"Point inflation" in Hero

[Jhaierr]

Here's something I've been mulling over for a few months.

 

I've been with Hero ever since 4th edition Big Blue Book. Since 5E and 5ER and all the (fantastic) new books since, I've begun to notice a slow trend with Hero: it's what I refer to as "point inflation".

 

A few years ago, when I first read how superheroes (by default) will now get 350 points total to work with instead of the old 250, I thought: Fantastic! This will allow me to make supes that have the appropriate level of power, even a standard beginning superhero. And so it did! I reworked and remade lots of characters and refit them, expanding their abilities, making them super-keen.

 

But since the beginning of 5th edition, I've begun to notice that many of the "core" books of Hero, mainly the 5ER book and the Ultimate series, seem to be subtly upping the amount of points you need to create the character you want to create. For instance: power pools of "[archetype] tricks" that might've been assumed or worked out on the fly before, and lots of new adders and advantages that (to me) seem to express things that the GM might've assumed already (e.g., flight working underwater assuming the SFX was appropriate).

 

Not to say that those are bad. Actually, they are quite cool. But it does mean more points that need to be spent to buy them.

 

Has anyone else noticed this? If so, do you guys feel this is a good direction? I do like the new additions and ideas, but I also value simplicity in a game system as well.

[ghost-angel]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I mostly added more skills to a character with the extra 100points given in 5th.

 

No, I've not really noticed much in the way of inflation with all the modifiers personally.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I made a post on another thread (that Zornwill sigged ) talking about just that... so yeah I noticed.

 

I had observed that in older editions a couple of PS could cover a personality archtype (like cop) that the current approach would want 5 or 6 skills, talents, perks ect to do. Similar things with powers, things that were almost "just SFX" are not things you can buy... and I see that extra 100 pts being there to cover the change in approach - you get your 250 combat based characer, and an extra 100 pts for more backcground stuff, "color" powers, and more skills (as G-A mentioned).

 

I personally like the greater definition. Some others don't.

[Bloodstone]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I technically started with 5th, so I haven't exactly noticed an increase

However, talking to various old school HERO gamers, I've been told at various points that:

 

- I want too many background skills, most of which will be useless.

- My non-hero ID is too competent (only really applies to OIHID and Multifom users, but I play a lot of those)

- I stat out too many trivial things about my powers

- I don't "properly" limit my powers, which apparently means that I don't try to cram a 500 pt character into a 250 pt package.

[Mike W]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I think that it is ok as long as the GM is clear about how he/she is going about it. Some people want every little detail spelled out in points with an "if it's not on the sheet, you can't do it" attitude. For them, all of the new adders and such are an asset. If you like the old school system of just going on "logic" and skipping the points, well, you don't have to use all the new stuff. And you can always split the difference and give out large amounts of assigned XP to buy the tricks as characters establish them.

[Lucius]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I think it's a matter of more points = more granularity.

 

That said, I still think some things should be "assumed." If you have Paramedic and PS: Physician I don't see why you need Perk: Licensed MD, and if you DON'T have those two skills, I really can't see why you'd need Perk: Licensed MD.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Got a license for that palindromedary?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I think it's a matter of more points = more granularity.

 

That said, I still think some things should be "assumed." If you have Paramedic and PS: Physician I don't see why you need Perk: Licensed MD, and if you DON'T have those two skills, I really can't see why you'd need Perk: Licensed MD.

 

On the one hand, I see your point in this regard. On the other hand, what if we compare two characters, both having Paramedic and PS: Physician under your approach. The first is a skilled healer, however due to some improprieties in his practices (real or a frameup; you decide) he has been barred from practice. If he practices medicine, he is committing a crime. The other is a licensed MD. Are the differences between the characters sufficient to justify a 1 point difference in cost? As an alternative, should the unlicensed character get disadvantage points for this restriction (which will likely equal or exceed the cost of the Paramed and PS skills)?

 

The current system is more granular, and would reflect the distinction between these two characters with a small difference in point costs.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

- I don't "properly" limit my powers,

 

Most of those "reasons" are dodgy at best, but that one is just stupid.

 

I tend to spend a good deal on "useless" abilities and powers myself.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I made a post on another thread (that Zornwill sigged ) talking about just that... so yeah I noticed.

 

I had observed that in older editions a couple of PS could cover a personality archtype (like cop) that the current approach would want 5 or 6 skills, talents, perks ect to do. Similar things with powers, things that were almost "just SFX" are not things you can buy... and I see that extra 100 pts being there to cover the change in approach - you get your 250 combat based characer, and an extra 100 pts for more backcground stuff, "color" powers, and more skills (as G-A mentioned).

 

I personally like the greater definition. Some others don't.

 

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The new definition allows for a more comprehensive covering of different genres. But like everything else, the "splitting up" of skills should be campaign specific. In some campains, where the skills play a large role, you're going to want to define them very carefully. In others, a 3 point generic professional skill can be interpreted as whatever is needed to fit the character concept.

 

Players shouldn't have to pay all those points for detailed background skills if they are almost never going to come up in a game.

[ghost-angel]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I made a post on another thread (that Zornwill sigged ) talking about just that... so yeah I noticed.

 

I had observed that in older editions a couple of PS could cover a personality archtype (like cop) that the current approach would want 5 or 6 skills, talents, perks ect to do. Similar things with powers, things that were almost "just SFX" are not things you can buy... and I see that extra 100 pts being there to cover the change in approach - you get your 250 combat based characer, and an extra 100 pts for more backcground stuff, "color" powers, and more skills (as G-A mentioned).

 

I personally like the greater definition. Some others don't.

 

Yeah - you said it better than I.

 

On a side note - the cheerleader smiley has just got to go - it is entirely too F-ng happy for anyones good.

[Vondy]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I have traditionally preferred games and genres where skills were a prevalent part of play, and where the granularity was considered a plus rather than the minus. I like to be able to define my character's skill set to the nth degree, and to have options at my fingertips. As a result, the point creep was viewed as a generally good thing on my part.

 

At the same time, there are genres where it isn't apropos, and does not enhance play, to have granular skills. In a silver or golden-age game superheroic game it might be counter-productive to do it that way. Cop 12- is on target for the genre, and were I running such a game I would de-emphasize skills and reduce the granularity in buying them. Its really a question of style.

[Soleil Noir]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I completely approve of the "point inflation" that's been taking place. It's giving us the latitude to design characters who actually can pull off some of the stunts you see routinely in the comics, without having to first accumulate several years' worth of XP. I also observe that it's a bit more necessary now -- there are a LOT more choices in terms of Skills, Talents, Perks, and the like; and there's also been a considerable "ramping up" of real-world equipment's effectiveness -- superheroes just don't seem quite as super when the semi-automatic rifle you or I could buy at any gun store would rival the average hero's best attack in terms of Active Point Levels.

 

This Saturday, Megaplayboy will begin running a campaign for the crew here in the DC Metro area where the PC's will be in the 1000-1200 pt. range, and I'm very much looking forward to see how it plays out. By putting a fairly firm cap on Active Points for Offensive and Defensive powers, we avoid any problems with anyone running around with a 500 pt. Energy Blast; but we have enough extra points to pull some pretty spectacular rabbits out of the hat -- the TK elemental can throw a protective dome over the entire city, the duplicating martial artist can conjure up a full MILLION clones for crowd control or search & rescue operations, and the deposed alien monarch can damn near tug the Moon out of its orbit!

[Mike W]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I think it's a matter of more points = more granularity.

 

That said, I still think some things should be "assumed." If you have Paramedic and PS: Physician I don't see why you need Perk: Licensed MD, and if you DON'T have those two skills, I really can't see why you'd need Perk: Licensed MD.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Got a license for that palindromedary?

 

Because the perk makes you a legal practitioner. Without it, you're practicing without a license. You might be good, but you're still violating the law without that license.

[RDU Neil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

The point inflation (which started way before 5th) was one of the key issues that drove me to develop the "Pay Only For What Matters" mindset and the "Points Designate Player Control" philosophy.

 

By this I mean, when asking the question "Why is there point inflation?" we first have to ask, "What do points really mean in the system?"

 

On the surface, points seem to be mechanical in nature... a way to allocate resources in building and a kind of balancing mechanism. Taken a little farther, balance is based on assuming that costs are set at "relative worth."

 

Well... we all know how subjective and variable "relative worth" can be... see every thread on value of limitations and Cost of STR. We also know that anyone who plays Hero for any length of time quickly realizes that equal points don't equal or "balance" characters. The allocation of resources does stand but this is so vague as to have little meaning. A lot of "points don't matter" comments start to show up at that point.

 

But points do matter... just not the way it seems on the surface.

 

Points can and should act as indicators of play value. They are allocations of resources, because they show what the PLAYER thinks is important about their character... thus what they want to BE important in a game and that they have the most "control" over.

 

Looking at things this way is very "un-Sim" in that it is something of the opposite of "If it ain't on the sheet, you can't do it." Rather than a GM presenting a scenario and the player looking at the sheet to see what they have to meet that... Points should say, "GM looks at character sheet and says, "Ok... tons of points in flying and flying skills and flying tricks... I need to create a story where he gets to show off his flying!"

 

Points are indicating that the PLAYER values this part of the character a lot. The more points spent in that area, the more it should come into play and the player should be able to use that character with that ability to shape the story.

 

This covers every play style and genre in a neat universal rule of thumb. If Von D-Man wants a character with tons of points spent to detail out all the Spec-Ops skills, he is saying "Hey GM... I expect to role play this cool Spec-Ops stuff!" It is a "flag" in terms of what the player is interested and finds "cool" about the character. GM should take that as a cue for what kind of adventures to present.

 

On the flip side... if 3 points 12- Cop is all the points a player wants to spend on background... then the signal is "This is just flavor and stuff... shouldn't come up very much... if it does, it shouldn't be a critical part of the story"

 

Points indicate the focus of the character in regards to desired play experience.

 

In this model "point inflation" takes on a whole different meaning. More points don't change what points mean... just give more options. 350 vs. 250 means a PC can have two or three areas where "big points" are spent, rather than just one (maybe two)... indicating more flexibility in story focus, desired play experience... but it still allows for "I want to be a one trick pony... but it is a helluva trick!" if the player so decides.

 

This model does assume that points are only paid for something that will have value in play. Example: If it is important to the story whether a PC is a licensed Dr. or an unlicensed practitioner... then the game should define why that is important and the player can decide to spend points or not "within context" of the game. If this is only background, not critical to the game world, then the player who puts points in Perk: Physician's License is saying "This is important to me. Have it come into play." and the player who doesn't is saying, "I don't care if my doctor status ever comes into the game at all."

 

Points matter... and only should be spent on things that WILL matter in game play. If the GM doesn't define what matters (and no GM can define everything) then the player spending the points is, defacto defining the importance.

 

All of this also includes assessing worth of limitations and Disads... because both are ways of "paying less" to get more. Instead of it being a munchkin battle... with this model, taking a limitation is clearly recognized as "I as the player am ceding control over more of my character. I'm giving up the ability to direct the focus of the game, and allowing GM control over events and my charcter in those areas." This is a tangent to this topic, but just to show that this model of interpreting points does more than just address inflation... it also can address how points affect player and GM expectations of game play.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

On a side note - the cheerleader smiley has just got to go - it is entirely too happy for anyones good.

Better?

[ghost-angel]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Better?

 

oh man .. swings to the other side and waves the white flag! I think i won, but, now i feel bad about it. dang.

[rjcurrie]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Well said, Neil. In my old game group, the general rule of thumb was that if you spent points on a skill (particularly background skills), then the GM would try to make sure that the skill would come in handy at one or more points in the game.

[BoneDaddy]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Better?

There are French cheerleaders too?

[Lemurion]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

There are a few things that come to mind when people talk about "point inflation" from 4E to 5E, and the one that I find a number of them fail to get is that 5E is not the same game as 4E. It's not even really a game at all. It's a system to build a game while 4E was a game using a universal system. That's one reason why it was a good idea to make the big book rules only and divorce it from the Champions setting.

 

So we have more points to build a 5E character than we did to build a 4E character. It makes sense once we realize we are not building the same thing. Yes, the two editions are similar, and characters from one can easily be converted to the other, but conversions are necessary.

 

One thing I find interesting is that this so-called "point inflation" really only happened in supers, not in the other genres. We still see the 75+75 heroic characters that were common in 4E. What this tells me is that a large focus of 5E may well have been to bring super-heroes back into the mainstream HERO System rules set. It gives them the points to have the skills of a normal person as well as their powers. In previous editions, supers were overall simpler characters than their heroic brethren; they don't have to be simpler any more.

 

Yes there was a point increase for 5E, but it wasn't really inflation so much as balancing.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

oh man .. swings to the other side and waves the white flag! I think i won' date=' but, now i feel bad about it. dang. [/quote']

 

Just havin' fun with my new smileys

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

That's one reason why it was a good idea to make the big book rules only and divorce it from the Champions setting.

 

Well, that is how my 4th ed rules were.

 

And I agree with your point about other genres, and that is why I generally go for a higher starting point value in my heroic games too.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

There are a few things that come to mind when people talk about "point inflation" from 4E to 5E, and the one that I find a number of them fail to get is that 5E is not the same game as 4E. It's not even really a game at all. It's a system to build a game while 4E was a game using a universal system. That's one reason why it was a good idea to make the big book rules only and divorce it from the Champions setting.

 

So we have more points to build a 5E character than we did to build a 4E character. It makes sense once we realize we are not building the same thing. Yes, the two editions are similar, and characters from one can easily be converted to the other, but conversions are necessary.

 

One thing I find interesting is that this so-called "point inflation" really only happened in supers, not in the other genres. We still see the 75+75 heroic characters that were common in 4E. What this tells me is that a large focus of 5E may well have been to bring super-heroes back into the mainstream HERO System rules set. It gives them the points to have the skills of a normal person as well as their powers. In previous editions, supers were overall simpler characters than their heroic brethren; they don't have to be simpler any more.

 

Yes there was a point increase for 5E, but it wasn't really inflation so much as balancing.

 

 

I have to admit, I don't see much difference at all between 4th and 5th beyond the obvious cost changes for various things a few new additions like Rapid Attack and the rest. Things are spelled out in more detail, and stylistically there is a different approach. But to me, it's the same system. Everything works the same as far as I can tell.

 

Where do you see such a big difference?

[Lemurion]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I still have both versions of 4E, the BBB and the standalone HERO System.

 

My point was that the "Big Book" in 4E was the BBB which included Champions while the "Big Book" in 5E is the direct descendant of the 4E HERO System Rulesbook, not the 4E BBB.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I still have both versions of 4E, the BBB and the standalone HERO System.

 

My point was that the "Big Book" in 4E was the BBB which included Champions while the "Big Book" in 5E is the direct descendant of the 4E HERO System Rulesbook, not the 4E BBB.

 

I was just being funny.

 

And that was one of the greatest things. I don't want the rules of my game influenced by a setting, because I always make my own. Finding games to buy that make me completely happy are few and far between.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

The point inflation (which started way before 5th) was one of the key issues that drove me to develop the "Pay Only For What Matters" mindset and the "Points Designate Player Control" philosophy.

 

 

Points can and should act as indicators of play value. They are allocations of resources, because they show what the PLAYER thinks is important about their character... thus what they want to BE important in a game and that they have the most "control" over.

 

.

 

I pretty much agree with what you've said here, and you certainly make a strong case. Of course, newer players might not really know how to create a character that best represents what they really want to play. They may wind up spending points on things simply because they sound kind of cool in the book.

 

The GM should certainly strive to accomodate the players interest as represented on their character sheet, but I think it's perfectly fair of a GM to say from the outset that a campaign will primarily be a "Golden Age" or "4-Color" campaign which will place little emphasis on background skills. A little extra attention might be paid to individual players who want some extra flavor in the background dept., but the thrust of the campaign will be otherwise.