Playing without END

[Tywyll]

Hey,

 

I have finally convinced a group of new players to give Fantasy HERO a try. To keep things easy, I am running without END. They are of mixed opinion on whether to include it or not (they are used to systems that are far less "bean countery" as it was described).

 

so, if I just ditch END entirely (casters using END Pools, which doesn't seem to be a problem), what kind of thing should I do to balance the game in the absense of END?

 

For example, there is no reason for the fighters to not swing full strength every phase they can, as its not tiring.

 

Anyone else play sans END and if so, what did you do/how did it work out?

 

Thanks!

[sbarron]

Re: Playing without END

 

To be totally frank, I just wouldn't track END for any players but spellcasters. The truth is, most PCs will have around 30 END, 3 SPD, 6 REC, and burn about 3-4 END per phase. That means they can go for several turns fighting a max END burn before END becomes a problem. Characters just aren't going to run out of END often enough for it matter if you don't track it.

 

Spellcasters with Increased END might be an exeption. As would characters that just woke up from being knocked out.

 

We're having this same discussion right now on the HERO system board...here.

[Greg]

Re: Playing without END

 

I basically only use END in superhero games since that's the only time people run out. If somebody had a 30 str or some sort of supernatural power with a x2 END limitation in a fantasy game I'd have them track END, but that's about it.

[Seenar]

Re: Playing without END

 

We find that End really is only an issue for Spellcasters in our FH games. Eveyone else just does not do enough to warrent worry ing about it.

[Old Man]

Re: Playing without END

 

I'd like to play FH without END, but at some point I'd have to get up and take a leak...

 

*rimshot*

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Playing without END

 

... and that's when he was strung up, your honor. No sir, I don't know who brought the rope.

 

Generally speaking, I track END but we do 'front loaded math.' We determine in advance who's going to NEED to track it, and who has a high enough REC to ignore it. Light-Fighters, however, must track it because they're constantly in motion and swinging their weapons, which consumes around 6 or so END per Phase in 4 Phases. That's tiring.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing without END

 

END drains and transfers make excellent spells. These go by the wayside if you don't track END. And I really don't see what all the fuss is about. As noted in that other thread,

 

[Doc Democracy should skip this para now]

 

In various games, we track spells used, spell points, hit points, stun, body, fatigue points, blood pools, psionic points, structural damage capacity and various other stats through combat. I've never been able to understand why END is singled out as being so hard to track.

 

If a player doesn't want to track END, let him buy his abilities with reduced or 0 END so it's not an issue - ie so he can't possibly spend more END than he can recover. There's no reason to change the system to accomodate someone who's never heard of scrap paper.

[Curufea]

Re: Playing without END

 

I do use END for all my PCs - but that's mainly because they have special attacks or magic items that cost extra END and so they must decide whether to use them or not.

I also don't like the idea of combat characters wading through entire armies.

[Old Man]

Re: Playing without END

 

Take a look at the characters to see how long they can go without running out of END. Just keep a note of it if combat lasts that long.

 

When a character is out of END a single Recovery isn't going to make him fully combat capable. Things start getting interesting when your SPD 4 guy can't do something in every phase without taking STUN.

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Playing without END

 

I never tracked END. I think this goes back to my Star Hero campaign where all the players do is pull triggers on their guns. I've considered adding it in but I don't think it would really affect anyone. The guy with 30 STR only has a 2 SPD so his REC exceeds his END usage. The birdman has a 10 REC and SPD 2 so he's fine too. The only effect I see for my campaign is to slow the game down.

[Lucius]

Playing without END

 

Well, obviously you need at least two people to take turns running the game. Preferably more! That's two if they have 12 hr shifts and switch off. And you need a campaign with some kind of rationale for players and characters to be constantly dropping in and out. I mean, even a player with no life has to sleep sometime.

 

Of course, even any ordinary roleplaying game could be described as "playing without end." No matter what your characters have done or accomplished, surely there is always something else they can do next; and even if a character dies, you can create another and carry on. It is in the nature of roleplaying to be open-ended....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that once again Lucius is popping off without having actually read the thread....

[Markdoc]

Re: Playing without END

 

Take a look at the characters to see how long they can go without running out of END. Just keep a note of it if combat lasts that long.

 

This is good advice. My current game is 50/50 hero noobs and more experienced players but none of them are rules junkies. I have introduced them to concept of END and told them we will use it later, but for now I simply keep a rough eye on END use, and have a list of how much people use at full speed so I can estimate when people are likely to run out. Then I just tell them "You are starting to get puffed" or " You are simply too tired to run any more"

 

cheers, Mark

[Fitz]

Re: Playing without END

 

I've been running my current FH campaign without END (except for spellcasters) and without Stunning (but still with STUN) in an attempt to mimic the old-school High Fantasy tropes somewhat. It works OK, but it does have ramifications for various tactics and attacks, and I suspect I'll be bringing them both back into play. I expect a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the more rules-resistant players, but screw 'em

[Tywyll]

Re: Playing without END

 

In various games, we track spells used, spell points, hit points, stun, body, fatigue points, blood pools, psionic points, structural damage capacity and various other stats through combat. I've never been able to understand why END is singled out as being so hard to track.

 

Because keeping track of small number things is vastly different from keeping track of 3 seperate things, one of which is spent at verying amounts every time you do something (Body, Stun, and END). With the exception of Fatique Points (which I'm not sure what game you are pulling that from so therefore I don't know how it works) all the examples you give are things that are tracked only at specific times by specific character types.

 

If a player doesn't want to track END, let him buy his abilities with reduced or 0 END so it's not an issue - ie so he can't possibly spend more END than he can recover. There's no reason to change the system to accomodate someone who's never heard of scrap paper.

 

First off, I wasn't asking if playing without END was or was not a good idea. If you think fiddling with it is fine, then more power to you. This thread isn't for you. I was asking those who did not use it if they had had any issues with game play or any ways of handling the issues when their players don't want to use it.

 

Ultimately, all gaming is about fun. My players don't think tracking END is fun. They have said, and I'll quote, "tracking that stuff takes me out of the game, it makes me think about the math and not the story." Since I want my players to enjoy Hero, I accomodate them, even if I don't feel that END is that difficult myself. The player who said that is a Physics Teacher and is perfectly capable of doing the math, she just does not want to because it breaks the mood for her. The other players have, as I said, expressed mixed (mostly negative) feelings on the matter.

 

But I feel there is every reason to change the system to accomodate the players and their wishes. If they aren't having fun, they don't play. If they don't play, I can't convince them of the awesomeness of Hero.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing without END

 

Because keeping track of small number things is vastly different from keeping track of 3 seperate things' date=' one of which is spent at verying amounts every time you do something (Body, Stun, and END). With the exception of Fatique Points (which I'm not sure what game you are pulling that from so therefore I don't know how it works) all the examples you give are things that are tracked only at specific times by specific character types.[/quote']

 

To me, three things is a small number of things, but that's a matter of opinion. Fatigue points was a D&D option in 2e, but I expect it's made an appearance in other games.

 

Hit points are tracked by all characters in games that use them. End is tracked at specific times - when you take your action which costs END.

 

One option I believe is still listed in Hero is running with no END and no point savings for limitations. Given it's likely the spellcasters who benefit most from eliminating END, and from saving points from limitations, maybe that's an option, but I think it would work poorly in fantasy, where limitations both define magic and keep the costs of magic reasonable.

 

I was asking those who did not use it if they had had any issues with game play or any ways of handling the issues when their players don't want to use it.

 

And one way of handling it is to say "you don't want to deal with END, buy your characters' abilities to 0 END". Problem solved and no shift in balance since he's paying for the privilege of ignoring END.

 

They have said' date=' and I'll quote, "tracking that stuff takes me out of the game, it makes me think about the math and not the story." Since I want my players to enjoy Hero, I accomodate them, even if I don't feel that END is that difficult myself. The player who said that is a Physics Teacher and is perfectly capable of doing the math, she just does not want to because it breaks the mood for her. The other players have, as I said, expressed mixed (mostly negative) feelings on the matter.[/quote']

 

How many of the characters as currently built have END issues? if none, and they continue to be built to have no END issues, I suspect you won't see a lot of issues. Where play balance can fall off the rails is where a character is built in such a fashion that END would normally be an issue, but now they don't have to worry about it. For example, a spellcaster with a high SPD and/or a lot of spell effects which can be maintained if he spends the END (force fields for example).

 

One compromise would be to ensure all characters are built such that they would not run out of END over some period you expect combat will never last (say 5 turns). You then waive END costs unless the character has recovered from KO and has limited END (maybe even then). A player who wants to build his character in such a way as to violate the "5 turn rule" must track END. Of course, NPC's and monsters need to follow the same ground rules.

[Tywyll]

Re: Playing without END

 

To me, three things is a small number of things, but that's a matter of opinion. Fatigue points was a D&D option in 2e, but I expect it's made an appearance in other games.

 

Hit points are tracked by all characters in games that use them. End is tracked at specific times - when you take your action which costs END.

 

Hit points or wounds are tracked only when you take damage, something that can be avoided for a long time by the right character. END is tracked for everything you do.

 

One option I believe is still listed in Hero is running with no END and no point savings for limitations. Given it's likely the spellcasters who benefit most from eliminating END, and from saving points from limitations, maybe that's an option, but I think it would work poorly in fantasy, where limitations both define magic and keep the costs of magic reasonable.

 

My problem isn't with spell casters, I have them sorted out all ready (they use END pools, but since its only tracked for spell casting, no one has issues with that). My main concern is running, jumping, fighting, etc.

 

And one way of handling it is to say "you don't want to deal with END, buy your characters' abilities to 0 END". Problem solved and no shift in balance since he's paying for the privilege of ignoring END.

 

Except the question was, how do you handle it when you aren't using END at all, and what ramifications are there. I know how the system works and if I wanted them to buy everything at 0 END cost, I would have. So it doesn't answer the question.

 

 

How many of the characters as currently built have END issues? if none, and they continue to be built to have no END issues, I suspect you won't see a lot of issues. Where play balance can fall off the rails is where a character is built in such a fashion that END would normally be an issue, but now they don't have to worry about it. For example, a spellcaster with a high SPD and/or a lot of spell effects which can be maintained if he spends the END (force fields for example).

 

One compromise would be to ensure all characters are built such that they would not run out of END over some period you expect combat will never last (say 5 turns). You then waive END costs unless the character has recovered from KO and has limited END (maybe even then). A player who wants to build his character in such a way as to violate the "5 turn rule" must track END. Of course, NPC's and monsters need to follow the same ground rules.

 

I would certainly limit characters who get knocked out, as it makes a lot of sense to me. Since my spellcasters are built on END Pools, I'm not too worried about high spd casters running around mucking things up, but I am concerned about fast characters swinging with full strength, and heavy bricks swinging full force every phase. Also, how to handle Pushing when not using END.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Playing without END

 

Hit points or wounds are tracked only when you take damage' date=' something that can be avoided for a long time by the right character. END is tracked for everything you do.[/quote']

 

Just as a character can avoid dealing with STUN and BOD by building a character who avoids damage, they can avoid dealing with END by building characters who don't use END.

 

My problem isn't with spell casters' date=' I have them sorted out all ready (they use END pools, but since its only tracked for spell casting, no one has issues with that). My main concern is running, jumping, fighting, etc.[/quote']

 

That shifts the focus quite a bit. On one side, the spellcasters don't gain an unfair advantage. On the other hand, if they want to run all day without END concerns, they have to pay the points for reduced END, where the warriors now have the ability to avoid END entirely. Kind of reverses the whole issue since it would normally be the spellcasters who gain an advantage from tossing END.

 

Do you have a lot of "superskill" powers in your game? I'm thinking things like Deadly Blow, that would cost END and fighter types would buy. If they get away using their "non-magical" powers at no END cost and spellcasters still have END to deal with, thay gives a pretty big advanbtage to the warrior types. If these aren't around, and a typical warrior spends 9 END a turn and has a 6 REC, it's not much of an issue - he'd take quite a while to run out of END anyway.

 

Of course, if the spellcasters are also pushing for "get rid of END", then they must be OK with the shift in balance (or not have considered it).

 

Except the question was' date=' how do you handle it when you aren't using END at all, and what ramifications are there. I know how the system works and if I wanted them to buy everything at 0 END cost, I would have. So it doesn't answer the question.[/quote']

 

The cynic in me says that, if you aren't using END at all, spellcasters wouldn't have END pools, so that's a bit of a different issue. It also says that boosting the cost of all abilities that stop using END by 50% would be one approach. However, it looks like you want a fix that doesn't involve redesigning all the characters (and I can easily understand why!).

 

These ripple effects are always my concern when doing surgery on the system. Guaranteed, there will be some effect that no one saw coming. I'd cover that off by stating at the outset that whatever new system adopted is experimental, and will be reviewed after a few play sessions to see whether it needs some further adjustment.

 

I guess if the game doesn't use END, I should sell it all back so my CON effectively costs one point instead of two (a prohibition I'd put in place from the outset). The value of REC is also reduced if there's no need to recover END during combat. A 3 SPD character with a 2 REC can recover 40 STUN in 5 turns, so once combat's over, REC doesn't mean a lot. Whether these stats can be sold back, and/or whether the cost of CON should be reduced to account for the reduced value of the figured characteristics it provides, should be considered in the switchover.

 

Of course, "increased END cost" gets banned from all constructs other than spells drawing on END pools.

 

I would certainly limit characters who get knocked out' date=' as it makes a lot of sense to me. Since my spellcasters are built on END Pools, I'm not too worried about high spd casters running around mucking things up, but I am concerned about fast characters swinging with full strength, and heavy bricks swinging full force every phase. Also, how to handle Pushing when not using END.[/quote']

 

High SPD heavy bricks at that, especially if they have "powers" they can now use at no END cost.

 

You'll need to consider how to limit characters who are knocked out, or they'll really bog the game down, since the players won't be used to using the END rules, and the character with minimal END left is the toughest one to manage END for. Maybe the tradeoff for "no more END" is "once you're below 0 STUN, you're down for the rest of combat", or even "no PS 12 recoveries - you want to recover, use a phase" or "no in-combat recoveries" This certainly reduces the tracking required! This further cheapens the value of REC, though.

 

The easy answer to pushing is to invoke the rule that only abilities that use END can be pushed. That answer lets the spellcasters retain the ability to push, since they use END pools, which may offset the fact the non-spellcasters now have unlimited staying power a bit. Other abilities don't use END, so you can't push them. Assuming you and your players want to retain Pushing for warriors, etc. (and there are good reasons to do so), it becomes more complex. There needs to be a pretty significant penalty for Pushing.

 

Spellcasters can simply stick with the present rule of burning END from their pools, so they have a different system.

 

I suppose you could simply rule that you still use END to push, but that gives everyone several free Pushes in a given combat, since their END has no other purpose. That seems a bit unreasonable. Of course, the PC's opponents can also use their END for pushing, so it doesn't change the balance of power, but it will push up the lethality. Assuming you don't want to see every combat start with the warriors (on both sides) pushing their STR, and it's the END cost that currently serves to prevent this, we need another option. If you restrict Pushing to special circumstances now, maybe it's no big deal.

 

If I run out of END, I have to burn STUN, so maybe that's the approach to take. 2 END = 1d6 STUN in the standard game, so 1d6 STUN for every 2 AP the ability is Pushed by seems to be the high end of a reasonable price for pushing. Given that many warrior-types could afford to Push once or twice in a typical combat without too much worry of running out of END, a STUN penalty that high seems pretty steep. Maybe 1d6 STUN for every 5 AP the ability is pushed by would work. I'd pick a level (probably that one) and playtest it. If you find Pushing becomes too rare, you can always reduce the penalty. If it's too common for your liking, you can always increase the cost.