have your NPCs react to "dishonorable" characters as you see fit.

 

Perceptions of "honorable" / "dishonorable" behavior and reactions to such is really just an interaction modifier -- i.e. a roleplaying element rather than mechanical element.

 

To any extent, making sweeping assumptions of morality and saying that a) acquiring items by taking them from others is always "dishonorable" and that all characters must be "honorable" at all times to such a degree that the ability to acquire an item and use it must be mechanically proscribed seems kind of simpleminded / overly idealistic / unrealistic to me.

 

There’s considerable historical precedent for recognizing marriages based off of killing your new wife’s current husband and children and dragging her back home, but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable in a tabletop setting (at least, I hope not . . . )

Straying completely off into left field there. This has nothing at all to do with acquiring items naturally or having to pay points for them and introducing it to the discussion serves no purpose other than to indicate that you are fond of making random non sequitirs.

 

Worse, it encourages item collection, hoarding, and two-page long equipment lists, which is a genre kill in almost any game.

 

What are you talking about? How does having an equipment list equate to a "genre kill", much less "in almost any game"?

 

Equipment lists are a standard complement of many different roleplaying games, and I've never experienced a circumstance where one in any way negatively impacted a game, nor heard any thing that could even be construed that way from other players.

 

A characters success or failure shouldn’t depend on whether or not he brought enough Iron Spikes.

 

 

(And yes, I do remember the rope thing from LotR)

Challenge / task resolution and adventure design have nothing to do with paying points or not paying points for equipment.

 

Im sorry, this may sound harsh, but youre making several statements that are painting you as having a rather muddled thought process. You seem to have a perspective formed by mislinking several unrelated things, broad assumptions, and false dilemnas.

 

It also means characters who aren’t based on equipment have a much harder time, unless the rest of the rules are changed to help them out.

In other words, in some cases characters that are better equipped have an advantage over characters that are poorly equipped.

 

This is a concept that is so obviously true in reality and in almost all source material that it seems odd to me that you would find it objectionable.

 

Superheroic does have the ‘leave good stuff behind’ problem, and makes it harder to buy a horse or other expensive things, especially on short notice.

 

And it does encourage players to put points in stuff that can be taken away from them, which can leave fighter-types surprisingly inept when stripped of Foci.

 

And if the GM decides to be anal, you can get into ridiculous situations where you have a cold camp every night because no ones willing to pay for flints. (Of course, if the GM is that anal, you can probably expect the two-page equipment list . . .)

 

 

So in other words, paying points for equipment frequently forces players to sacrifice character growth in other areas by requiring them to spend points on stuff, discourages / punishes characters that use weapons in complete disregard for the fact that sharp pointy things is an ultra-common trope of the genre, and creates obvious ridiculous / stupid / fourth-wall breaking situations where the in-play experience is distorted by the arbitrary meta-game requirement that characters must pay points for their equipment?

 

All these problems can be avoided, of course. Either system can work. I just think the superheroic problems are easier to avoid.

Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated as much. In fact, you could hardly have made a better argument against it.

 

Clearly, I’m in favor of going superheroic, as long as you don’t get obsessed with it. I personally think the ‘leave good stuff behind’ thing is exaggerated, unless there’s a TON of magic junk in the campaign, and that the second is easily avoided. The third shouldn’t be a problem as long as the GM doesn’t sweat the small stuff too much.

So in other words, as long as the situation doesnt come up often and the GM and players either hand wave or ignore "small stuff", it all works out fine eh?

 

 

But then, I think most of the good stuff gets lost from Hero somewhere in the transition between heroic and superheroic, so I’m biased . . .

 

An experience particular to yourself that is at obvious odds with the experience of many other GMs and players of FantasyHERO.

[Old Man]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

At the same time, I can see problems with paying CP for every last piece of thread, chalk, fishing hook etc...

 

So, how does this sound as a solution:

 

First up, encourage players to think in terms of signature items. "Your character is likely to have rope on hand at almost all times? How about giving yourself a magical rope?"

 

Well this made me curious...

 

Just how many points would it cost to have your normal run of fantasy level equipment. I personally would want all of my equipment to work like it's supposed to and I would want to be able to find it every time I need it - I don't want a dagger and then lose it in my boot.

 

Say this character is rogue-like and doesn't want many magic items as they might set off magical alarms.

 

So:

Lock Picks

30' Strong Yet Light Rope

2 Candles, one tallow, one bees wax

Palm Sized Mirror

Face Paint

A Few Hidden Silver Coins (or whatever the money is)

A Mouse

2 Belt Pouches, one large, one small

Sewing Kit with needle and thread

A Flask of Oil

3 Stick of Chalk, one white, one red, one black

2 Daggers

A Finely Balanced Rapier

A Six Inch Iron Rod

Flint and Steel (tinder box)

3 Bronze Door Spikes

[Lezentauw]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

When I first went from D&D to HERO, I saw the point system as a method to balance characters. By making people pay point for eq, you can keep the players in pretty much the same power levels. What a great idea...

 

Since then I have come to realize that point balancing is a complete farce. It will do a decent job of getting players to an approximate equality, but in no way will the players be equal even though they have the same points.

 

I can guarantee you, that once you start hand-waving that at least one of your players will start to push the boundary of what has to be paid for what does not. If you think I am mistaken on this, then take into consideration Active Point Limits for a Super-Heroic campaign. Once the GM states the limit for his campaign for attacks, every player will take their powers right up to the limit. In much the same way, the players will want to maximize their characters, and that would mean scrimping points from items "that they should be buying", and instead purchasing other abilities or eq that you will not hand-wave.

 

If you plan on handing out a lot of items to the players, magical or otherwise, IMO you will find that the players will only be able to afford those new items or character development. If you some people that actually do put their points into character development, and others into the eq, you will run into problems. Once characters get enough points, the characters that put all of their points into eq will start to outpace the developmental characters. The reasoning is that the characters with the eq, will in actualityhave a higher active point total, due to all of the limitations on eq.

 

The reality is that you will have only magnified your problem rather "fixing" it. IMO you are better off just using role-playing methods for dealing with these situations, rather than using a system that is full of paradox's and is the product of its own balancing issues.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

This ultimately gets more confusing than it's worth. It's the difference between a heroic setting and a super-heroic setting. Posted much earlier in this thread were two very good points:

 

1. A sword is a sword. It's a sword. A magical sword is an Independent sword. Fine. If you want the magical sword to be a part of you, it's not at all unreasonable to make the PC pay for it; otherwise they run the risk of losing it. I've heard the whole "it's magically taken away because you didn't pay for it" thing before, but that's not how I roll. I don't see a need to take it away - I'm just under no obligation to give it back.

 

Now, should the PC choose to buy out Independent, they can do that - it's EXPENSIVE, but they can do it. I would not condone - and maybe it's the d20 in me talking - simply "taking away" items. I know it's HERO canon, I just happen to violently disagree with it. Don't give them something with the threat hanging over their head that you're going to take it away.

 

It's silly - really - to charge them 1 CP to purchase an Independent Potion of Healing. C'mon. I'm not saying you CAN'T do it. I'm saying I think it gets into levels of meaningless (and fun-killing) minutiae.

 

2. Independent aside, the second excellent point was that there's something to be said for finding treasure; I guarantee you that a Wizard with a 90 point VPP is going to be able to smoke a Fighter under many circumstances. The joy in HERO is that yes - they have a powerful VPP. They're also probably skill deficient and squishy. If the Fighter can close range - bearing in mind he probably has a higher SPD and DEX, and likely some sort of ranged weapon with which to interrupt the caster - he has a chance.

 

A fighter in d20 is drowning in equipment. Low to Middle level WIZ against a well prepped FIT would have minimal chance; there'd be a fair amount of luck involved, whereas the Fighter just has to play the waiting game.

 

3. As was just said above, there's an extent to which balance is slightly voodoo; you'll come much MUCH closer to having fair and well balanced characters in a HERO game than you do in a d20, but it's not a reason to not give out treasure.

 

One of things mentioned in the original post was your idea that you somehow had to balance the entire treasure trove so everyone got the thing they were supposed to have - but there's no guarantee for that. In fact it's far more interesting from the DM chair to see what new and interesting use they make of certain objects, rather than constricting them to your pre-designed plan.

 

4. If you want to side step the issue further, you can also have the PCs pay for their own inherent abilities, rather than focusing on equipment. The Paladin doesn't buy "smite" as a weapon - he buys "smite" with the limitation "OIF: Weapon of Opportunity."

 

If part of your concern is combat efficiency, then institute caps. For example, no one should have more than X*50cp in additional OCV (not counting DEX). So if you have 150 CP, you max at DEX + 3 OCV. It's not perfect (and please, no flame, it's an example) but HERO as written has no caps; instituting caps where necessary can go a long way towards balancing things.

 

You can also cap a Wizards melee OCV, but let them purchase additional levels in Spell OCV. You can cap damage classes and skill levels. You can make your players conform to the ground rules of the game and thus force them to find new and interesting things to do with their points.

 

Just further thoughts. I still whole-heartedly disagree with the idea of charging for mundane equipment, or anything that the character hasn't decided to absolutely keep. But I'm just one man with a Holy Ice Cream Cone.

 

I could be wrong.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

This ultimately gets more confusing than it's worth. It's the difference between a heroic setting and a super-heroic setting. Posted much earlier in this thread were two very good points:

 

1. A sword is a sword. It's a sword. A magical sword is an Independent sword. Fine. If you want the magical sword to be a part of you, it's not at all unreasonable to make the PC pay for it; otherwise they run the risk of losing it. I've heard the whole "it's magically taken away because you didn't pay for it" thing before, but that's not how I roll. I don't see a need to take it away - I'm just under no obligation to give it back.

 

Not sure what you are talking about here.

 

All Independent means is that some number of points are encapsulated into the item. They are removed / detached from the originating character and invested into the item.

 

It merely indicates that the character can sell the items for money, lose them, break them, have them stolen, etc -- in short all the same things that could be done with some random object free-floating in the setting.

 

There is no implicit requirement on a GM to take away Independent items.

 

If the GM wants to, they can of course machinate some circumstance or chain of events that culminates in the removal of the item via some method, but the GM is by no means required to do so.

 

Simply observing common sense and allowing events to take their natural uncontrived course is sufficient deterent / enforcement.

 

 

Now, should the PC choose to buy out Independent, they can do that - it's EXPENSIVE, but they can do it. I would not condone - and maybe it's the d20 in me talking - simply "taking away" items. I know it's HERO canon, I just happen to violently disagree with it. Don't give them something with the threat hanging over their head that you're going to take it away.

I would strongly recommend against introducing a concept by which characters can opt to pay character points for a found / acquired item, whether they buy off IND or not.

 

It is a purely metagame concept with no in-play justification.

 

Again, it seems to me that you are laboring under the misconception that if a character has item(s) with Independent the GM must constantly labor to remove the item(s) from their possession.

 

It's silly - really - to charge them 1 CP to purchase an Independent Potion of Healing. C'mon. I'm not saying you CAN'T do it. I'm saying I think it gets into levels of meaningless (and fun-killing) minutiae.

Paying points for expendable items is always a stupid idea. This is why in my recommended handling of magic items "Ephermeral" items -- i.e. items with Non-Recoverable Charges -- never cost character points.

 

2. Independent aside, the second excellent point was that there's something to be said for finding treasure; I guarantee you that a Wizard with a 90 point VPP is going to be able to smoke a Fighter under many circumstances. The joy in HERO is that yes - they have a powerful VPP. They're also probably skill deficient and squishy. If the Fighter can close range - bearing in mind he probably has a higher SPD and DEX, and likely some sort of ranged weapon with which to interrupt the caster - he has a chance.

 

A fighter in d20 is drowning in equipment. Low to Middle level WIZ against a well prepped FIT would have minimal chance; there'd be a fair amount of luck involved, whereas the Fighter just has to play the waiting game.

 

There are some assumptions inherent in this exposition that I dont entirely agree with, however I dont want to derail this thread to argue with them.

 

I will make one point that is psuedo-on topic in response to this though:

 

Your analysis of the Wizard's state vs a rigged up Fighter in d20 is somewhat faulty as it fails to take into account Dispel Magic which levels the playing field considerably. Granted, many players seem to forget / not understand / disregard the power of Dispel Magic to temporarily shut off magic items, and some characters don't have the spell or an equivalent at all.

 

Its a considerable weapon and one of the uber spells that is difficult to equal in the HERO System in equivalent points as other Spells of the same Spell Level. Never the less, Dispel / Suppress spells, or more direct foci-affecting attacks, and defenses bought specifically vs Magic all make for very effective means for a spellcaster to mitigate items carried by opponents.

 

3. As was just said above, there's an extent to which balance is slightly voodoo; you'll come much MUCH closer to having fair and well balanced characters in a HERO game than you do in a d20, but it's not a reason to not give out treasure.

One of things mentioned in the original post was your idea that you somehow had to balance the entire treasure trove so everyone got the thing they were supposed to have - but there's no guarantee for that. In fact it's far more interesting from the DM chair to see what new and interesting use they make of certain objects, rather than constricting them to your pre-designed plan.

Yes, trying to Care Bear swag so that everyone in a group gets an easter egg is a very lame practice that in addition to being monty haulish almost never works as intended.

 

 

4. If you want to side step the issue further, you can also have the PCs pay for their own inherent abilities, rather than focusing on equipment. The Paladin doesn't buy "smite" as a weapon - he buys "smite" with the limitation "OIF: Weapon of Opportunity."

Yes. This sort of ability is essentially a "super-skill" -- it says this character can do this with any Weapon of the right sort. The Deadly Blow Talent is exactly this sort of thing, and there are endless variations. Many of the packages on my site use things like this to represent superior skill that belongs to the character, not to some item.

 

If part of your concern is combat efficiency, then institute caps. For example, no one should have more than X*50cp in additional OCV (not counting DEX). So if you have 150 CP, you max at DEX + 3 OCV. It's not perfect (and please, no flame, it's an example) but HERO as written has no caps; instituting caps where necessary can go a long way towards balancing things.

The problem with Caps is that most players interpret them to mean "minimum allowable amount".

 

Ive seen it again and again; as soon as a cap is set players start striving to raise their character's abilities to equal the cap.

 

Without caps a much more natural spread is normal and players are more prone to take as much of something as they can afford while observing their character concept. I think its just a psychological thing.

 

Personally, I prefer to only set caps on things that players tend to take too much of regardless -- in other words, I set the cap to lower the natural spread rather than to provide a restriction.

 

 

You can also cap a Wizards melee OCV, but let them purchase additional levels in Spell OCV. You can cap damage classes and skill levels. You can make your players conform to the ground rules of the game and thus force them to find new and interesting things to do with their points.

All these things can be done, but my rejoinder to things like this is always the same:

 

What is the purpose of enticing players to play a game where you can do almost anything if you then turn around and restrict away their ability to make their characters the way they want them to be?

 

Personally, I try to place restrictions to infuse a setting with flavor and structure, to model an intended mood / look & feel / vision and not just to force characters into cookie cutter molds of what I think they should be.

 

One of the things that inexperienced GM's often fail to fully appreciate is the darwinistic aspect of the HERO System. Characters will naturally thrive or die based upon the demands of your campaign and their design. Over time characters with traits that are relevant to the campaign will bloom, and people making new characters will be informed / influenced by the things that "work" for that campaign.

 

To put it simply, if the GM runs a game where everything can be solved with force then characters that overspecialize in projecting force will thrive and become the norm while characters that are not good at it are relegated to the sidelines. If the GM runs a game where combat is discouraged and interaction skills or practical skills are dominant, then violent characters will falter and fade away. If the GM runs a game where combat, roleplaying, and skill use are roughly balanced then the most successful characters will be the ones that are able to excel at all three; characters that are only good at one aspect will be situationally key and rather useless in all other situations.

 

In other words, the things that the GM makes important to their campaign have the greatest effect on character designs that are succesful.

 

Another important thing to understand is that due to the nature of the BELL CURVE there is a point of diminishing returns in raising Roll Under skills and OCV that is immediately experienced. A character gets the most benefit from the first +1 over what is needed, and correspondingly less for each additional level over. Past a certain point these bonuses are only meaningful relative to something else.

 

For instance, if a player wants their character to have something ridiculous like a 30 OCV and you recommend they go with something more reasonable but they ignore you, let em buy them and rest easy knowing that they just wasted a lot of points. There is almost no conceivable way for that character to ever capitalize on all of those levels and thus, though on a cursory glance it looks over the top in reality its likely not significantly different than a 10 OCV vs the majority of characters in the setting.

 

 

The real trick is ensuring that Opportunity Costs are felt. Don't worry about trying to diminish or oppose what a character has paid a lot of points to be good at. If a character focused a lot of points into something they should be good at it. Let them be good at it. Just adapt to it and don't worry about it

 

The way you make it work is by remembering that while the character has invested their points into whatever it is they are specialized in, they DIDNT invest those points into a staggering array of OTHER abilities.

 

Challenge / constrain such characters by providing circumstances where the abilities they arent so good at / lack are needed to truly succeed.

 

This encourages several things. First off, it encourages more balanced character design in the long run -- your smarter players will eventually realize that they need to cover more bases and will make broadly capable rather than one dimensional characters. Secondly, even if players prefer to play specialized characters it encourages teamwork, since such characters need teammates that compensate for the things they are not good at. Thirdly it makes for a rich multi-faceted campaign with a robust mix of story elements, character interactions, plot lines, and enough combat / adventure to keep things lively.

[Ura-Maru]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So in other words, if we all just agree to ignore the scenarios where paying points for equipment doesnt work or make sense then its all good?

In other words, if we treat ‘pay for equipment’ the same way that it’s treated in superheroic games, and not exaggerate it into ‘you must pay for everything before you can touch it.’ That is NOT how equipment/misc. stuff is handled in any superheroic game I’ve been in or seen, nor how it is described in any of the Hero books I am aware of.

 

 

Why is such a "deal" necessary in the first place?

It’s not ‘necessary,’ but I do think it’s a useful way to keep ‘stuff’ in it’s proper place, and makes the rest of the game work better.

 

 

In a pay points paradigm, characters can still loot stuff and sell it for coin so it is no different from a dont pay points paradigm in that regard save that for some illogical reason characters can't choose to use them instead of selling them.

Sure they can. But there’s less motive for them to do so, as money’s less important when you don’t buy equipment with it. So it becomes mostly a roleplaying issue, like most other motivations.

 

So, actually, I do think there’s a significant difference.

 

 

To any extent, making sweeping assumptions of morality and saying that a) acquiring items by taking them from others is always "dishonorable" and that all characters must be "honorable" at all times to such a degree that the ability to acquire an item and use it must be mechanically proscribed seems kind of simpleminded / overly idealistic / unrealistic to me.

Actually, I agree with you, to a point. I’m not a fan of the ‘any wrongdoing will result in GM smackdown’ school, as it effectively takes morality out of the game, because what’s ‘right’ is always what’s best for the characters, in both the short and long run, and that makes characters and stories less interesting.

 

However, looting is MUCH ‘better’, from the players point of view, than most other types of bad behavior, especially when tasty magic items are available, because it offers an immediate and significant boost in character power.

 

I don’t consider ‘get better stuff to make myself more powerful’ a very interesting or cool character motivation, so I don’t like the idea of ‘rewarding’ it by making it have a much greater impact on character ability than say, desire for political power, or ‘proving myself worthy of my family’s name,’ or skirt-chasing.

 

Nor is it a common motivation in genre fiction, which is why I called it a genre kill. Admittedly, a bit of an exaggeration.

 

 

Straying completely off into left field there. This has nothing at all to do with acquiring items naturally or having to pay points for them and introducing it to the discussion serves no purpose other

. . . than to respond to Marcdoc’s post #24, that looting and acquiring stuff by force was historically sometimes considered acceptable. Which I certainly wouldn’t argue. But I often do argue that real history isn’t always the best model for genre fiction, and by extension, rpgs.

 

than to indicate that you are fond of making random non sequitirs.

Guilty.

 

Equipment lists are a standard complement of many different roleplaying games, and I've never experienced a circumstance where one in any way negatively impacted a game, nor heard any thing that could even be construed that way from other players.

You’ve never wasted half a session because one player was insisting on doing his shopping during game time? You must have had better GMs than I have, even the best of them get caught in that one once in a while.

 

I actually have three (related) problems with long, detailed equipment lists. (And I did say ‘two-page’ equipment lists, for the record)

 

First, they encourage players to concentrate on ‘stuff.’ Second, they encourage GMs to create scenarios where the stuff in question is important, which moves the game focus onto said stuff. Both of these are usually anti-genre, in the sense that very few generes spend more than a token amount of time on what the heroes have in their saddlebags. (Gritty westerns and Tom Clancy techno-porn excepted)

 

Third, they reward player knowledge, not character knowledge. I shouldn’t need to know the names of all the bits of camping gear to make full use of my characters 14- Survival skill, and my woodsman character shouldn’t be made to look like a total *** because his city-boy player didn’t think to buy matches before leaving town.

 

Equipment can have plot hooks, of course, the two most common being ‘you’re trapped in x without your x gear! You must kill an animal with your bare hands, or starve!’ and ‘critical piece of equipment y has broken! You MUST find a replacement, or improvise!’ For those cases, though, a single line saying ‘battered camping equipment’ works just as well as a page and a half listing every sleeping mat and tin cup.

 

Thus, ‘don’t sweat the small stuff,’ which was the point I was trying to make there.

 

Im sorry, this may sound harsh, but youre making several statements that are painting you as having a rather muddled thought process. You seem to have a perspective formed by mislinking several unrelated things, broad assumptions, and false dilemnas.

I’ll take that under advisement.

 

So in other words, paying points for equipment frequently forces players to sacrifice character growth in other areas by requiring them to spend points on stuff,

Points are used to measure effectiveness as well as ‘character growth.’

 

 

discourages / punishes characters that use weapons in complete disregard for the fact that sharp pointy things is an ultra-common trope of the genre,

I believe that’s what the ‘focus’ limitation is for. Equipment-heavy characters get a large price-break already in superheroic games. And not doing it disproportionately punishes characters that don’t wear heavy armor all the time and use a giant swiss army knife of various weapons.

 

Being a master swordsman, a powerful noble, or a werewolf are ultra-common tropes of the genre, too, but you still have to pay for them.

 

and creates obvious ridiculous / stupid / fourth-wall breaking situations where the in-play experience is distorted by the arbitrary meta-game requirement that characters must pay points for their equipment?

I think you’re massively overstating both how obvious, how ridiculous, how stupid, and how fourth-wall breaking these ‘problems’ are, nor am I convinced that paying for equipment any more ‘arbitrary-meta gaming’ than giving all the players the same amount of starting points to begin with.

 

Specifically, I think the ‘can’t climb the rope’ and ‘can’t touch the dagger’ examples are straw men.

 

So in other words, as long as the situation doesnt come up often and the GM and players either hand wave or ignore "small stuff", it all works out fine eh?

Ah, yes, actually. That was more or less what I was saying, despite your tone. Pay for your significant ‘standard’ equipment, use found, scavenged, or bought for the occasion equipment as appropriate, and don’t be too anal about random, noncombat stuff like ropes, sleeping bags, and candles.

 

You seem as contemptuous of the fact that I’m not insisting on paying for sleeping bags as much as the suggestion of paying for important stuff, like weapons. Why? I know it’s not totally consistent, I said as much in my first post. But I think it works better than either extreme.

 

---

“Just when I thought I was out . . . they pull me back in.â€