Make them Pay!

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Having had a look at KS's short essay inspired by RPGnet, and seeing just how many points simple items cost, I'm beginning to get a better idea of the issues involved here.

 

I can say with a high degree of certainty that characters will be paying for non-standard equipment in my upcoming campaign. Equipment will potentially go a long way towards defining a character (potentially making up almost the entirety of what makes some PC's special), and this is impossible to do fairly without involving CP costs.

 

As for in-game reasoning for spending on acquired magical items, I am going to go with a magical attunement theory -- although, it is my intent that looting not be a common occurance in the this campaign in the first place.

 

For mundane items, while I still don't have a problem with the general concept, the implementation is beginning to seem more difficult. I'm strongly leaning towards ditching the idea at this point.

 

In any case, I've got plenty of time to look further into the matter and make a final decision -- I've still got to finish off a Conan campaign and then run some a|state before HERO hits the scene. Which is a very good thing, since I've really thrown myself in the deep end with the entire campaign concept.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

In other words' date=' 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 [b']NOT[/b] 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.

Im not sure why you are attributing a "pay everything before you can touch it" concept to me as that is not something I have ever suggested (and in fact is the sort of thing I recommend against).

 

At any rate this is NOT how we are recommending equipment/misc stuff be handled in heroic games.

 

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.

What is this "proper place" that you refer to? Can you substantiate how it makes the game "work better"? So far you have not done so.

 

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.

This is exactly the sort of logical inconsistency we are talking about -- a character with a pile of money unable to buy a knife because he doesnt have any character points.

 

So basically you are saying that because the pay-points model makes money somehow unable to buy certain things, currency is in fact actually devalued and further this isnt really a bizarely contrary turn of events as it might seem inasmuch as it is really a facilitator of roleplaying?

 

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

 

You'll excuse me if I fail to be convinced by your argument.

 

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.

 

So in short you dont see it as your role to "smackdown" players, but rather you see it as your role to babysit / mollycoddle / patronize them.

 

Why not just provide a neutral stage and allow the players to determine how they wish to roleplay their own characters rather than constraining options or punishing them for actions you perceive as being "moral" or "immoral"?

 

And when did roleplaying become a morality play anyway?

 

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.

 

This is the sort of broad assumption I pointed out that you seem to be prone to. This statement has a sweeping assumption built into it that not having characters pay points for equipment a) rewards players for using equipment and that it somehow overwhelms / mugs / overshadows roleplaying motivations or c) acquisition of equipment somehow becomes the dominating force of the campaign.

 

Since I know from extensive personal emperical experience that none of those assumptions are true, I reject your statement and more broadly the general premise.

 

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

Um...what?

 

 

. . . 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.

The primary difference being that Marcdoc's discourse on history was relevant to the topic at hand.

 

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.

 

Another sweeping assumption. You are assuming a) that character's maintaining their gear / kit are wasting time, that there are not fun roleplaying opportunities to be had interacting with merchants and other NPC's, c) that having characters not pay points for equipment necessitates repetitive and drawn out "shopping trips", d) and that GM's that incorporate such activities into their games are somehow doing something wrong.

 

Again since I know first hand that none of your assumptions are true, again I reject your position.

 

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)

 

I suppose if you prefer games that lack any sort of grounding in the fundament of a tangible setting or versmimilitude then that would be a valid position.

 

Personally I dont find such a lack of coherency to be desirable, and to the best of my knowledge all the players I have ever gamed with were of a similar mind.

 

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.

 

Yet more assumptions. You are assuming that not paying points for equipment leads directly to a need to track matches on an equipment list, which is a rather strange assumption to make anyway since only the most anal must-pay-points-for-equipment GM would make a character pay points for something like matches, and thus in the end the player would need to make a note that they had them on a gear list any way.

 

And further, you seem to be making a murky mess of the difference between keeping track of equipment, and the degree of detail to which one must do so -- most GM's would be content with "Camping Gear" and not require you to list every single tent stake and hawser.

 

Which, of course, is purely a sideshow to the REAL matter at hand in the points / no points debate. The main event is in fact whether one should pay points for magic items and other equipment significant to adventurers in heigtened circumstances such as swords and breastplates.

 

 

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.

The underlying assumptions here being that you think those of us saying dont pay points for equipment are also advocating a) making equipment a major focus of plot points and that equipment must be tracked in laborious detail.

 

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

A point that did not need to be made since it applies equally well to both sides.

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

Whether characters PAY the character points for an item with experience or not, the cost of the item is still available to measure its "effectiveness".

 

In other words, if a 200 point character acquires a 50 point magic item and doesnt have to pay experience then the character is effectively a 250 point character while they have the item.

 

The ability to measure effectiveness isnt impacted by not making characters pay xp for items.

 

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.

Um...so by making characters pay points in the first place you are really giving them a discount. Thats good thinkin. Same kind of "logic" my wife uses when she buys things she doesnt need just because they were on sale and insists that she saved money.

 

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.

Other characters can't pick up or steal the skill of a master swordsman, the heritage of the noble, or the lycanthropy of the werewolf and nor could said characters themselves sell, lose, give away, or otherwise off load said attributes.

 

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.

Obviously I disagree vis a vis overstating.

 

And again you seek to confuse the issue by dragging an unrelated concern into it. Starting character points and whether all characters must start with the same number of them is entirely unrelated to paying character points for items or not.

 

 

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

Agreed, which is why it seems strange to me that you continue to use them to support your position.

 

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.

Check this:

 

Throndor has paid character points for their "sword". Later the sword is stolen. Can Throndor pick up another "sword" and have it take the place of the original, or must Throndor regain the original sword, or does the sword somehow make its way back to Throndor on its own?

 

If its 1) then that is the "Sword of Opportunity" type of superskill that was mentioned previously. If its 2) then thats not really any different from the dont-pay-character points method save that the character gets screwed out of their points. If its 3) then personally I wouldnt want to play in such a care bear game.

 

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.

Im not contemptuous of anything; I just find your position to be murky and internally inconsistent. I don't like inconsistent, and I don't like murky.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Having had a look at KS's short essay inspired by RPGnet, and seeing just how many points simple items cost, I'm beginning to get a better idea of the issues involved here.

 

I can say with a high degree of certainty that characters will be paying for non-standard equipment in my upcoming campaign. Equipment will potentially go a long way towards defining a character (potentially making up almost the entirety of what makes some PC's special), and this is impossible to do fairly without involving CP costs.

 

As for in-game reasoning for spending on acquired magical items, I am going to go with a magical attunement theory -- although, it is my intent that looting not be a common occurance in the this campaign in the first place.

 

For mundane items, while I still don't have a problem with the general concept, the implementation is beginning to seem more difficult. I'm strongly leaning towards ditching the idea at this point.

 

In any case, I've got plenty of time to look further into the matter and make a final decision -- I've still got to finish off a Conan campaign and then run some a|state before HERO hits the scene. Which is a very good thing, since I've really thrown myself in the deep end with the entire campaign concept.

 

 

Let me put it this way. Marcdoc is a master of Low and Epic Fantasy. I know a thing or two about Low, Sword & Sorcery, High, and Super Fantasy (and various Dark variations) in the HERO System. Both of us have independently run a lot of Fantasy HERO games and given a lot of thought to various relevant matters, including and particularly this exact topic.

 

Both of us agree that making characters pay character points for items is a "Bad Idea".

 

I've done it; in my first three GreyHERO campaigns in fact. The campaigns were fun, but the points for items thing caused nothing but problems from the word go. It took me a long time to come to grips with it and work it through, I tried different things to work around the problems, but eventually I figured out that the idea was just flawed to begin with. After I switched to the dont-pay-points model everything worked much much better.

 

At any rate, all Im saying to you is stop and consider what we are saying and save yourself the same painful learning curve.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So, you're proposing that I should veto a player who wants his "thing" to be "I've got a huge sword of bloody doom and really nifty armour", or another who wants to be some kind of mage that uses an ecclectic array of magical devices?

 

Cause that kinda sucks, and largely invalidates the whole reason I turned to HERO for this campaign in the first place.

 

I don't want to sound like some upstart new guy that ignores wisdom earned of experience, so please keep in mind I'm just trying to come to grips with the entire issue. I could just go "I guess KS must be right," and move on, but I'd rather understand the decisions I'm making.

 

If the campaign treats magical items as something personal, an extension of who you are, rather than merely tools, it seems to me that points for gear should work. Keep in mind that I've pretty much accepted your take on the wider use of points for mundane stuff.

 

Can you give me a clearer understanding of your problem with points for magic -- and this is the important bit -- given a world where it is commonly accepted that people don't just pick up any random magic item and make use of it; where attuning to an item is in fact a big deal? Some specific examples (real or invented) using this default assumption as a starting point would be immensely useful.

 

Edit: Interestingly, default d20 D&D does effectively use points for items as well -- its very precise wealth-by-level structure (which I've never actually used, since I tend to favour less item-heavy games) simply creates a seperate pool of points, measured by the gp, for items. I'd be interested to hear your take on how this differs from points for gear in HERO.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So, you're proposing that I should veto a player who wants his "thing" to be "I've got a huge sword of bloody doom and really nifty armour", or another who wants to be some kind of mage that uses an ecclectic array of magical devices?

 

Cause that kinda sucks, and largely invalidates the whole reason I turned to HERO for this campaign in the first place.

 

I don't want to sound like some upstart new guy that ignores wisdom earned of experience, so please keep in mind I'm just trying to come to grips with the entire issue. I could just go "I guess KS must be right," and move on, but I'd rather understand the decisions I'm making.

 

If the campaign treats magical items as something personal, an extension of who you are, rather than merely tools, it seems to me that points for gear should work. Keep in mind that I've pretty much accepted your take on the wider use of points for mundane stuff.

 

Can you give me a clearer understanding of your problem with points for magic -- and this is the important bit -- given a world where it is commonly accepted that people don't just pick up any random magic item and make use of it; where attuning to an item is in fact a big deal? Some specific examples (real or invented) using this default assumption as a starting point would be immensely useful.

 

Edit: Interestingly, default d20 D&D does effectively use points for items as well -- its very precise wealth-by-level structure (which I've never actually used, since I tend to favour less item-heavy games) simply creates a seperate pool of points, measured by the gp, for items. I'd be interested to hear your take on how this differs from points for gear in HERO.

 

The various incarnations of FH have morphed over the years, and IIRC, the playtest version WAAAAAAAYYY back in the day used the Champions model of points for everything. It didn't last to the first print edition. No one is saying that the points don't come from SOMEWHERE... In my games players don't pay points for items...unless they start with them (in which case it's usually a bit of a character shtick) or they make them (In which case they pay the points, unless they come up with another source for points, which I do have systems for similar to some of the suggestions from FH... rare raw materials, rituals to pool XP and the like). Heck, I'll even let players spend XP to potentially "upgrade" an item if there is a good reason for it and I like the idea.

 

The Independent Limitation works Tres well for such things, right out of the book. That way, if a player REALLY wants a shtick item, they can have one, but it becomes an investment... You gonna give up your family heirloom magic sword for another magic weapon you found? Ok fine... no problem... its not like the heirloom disappears, nor do you get the points back.

 

I've never had any problems with this approach, and have never had a PC spend more than around 25 points total for items... in a 250 point game. I might balk a bit at a player with a Stormbringer level artifact, but if the character fit and was well written, I could go for it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So, you're proposing that I should veto a player who wants his "thing" to be "I've got a huge sword of bloody doom and really nifty armour", or another who wants to be some kind of mage that uses an ecclectic array of magical devices?

 

Cause that kinda sucks, and largely invalidates the whole reason I turned to HERO for this campaign in the first place.

 

No, Im not saying that at all.

 

For starters, I recommend you do charge points for permanent magic items that are started with. This isnt really any different than a character creating such an item in play.

 

For seconders, the huge sword of bloody doom character can still be made. They just need to take reasonable precautions to hold on to their gear once play starts.

 

The artificer character is also very possible, and in fact I feature a few magic item based Magic Systems on my website such as Runecrafting, and the more recent (and not completely supported with material yet) Stoburu system.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/runecrafting.shtml

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/Stoburu.shtml

 

Not to mention other Magic Systems that also include rules for creating Magic items secondarily such as Wizardry and Peidragemas.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/wizardry.shtml

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/Piedragemas.shtml

 

Paying or not paying character points to acquire Magic Items has no realy impact on a character that creates Magic Items.

 

I don't want to sound like some upstart new guy that ignores wisdom earned of experience, so please keep in mind I'm just trying to come to grips with the entire issue. I could just go "I guess KS must be right," and move on, but I'd rather understand the decisions I'm making.

By all means, thinking is always a good thing.

 

If the campaign treats magical items as something personal, an extension of who you are, rather than merely tools, it seems to me that points for gear should work. Keep in mind that I've pretty much accepted your take on the wider use of points for mundane stuff.

What your are talking about is much more of a "super fantasy" slant, which is to say its just a superhero game dressed up in the trappings of Fantasy. Paying points for personal items makes sense in such a Paradigm, and in fact I even recommend as much in this document:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/Paradigms/SuperFantasy.shtml

 

It works in Super Fantasy for all the same reasons its works for Superheroes. However, for more typical non Super Fantasy it falls apart.

 

Can you give me a clearer understanding of your problem with points for magic -- and this is the important bit -- given a world where it is commonly accepted that people don't just pick up any random magic item and make use of it; where attuning to an item is in fact a big deal? Some specific examples (real or invented) using this default assumption as a starting point would be immensely useful.

 

Attuning a Magic Item to use it isnt really any different than needing a command word to use an Item. It's just a way to prevent unauthorized usage.

 

Forcing characters to pay points for Items does several undesireable things, many of which have been discussed or mentioned previously in this thread, but some of which include:

a) force characters to spend points on items to stay competitive rather than on skills, talents, perks, characteristics, and / or unusual abilities.

 

require unnecessary bookkeeping

 

c) cause illogical in game scenarios that hinge solely upon the meta game necessity to pay character points for an item, the implied contract between the GM and the player to ensure that such items are available a reasonable amount of the time, and ability of a player to dump more points into an item to enhance it even if that character doesnt have any in-game rationale for being able to do so.

 

d) items don't scale well unless characters are allowed to improve them in play, but as mentioned previously it usually doesnt make sense for a character to be able to just boost / improve such an item. This can cause a number of metagame driven fluctuations / overcoming of this problem.

 

e) In the end making characters pay points for their items doesnt accomplish anything that isnt also accomplished by not having characters pay points for their items, but it comes with a ton of overhead, baggage, and issues. The GM taking a role when needed to curb potenial abuses can manage to keep things under control in a no-points campaign, without all of the clunkyness.

Edit: Interestingly, default d20 D&D does effectively use points for items as well -- its very precise wealth-by-level structure (which I've never actually used, since I tend to favour less item-heavy games) simply creates a seperate pool of points, measured by the gp, for items. I'd be interested to hear your take on how this differs from points for gear in HERO.

You mean other than the fact that you dont pay actual points for the items; rather you either buy or acquire them in an in-game fashion?

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

What your are talking about is much more of a "super fantasy" slant, which is to say its just a superhero game dressed up in the trappings of Fantasy. Paying points for personal items makes sense in such a Paradigm, and in fact I even recommend as much in this document:

 

From the start, I was trying to get across the idea that this is the design standpoint I'm working form. Obviously, I didn't do that very well.

 

That being the case, it seems that points for gear is ok in this specific context.

 

However, that leaves me wondering about this point:

 

items don't scale well unless characters are allowed to improve them in play, but as mentioned previously it usually doesnt make sense for a character to be able to just boost / improve such an item. This can cause a number of metagame driven fluctuations / overcoming of this problem.

 

So, how does one get around this problem in an actual supers game? Are there other workable solutions, beyond increasing the item's intrinsic power over the course of play?

[tgrandjean]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

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

 

*yawn* 'Sleepy so I might be off here...

 

Lock Picks: +2 SL w/ Security Systems (sleepy and not doing the fantasy conversion thingy now...), 4 active IIF: concealable picks -1/4

3 real

 

30ft rope: 5" Stretching 25 active, no noncombat -1/2, no combat usage (ie no striking, grabs, etc) -2, IAF: concealable rope -1/2

6 real (Note: leaving out other powers such as swinging, entangle, etc)

 

Candles: Images (sight, +2 Per [dim light]), 2 continuing fuel charges of 1 hour +1/4 20 active , OAF: candles -1

10 real..... sheesh.... costs alot for some frickin candles

 

Palm sized mirror: Clairsentience: vision, 20 active, no range (hand held item) -1/2, OAF: -1 Mirror

8 real (Note: ignoring uses to signal others: Images, shave, etc)

 

Face Paint: +2 to either concealment or disguise, 8 continuing charges of 1 hour +1, 8 active, IIF: face paint -1/4

6 real

 

A few hidden silver coins....: (ordinarily you wouldn't bother... but assuming that you took poor or otherwise and are saving points to buy it off....) 1 pt wealth, 1 active, IIF: -1/4

1 real

 

A mouse: 1 pt follower... well trained too....

 

2 belt pouches: +2 concealment 4 active, only to items inside pouches -1, OAF: pouches -1

1 real

 

Sewing kit with needle and thread: Healing 1d6 Body, 10 active, Extra Time: cannot activate other powers while activating Healing 1 Turn: -1 3/4, Burnout -8 -1/4, Concentration: 1/2 DCV -1/4, Only vs. clothing -2, IAF: needle and thread - 1/2

2 real

 

A flask of oil: multipower 30pts, 1 continuing charge of 1 min -1, Range Limited by Str - 1/2, IAF: Fragile vial -3/4 9 real

1d6 RKA, AOE 1 hex +1/2, Sticky +1/2 30 active, 1 continuing charge of 1 minute -1, Range limited by Str -1/2, IAF: Fragile -3/4 1 real

Change environment 1" -4 Dex, 20 active, Lim: as above 1 real

11 real

 

3 Sticks of Chalk: Images vs. Sight, 0 End +1/2, Persistant +1, 25 active, no range -1/2, Extra Time: Full phase -1/2, gestures -1/4, only to communicate -1, burnout -8 -1/4, IAF: Fragile chalk -1/2

6 real

 

2 daggers: multipower 15 pts Real weapon -1/4, IAF: concealed dagger -1/2, 7 real

1/2d6 HKA, 10 active, Real Weapon -1/4, IAF: concealed dagger -1/4 1 real

1/2d6 RKA, add Str +1/2, 15 active, range based on Str -1/2, Real Weapon -1/4, 1 recoverable charge: lockout -1 1/2, IAF: dagger -1/2 1 real

9 real +5 for extra dagger

 

A finely balanced rapier: 1d6 HKA, 0 end +1/2, 23 active +5 (OCV +1) 28, Real Weapon -1/4, OAF: Rapier -1

12 real

 

A 6" iron rod: Uhmmm..... +2d6 HA, 0 end +1/2, 15 active, Real equipment -1/4, HTH -1/2, IAF: concealable iron rod -1/2

7 real

 

Flint and Steel: .... Minor tranform 1d6: kindling into FIRE!!! 10 active, gestures -1/4, concentration: 1/2 DCV -1/4, Extra Time: lockout 1 minute -1 3/4, OAF: tinder box -1

2 real

 

3 bronze door spikes: Entangle 1d6 body 3 DEF, 20 active, no range -1/2, extra time: extra segment -1/4, only to wedge doors etc -1, 3 charges -1 1/4, OAF: bronze door spikes -1

4 real.... 92 total real points

[Markdoc]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

To back up what KS said, like him, I started my first FH game using precisely the "superhero model" we are discussing here for equipment - you pay for what you keep. Like him, I (and my fellow GMs) found it introduced continuous annoying anomalies and we eventually all dropped it.

 

Now... having said that, there ARE exceptions. Characters who choose to START with signature items pay for them. That's part of their shtick, and I have no problems with it, any more than I would with the idea that a character who buys wealth - and I have one in the current game - starts with lots of money and the toys that money can buy. A character who chooses to create a magic item in-game also pays points. This kind of thing is where magic items come from, no? But players do not pay for things they ordinarily could acquire, anymore than a swordsmith has to spend a month adventuring before he get enough points to make another sword for sale.

 

So there are no problems with asking players to pay points for their own special items if you want to run a high fantasy/wild anime style game: and as pointed out in such a setting mundane items are usually largely irrelevant, so there's no real benefit to paying for them.

 

There ARE reasons why the superhero tropes don't convert well to FH. These are:

1. Episodicity. Superhero games tend to operate around a base: Millenium city, Gotham, whatever. Trips to exotic locales occur, sure - but air travel, superpowers etc usually mean that a return to base takes a few days/hours at most - it's usually not even played out. It's not illogical for stuff acquired in one evening's play to be discarded between adventures. In contrast, many fantasy games - even those where there is a base of some sort - usually involve extended trips away, whether that's dungeon-crawling or carrying the Porpentine to the Isle of Thorns. In this setting "picking up the guard's sword and using it until we get home" could easily cover months of play. Likewise, in adventures where travel itself - getting from A to B - is a big part of the adventure then mundane equipment can (even should) play a major role.

2. Development. While it does happen in comics and even in superhero games, the "Pin the puny develops into Pinnanimus the Great over the course of his many adventures" trope is not common. Superman started as a really strong guy who could bounce bullets and that's where he is today (having admittedly gained and lost powers along the way, his concept "world's strongest brick" remains largely unaltered). In contrast, it's probably the commonest fantasy trope in both literature and fantasy gaming. A focus on equipment - and paying for it - detracts from character development. A signature item is one thing - paying points for a host of common items (swords, shields, armour, etc) is quite another.

3. Character types. In superheroes there is a clear distinction between "supers" and normals with gear. The superhero tropes are designed to reflect this. Such a distinction does not generally exist in fantasy games: ALL characters are, to some extent, equipment users. Some will rely on it more than others - but then, that's what the focus limitation is for.

4. Available powers. Supers games are usually set in some variant of the real world - so players can get access to a wide variety of powers via free equipment (flight, instantaneous global communication, enhanced senses and a wide variety of combat toys - NND gas attacks, flame-based killing attacks, area effect or explosive attacks, autofire attacks, etc, etc). It makes sense to limit access to these in a superhero setting - or for that matter in a modern day adventure setting, because they can have a really dramatic effect on character effectiveness. In DC games, for example, I advocate an equipment pool - and tolerate the odd quirkyness that pops up - because the alternative to not tracking equipment is much more extreme. Also DC games tend to be more episodic, like supers games and equipment plays a MORE important role than in most other genres. In FH, however, the available powers are largely limited to a little extra movement, HA, HKA/RKA and armour - and not a lot of any of those. Having an equipment pool or something similar makes little to no sense under those conditions and offers little or no benefit to the game - but still generates annoying quirks.

 

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

.... 92 total real points

 

I'm out of rep for today, but will hit when I can. Thanks!

 

So if I'm playing in a 50+50 game that would leave me with 8 pts to spend on stats, talents and skills.

 

ouch.

 

Even in a 75+75 that is a kick in the balls.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Heh. One of my players just turned this discussion on its head.

 

If you're playing a piece of equipment, should you pay CP for the people who carry you?

 

He's potentially looking to play an intelligent sword that has possessed its wielder. And yes, the question is rhetorical, I just thought I'd share.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Does he want to be able to take over any one that touches the sword and have full access to their abilities while controlling them, or does he just want to have a single wielder with a static set of abilities and have the whole "the sword is really in charge" thing just be a shtick?

 

Big difference between the two.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

It's still very early days for the concept, and he hasn't even settled on it for certain yet. However, if I were to venture an opinion I would say we're looking at a single wielder in the main, but at least the potential for moving from one to the other.

 

Possessing major enemies would probably not be a viable gambit in any case, being precluded by the PCs' notoriety, so jumping wielders would probably tend to be a matter of necessity rather than strategy (and would entail certain moral issues to boot).

[Korren]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

So' date=' how does one get around this problem in an actual supers game? Are there other workable solutions, beyond increasing the item's intrinsic power over the course of play?[/quote']

Well, one thing is to say that there was ALWAYS more power in the item, it's just that the user hadn't figured out how to ACCESS it 'til now..... Same thing as why Superman is always finding new uses for his abilities.... Using his super-lungs to freeze someone or knock something away from him....

 

That works in both a Supers genre and a Fantasy one.

 

Having had a look at KS's short essay inspired by RPGnet' date=' and seeing just how many points simple items cost, I'm beginning to get a better idea of the issues involved here.[/quote']

 

Are you talking about the 10 point "Flashlight" using the Images power? I think that was a bit ridiculous.....

 

Isn't there a modifier for Enhanced Senses called "Transmit" that would essentially do the same thing? Or, better than limited Images, how about Change Environment? (It'd probably come out the same point cost, though.)

 

Korren

[Korren]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

To back up what KS said' date=' like him, I started my first FH game using precisely the "superhero model" we are discussing here for equipment - you pay for what you keep. Like him, I (and my fellow GMs) found it introduced continuous annoying anomalies and we eventually all dropped it.[/quote']

 

Let me put it this way. Marcdoc is a master of Low and Epic Fantasy. I know a thing or two about Low, Sword & Sorcery, High, and Super Fantasy (and various Dark variations) in the HERO System. Both of us have independently run a lot of Fantasy HERO games and given a lot of thought to various relevant matters, including and particularly this exact topic.

 

Both of us agree that making characters pay character points for items is a "Bad Idea".

 

Ok, finally we've moved past the Flame Wars part of the discussion... This is good!

 

All the previous posts just seemed like ideas you were throwing out to rain on my parade.

 

Thanks for clarifying!

 

Figures it takes a girl entering the discussion for guys to act nice....

 

Korren

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Well, one thing is to say that there was ALWAYS more power in the item, it's just that the user hadn't figured out how to ACCESS it 'til now..... Same thing as why Superman is always finding new uses for his abilities.... Using his super-lungs to freeze someone or knock something away from him....

 

That works in both a Supers genre and a Fantasy one.

 

 

 

Are you talking about the 10 point "Flashlight" using the Images power? I think that was a bit ridiculous.....

 

Isn't there a modifier for Enhanced Senses called "Transmit" that would essentially do the same thing? Or, better than limited Images, how about Change Environment? (It'd probably come out the same point cost, though.)

 

Korren

 

 

You specifically can't use Change Environement for flashlights because CE can't provide positive bonuses, it can only impose penalties.

 

I have no idea what you are thinking regarding applying Transmit to a sense.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Ok' date=' finally we've moved past the Flame Wars part of the discussion... This is good! [/quote']

Not sure what you are talking about; Markdoc and I have always been in agreement on this issue.

 

All the previous posts just seemed like ideas you were throwing out to rain on my parade.

 

We were giving hard won advice, which you can heed or ignore at your own discretion.

[SableWyvern]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Figures it takes a girl entering the discussion for guys to act nice.... Korren

 

Hmm...

 

Guess what?

[Vondy]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

I think the solution is for the game-master to manage and track the items the players have, as opposed to making them pay for them. The "make them pay" philosophy introduces meta-gaming logic that can be unweidly and lead to illogical conclusions. In other words: it allows the mechanics to define and rule, rather than illuminate and serve, the game. Common sense, not mechanics, needs to take the lead. A little GM restraint and forethought is all that is required.

[Old Man]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Maybe we should just give in and let Korren do what Korren does.

 

I'm sure everything will work out fine. Because right now it doesn't look like anybody is convincing anybody else to change.

[Vondy]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Personally, I never assumed we had any power to "let" or "not let" Korren do anything. I was just expressing an opinion on the matter. Which is worth as much as people pay for it. And since no one on the boards pays for anyone else's opinions...

[Korren]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Not sure what you are talking about; Markdoc and I have always been in agreement on this issue.

 

What made you think I was implying that the flame war was against Markdoc? _I_ was the one that felt like I was being attacked from all sides, since everyone was pretty much telling me I was a complete idiot for even THINKING of doing things this way. (ie. it didn't feel like a "discussion" it felt like an "arguement".)

 

We were giving hard won advice' date=' which you can heed or ignore at your own discretion.[/quote']

 

All the examples I saw were extreme cases or over-reactions. "You can't use the rope for climbing because it was bought as an Entangle power!" Are those things you (as a GM) DID in those games where you ended up finding that it didn't work out?

 

So far, the best idea I've heard is the "Keep track of the point totals of items people are carrying, but don't make them PAY for all the items, unless they really WANT to.", which I think is what I'll probably end up using.

 

IF I can get enough time to do more than THINK about the game. (I co-own a small business (comic & gaming store:celebrate) so there's always something that NEEDS doing more than planning to run a game....)

 

Korren

[Korren]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

You specifically can't use Change Environement for flashlights because CE can't provide positive bonuses' date=' it can only impose penalties.[/quote']

 

Can it negate Penalties? It certainly seems like something the power SHOULD be able to do.

 

I have no idea what you are thinking regarding applying Transmit to a sense.

 

.... Transmit is SUPPOSED to be applied to a sense.... Usually with Radio Receive, so that you can send as well as receive, but if you put it on Normal Sight, then you could "transmit" what you see to others... assuming you bought Night Vision or +4 Sight (even if only to offset penalties for darkness) then you could "transmit" to others what you can see.....

 

Or, another way to look at it, Transmit Radio Waves could change to Transmit Light Waves.

 

+4 PER with Normal Sight (4 Active Points); Fuel Dependent (fuel is Very Common; must refuel Once per 6 Hours; -3/4), Conditional Power Power Only Works In Darkness (-1/2), OAF (-1), Visible (-1/4) Real Cost: 1

PLUS

Transmit with Normal Sight (2 Active Points); OAF (-1), Fuel Dependent (fuel is Very Common; must refuel Once per 6 Hours; -3/4), Conditional Power Power Only Works In Darkness (-1/2) Real Cost: 1

 

Actually, here's another way to buy it.

 

+4 PER with Normal Sight, Usable Simultaneously (up to 2 people at once; +1/2), Mobile (+1/2), Area Of Effect (3" Cone; +1) (12 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Fuel Dependent (fuel is Very Common; must refuel Once per 6 Hours; -3/4), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness(only to negate penalties) (-1/2) Real Cost: 2

 

Or, I suppose, you could just raise the number of users with the Usable Simultaneously, but I think CONE is more like a flashlight, since it helps even people you're not aware of.

 

(Would OAF make it Mobile, or would you make a character pay for it?)

 

just an idea.....

 

Korren

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

What made you think I was implying that the flame war was against Markdoc? _I_ was the one that felt like I was being attacked from all sides, since everyone was pretty much telling me I was a complete idiot for even THINKING of doing things this way. (ie. it didn't feel like a "discussion" it felt like an "arguement".)

 

You quoted something by Marcdoc and something by me in the same post and then stated something to the effect of a flame war being over.

 

All the examples I saw were extreme cases or over-reactions. "You can't use the rope for climbing because it was bought as an Entangle power!" Are those things you (as a GM) DID in those games where you ended up finding that it didn't work out?

 

Were those examples forwarded by me?

 

No they werent.

 

Try to differentiate between who espouses what and to not attribute one poster's position to other posters.

 

 

So far, the best idea I've heard is the "Keep track of the point totals of items people are carrying, but don't make them PAY for all the items, unless they really WANT to.", which I think is what I'll probably end up using.

 

Save for the 'unless they really WANT to' part that is exactly the position I've espoused from the get go.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Make them Pay!

 

Can it negate Penalties? It certainly seems like something the power SHOULD be able to do.

No it can't. And I dont disagree with you that CE SHOULD be able to provide bonuses; that's an old argument. If you want the full depth of it do a board search, theres at least one old Thread in the HERO System Discussion Board that revolves around that.

 

However, in the meantime by the letter of the rules CE can't provide bonuses or negate penalties and is specifically not used for light generation.

 

.... Transmit is SUPPOSED to be applied to a sense.... Usually with Radio Receive, so that you can send as well as receive, but if you put it on Normal Sight, then you could "transmit" what you see to others... assuming you bought Night Vision or +4 Sight (even if only to offset penalties for darkness) then you could "transmit" to others what you can see.....

 

Or, another way to look at it, Transmit Radio Waves could change to Transmit Light Waves.

 

+4 PER with Normal Sight (4 Active Points); Fuel Dependent (fuel is Very Common; must refuel Once per 6 Hours; -3/4), Conditional Power Power Only Works In Darkness (-1/2), OAF (-1), Visible (-1/4) Real Cost: 1

PLUS

Transmit with Normal Sight (2 Active Points); OAF (-1), Fuel Dependent (fuel is Very Common; must refuel Once per 6 Hours; -3/4), Conditional Power Power Only Works In Darkness (-1/2) Real Cost: 1

 

Actually, here's another way to buy it.

 

+4 PER with Normal Sight, Usable Simultaneously (up to 2 people at once; +1/2), Mobile (+1/2), Area Of Effect (3" Cone; +1) (12 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Fuel Dependent (fuel is Very Common; must refuel Once per 6 Hours; -3/4), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness(only to negate penalties) (-1/2) Real Cost: 2

 

Or, I suppose, you could just raise the number of users with the Usable Simultaneously, but I think CONE is more like a flashlight, since it helps even people you're not aware of.

 

(Would OAF make it Mobile, or would you make a character pay for it?)

 

just an idea.....

 

Korren

 

Thats getting pretty far afield from the discussion to charge character points for magic items or not, but sure you could do something like that.

 

However its not really a Flashlight effect, and also to receive it people on the other end would need a reception power, just like with HRRP the recipient needs a special detect to receive your transmission.

 

Applying AoE to it is bogus however. AoE is applied to attacks.