"Point inflation" in Hero

[Questar]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

I would just point out, back to the system roots, the original system and its evolution prior to 4th generally makes no provisions (at least in supers) for freebies based on background descriptions (though I believe there is some commentary on providing in-combat bonuses for good narrative, so a vague precedent could be construed here), so there is a systemic issue of sorts that has generated the current state.

 

It’s true that the early editions of Champions did not have an explicit direction saying that players did not have to pay points for background skills. But that’s because there simply was no way to buy such skills. The concepts of PS and KS didn’t exist. It was assumed that if your character was, say, a reporter in his secret identity, that the character had whatever skills fit your concept of his reporting abilities. You didn’t have to pay points for your background. You simply roleplayed it.

 

The first Dr. Destroyer was 500 points. He had a base, he had agents with vehicles, but he paid no points for any of these. They were simply story elements, GM constructs if you will. His writeup indicated that he had numerous criminal contacts and financial skills to have built up a fortune. He paid no points for contacts, money or financial skills. He also had a piano in his base, and the writeup indicated that he liked to play. But his sheet reflected no musical skills. They didn’t exist in the game at the time. So, the GM roleplayed these things.

 

Was he a “fleshed-out” character? That depended on how the GM roleplayed him, just as it does now. I think Zed-F has a valid point about that. The personality of a character comes from the PLAYERS, not from the sheet.

 

I said in an earlier post that I thought the real point inflation and the “granularity” that is talked about came in with 4E. A look at the Dr. Destroyer from 4E supports this. Two versions were offered, a low-end and a high-end version, 1300 and 1932 points, respectively. Split the difference and you are roughly TRIPLE what the original Doc D cost.

 

Interestingly, both versions had exactly the same skills, a sort of tacit admission that what made one “High-End” was the combat ability, not the skillset, at least for supers campaigns.

 

The 4E version has 15 specific sciences, all spelled out. He has a couple of AK’s and 5 CK’s, all specific. He has KS for chess, dollmaking, winemaking and piano. (His music was not forgotten, but not mentioned in his writeup). He has paid points to be a billionaire, yet he has no KS to represent the financial investment skills that are mentioned in his writeup. He has paid points to know 4 languages and has a wide range of vehicle familiarities. He has 20 points in contacts, but they are left vague. He paid points for his bases and followers.

 

Move ahead to 5E Dr. Destroyer. Now he’s at 2,516 points. 584 points higher than the “High-end” of 4E, but nowhere near the proportional jump between 4E and the predecessor.

 

The 5E has more powerful combat capabilities than 4E, though he spends only 142 points on powers more than his (high-end) predecessor, and only 24 more points on characteristics. This is somewhat deceptive, since the powers seem to be bought in a far more efficient manner than 4E, so the increase in capability is actually greater than the points indicate.

 

He spends 418 more points on skills. Every kind of background skill is vastly increased, all specifically detailed. What is being modeled for a supers campaign is that these background skills have become much more important. Doc D not only has PS: Play Piano, he also has KS: Music. He has PS: Play chess and KS: Chess. The detail is staggering, and this is clearly for a supers campaign.

 

Interestingly, though the writeup for 5E talks about how Doc D made a fortune with smuggling and dummy corporations, this version again has no KS in financial areas.

 

Also, on the Perks side, the contacts are left totally vague. Even for a major published character, the author didn’t want to go through the tedium of costing all these out specifically. Just slap in an extra 100 points and say he has whatever he needs in the way of contacts. And in fact, there is an additional note under Perks that Doc D should have whatever additional followers, vehicles or bases he needs, but no points need be paid. This comes under a “Master Villain clause”.

 

I have to say, the high definition of the background skills just seems like overkill to me. I much prefer assigning a character the title of Grandmaster in his background writeup and not bothering to pay points for it. It seems a much more elegant and flexible way to approach this kind of thing. But if you are going to pay points, why is such a nuanced approach necessary? It seems to me that PS:Chess would be sufficient.

 

I could go on, but the post is getting overlong. More later.

[Questar]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

 

But in Champions, the points are supposed to be codifications of an existing idea -- the points are not the idea itself. That means the idea should be separate and independent, and should be expressed in the Character Background (or other appropriate elements of the Character Development Form, such as "Enemies and why they are foes"). At least, that's how I always saw it... how my game group always saw it... and how, to my recollection, the writers and editors back in the 2E era, always seemed to intend it. They regularly wrote that the elements of the Character Sheet, or the expenditure of Experience Points on new or improved Powers, required "justification" -- you aren't supposed to just slap some points into a power and then "have it."

 

And, in a game system where not everything has been codified, the idea of "justifying" is obvious to the player. But in a game where every possible thing you can imagine is already codified with points, many players seem to have begun thinking that paying points is the justification -- and it never has been, and never really should be. If points become the justification then characters become just a "bag o' points", rather than characters.

 

C

 

 

What he said.

 

Chessak, you posted while I was writing my previous post and beat me to a few points.

[schir1964]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

This has been a fascinating thread. I'm thinking of going back and giving rep to everyone. (8^D)

 

I'm just going to highlight some patterns in viewpoints that seem core to the issues here. At least that is how they've come across to me.

 

1) The early editions required that the GM specifically make a ruling on whether to allow anything that wasn't covered by the book via backgroud information about the character. The player didn't have to spend any points on these things, but had to convince the GM that such things were essential, or made sense, for the character to have. Such things allowed could have a large impact on the storyline of the game and was generally controlled, as far as influence on the story, by the GM.

 

The player then had a certain number points that they would use to buy the things from the book that they could, and as long as they had a somewhat reasonable rationale for having it, they could purchase it within the guidelines of the rules and the GM. So the player basically goes the character abilities store and purchased off the shelf those items they could. But the store is fairly small and the variety and number of items in the store is limited.

 

2) The later editions included many options that allowed the player to purchase things that would normally be considered background elements. The GM now must decide what things the player is disallowed to purchase outright, or whether has given a good enough reason that his character should be able to buy it. Each of these things purchased, should have an influence in the game, since they were purchased with points. If they don't, the points are wasted, and the GM is now burdened with handling the influence every time the character attempts to use it in the game.

 

So now the player has tons of points to spend and the store is now a shopping mall. The GM must go along with the player and tell the player what they can buy and why certain things if bought might not be as useful as other things. The player see all this stuff they can buy, so they know that as long as they give a reasonable explanation why it would make sense for thier character, they can buy it and it will have an influence in the game at some point.

 

3) One major shift from the old vs the new is the approach to developing a character for both the GM and player.

- What was once the Burden of the Player to convince the GM to give him things that didn't cost points and would only have an influence when the GM so desired has changed to the player trying to convince the GM to let him purchase something with points that should have an influence whenever the Player invokes it.

- The GM now has the Burden of leading the player through the maze of items available to purchase, and telling him what can and can not be purchased and what things might be possibly purchased with a convincing argument.

 

Before, it was like the GM was giving the player an allowance of points and then took the player to a very small store to spend them, then going and buying for the Player whatever else the player needed for his character.

 

Now, the player has been given an allowance from an outside source and is allowed to go to huge shopping mall with the GM to buy whatever they want there. So the player wants to buy any and all things that seem cool or fashionable, even if it doesn't make sense for thier character.

 

What does all this boil down to?

Just because you can purchase something, doesn't mean you should.

 

The major shift of the old gave vs the new is that the new rules have made it easy for the player to look at everything like a candy store with an allowance they can spend any way they want. And it has made it harder for the GM to create the game he wants since points spent are supposed to have an influence in the game, regardless of how minute that thing is.

 

Just An Exposition

 

- Christopher Mullins

[David Johnston]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

The thoughts which occur to me are these:

 

Because of complimentary skill rolls, redundant skills are more cost effective than getting a higher level in the skill you already have.

 

This is the only real non-fluff reason to get a KS when there is a relevant PS or Science.

 

The trend to greater skill packages means that character generation is fraught with many more opportunities to mess up by failing to give a character a skill he obviously needs to be who you purport him to be.

 

The trend also means that point values becomes far less important if you wish to estimate whether a given character is a match for another one. This means there is less reason to do the math on an NPC.

[Chessack]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

Some fine posts here gents. I appreciate the high level of discourse we are having, I will say.

 

I would like to focus on this tiny little part of the Dr. Destroyer example (excellent one by the way):

 

The 4E version has 15 specific sciences' date=' all spelled out. He has a couple of AK’s and 5 CK’s, all specific. He has KS for chess, dollmaking, winemaking and piano. (His music was not forgotten, but not mentioned in his writeup).[/quote']

 

Notice the last sentence. I'm going to repeat it for emphasis here. After having spent points on piano skill, the 4E version of Dr. Destroyer has the music skill but it is not mentioned in his writeup.

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. It's a shift in emphasis. The two Dr. Ds are essentially the same (2E and 4E). But whereas his skills were "listed" before in a paragraph in the background, they are now spelled out in detail on the character sheet. The implications are clear here in this very example - by putting it on the character sheet and not mentioning it in the background, the "4E way" of doing it is basically telling us, "I paid points for it so that's all I need to do."

 

The M.O. of the later editions of Hero is "you have to pay points for everything." The M.O. of the earlier editions was different, more like, "You pay points for the big, important stuff, and the rest is RPed."

 

I just like the second way better. Always have, always will. As I say, I wish they were somehow still developing a "2nd edition line" of products to cater to those of us who prefer that M.O. I'm not trying to say 4th-5th is objectively bad, but it's just not my preference. I prefer simple sheets and complex background writeups, to simple backgrounds and complex sheets. The more can be done with imagination and RP, rather than dice and points, the happier I am.

 

You can, of course, re-construct 2nd edition by basically deleting massive portions of the rules in your own House Rules for your campaign. But this is a tremendous amount of work. And also, any product you buy, such as a campaign book, you're going to have to massively modify also -- to the point where it'd probably be less work to just make it all up yourself.

 

You know, if I still had my old Champions I-II-III books from the 2nd Edition (and if it weren't a violation of copyright law, heheh), I'd be tempted to do a Champions 2.5 edition... just update the existing powers and rules within those that existed, and leave out all the "new fangled" stuff.

 

That's just fantasizing though, since I don't have the books anymore, and even if I did, it'd be illegal to produce my own "version" of Champions. But that, really, is what I'd love to be able to get my hands on... Champions 2nd edition, revised.

 

C

[zornwil]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

Snipped for space.

 

Not explicity, no.

 

But since the game system originally had no mechanism for buying any of the Perks and most of the Talents, and since many characters HAD those things, there wasn't much a GM could do but either "allow it" based on background, or "disallow it."

 

Take Eidetic Memory for example.

 

Typically, back then, I made up a power if needed. I would certainly consider Eidetic Memory a very useful ability and would have constructed a power or (more likely) skill for it.

 

Other examples are things like Money. Again, there was no Money Perk or Disadvantage.

 

Interestingly, I also made up the equivalent of a Perk for Money, by charging the inverse of a Secret ID Disad, and allowing a Disad for it. Because money is quite useful, as demonstrated by a PC. So quite interesting you brought this up given it was a real-life thing that we did quite differently than you did. But we NEVER played straight/traditional 4-color heroes, we played much as RDU Neil cited with his group early on, with more injections of realism, which I found was encouraged/driven by the system's heavy rationalization.

 

So back then, my interpretation, while just implicit, was that if anything was going to be particularly useful in a campaign, it needed to be paid for.

 

That being said, note I said "particularly useful." I wouldn't have interpreted, then or now, a license that corresponds with a PS to be useful beyond the PS itself. Except licenses that would be quite unusual, such as "License to Kill" (unless one were a secret government agent and paid something for that in general).

 

The difference between Classic Champions and the current Hero System is really this: In Classic, since a lot of stuff was not accounted for by the rules, you really couldn't pay any points for it (or get any via Disadvantges), and therefore these things had to be controlled via the Character Background sheet (or in Champions III, the Character Development Form). In Hero 5, they've got basically everything you can think of covered one way or another, so almost anything you can put into the background of your characdter, could be codified with points -- and many GMs will, in fact, insist that you do so if possible.

 

I think "Classic Champions" by implication STRONGLY encouraged making up your own skills and powers, especially given, as you say, vehicles and bases had payment methods, and given as you also mentioned the shortage of some abilltiies but the notion that it was easy to make powers. Given it's addage about paying for utility (the comments that a disad that isn't a disad isn't worth points and how Advantages work as well), I tend to believe that any particular unique/useful ability was worth points even back then. Just because the game didn't have it listed yet doesn't mean you weren't supposed to charge something. Especially given even back then it had a strong sort of toolkit nature, given its internal logic and points system and the way you could build powers from variables.

 

And, in a game system where not everything has been codified, the idea of "justifying" is obvious to the player. But in a game where every possible thing you can imagine is already codified with points, many players seem to have begun thinking that paying points is the justification -- and it never has been, and never really should be. If points become the justification then characters become just a "bag o' points", rather than characters.

 

C

 

To be fair, regarding Perks, the book says: "Gamemasters don't have to use the rules for Perks at all; players can handle most of the situations described by roleplaying." (page 78, 5ER) The paragraph goes on to state how the values give a rough idea of what these things are worth and tends to obscure the first sentence, but I think that we do have to stop and realize that the issue is not the Perks system itself, or any other series of values pointed out, it is, as I mentioned earlier, that the statements are not entirely clear on the matter or explicit enough.

[zornwil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Snipped -

 

3) One major shift from the old vs the new is the approach to developing a character for both the GM and player.

- What was once the Burden of the Player to convince the GM to give him things that didn't cost points and would only have an influence when the GM so desired has changed to the player trying to convince the GM to let him purchase something with points that should have an influence whenever the Player invokes it.

- The GM now has the Burden of leading the player through the maze of items available to purchase, and telling him what can and can not be purchased and what things might be possibly purchased with a convincing argument.

 

Very well said, and an astute observation.

 

The major shift of the old gave vs the new is that the new rules have made it easy for the player to look at everything like a candy store with an allowance they can spend any way they want. And it has made it harder for the GM to create the game he wants since points spent are supposed to have an influence in the game, regardless of how minute that thing is.

 

I would somewhat disagree with the blanket summary of making it harder - for experienced GMs, especially if they are in HERO-experienced play groups, it also opens up options and gives ideas on running very different types of campaigns/games. So I think the effect is mixed for the GM.

[zornwil]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

Some fine posts here gents. I appreciate the high level of discourse we are having, I will say.

 

I would like to focus on this tiny little part of the Dr. Destroyer example (excellent one by the way):

 

 

 

Notice the last sentence. I'm going to repeat it for emphasis here. After having spent points on piano skill, the 4E version of Dr. Destroyer has the music skill but it is not mentioned in his writeup.

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. It's a shift in emphasis. The two Dr. Ds are essentially the same (2E and 4E). But whereas his skills were "listed" before in a paragraph in the background, they are now spelled out in detail on the character sheet. The implications are clear here in this very example - by putting it on the character sheet and not mentioning it in the background, the "4E way" of doing it is basically telling us, "I paid points for it so that's all I need to do."

 

The M.O. of the later editions of Hero is "you have to pay points for everything." The M.O. of the earlier editions was different, more like, "You pay points for the big, important stuff, and the rest is RPed."

 

I just like the second way better. Always have, always will. As I say, I wish they were somehow still developing a "2nd edition line" of products to cater to those of us who prefer that M.O. I'm not trying to say 4th-5th is objectively bad, but it's just not my preference. I prefer simple sheets and complex background writeups, to simple backgrounds and complex sheets. The more can be done with imagination and RP, rather than dice and points, the happier I am.

 

You can, of course, re-construct 2nd edition by basically deleting massive portions of the rules in your own House Rules for your campaign. But this is a tremendous amount of work. And also, any product you buy, such as a campaign book, you're going to have to massively modify also -- to the point where it'd probably be less work to just make it all up yourself.

 

You know, if I still had my old Champions I-II-III books from the 2nd Edition (and if it weren't a violation of copyright law, heheh), I'd be tempted to do a Champions 2.5 edition... just update the existing powers and rules within those that existed, and leave out all the "new fangled" stuff.

 

That's just fantasizing though, since I don't have the books anymore, and even if I did, it'd be illegal to produce my own "version" of Champions. But that, really, is what I'd love to be able to get my hands on... Champions 2nd edition, revised.

 

C

I have 2nd, have considered running an old school game. At the least, at some point, I hope to run a game where the PCs are in an alternate dimension which makes them run as if they were constructed back then.

[Chessack]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

To be fair, regarding Perks, the book says: "Gamemasters don't have to use the rules for Perks at all; players can handle most of the situations described by roleplaying." (page 78, 5ER) The paragraph goes on to state how the values give a rough idea of what these things are worth and tends to obscure the first sentence, but I think that we do have to stop and realize that the issue is not the Perks system itself, or any other series of values pointed out, it is, as I mentioned earlier, that the statements are not entirely clear on the matter or explicit enough.

 

The statements are clear taken by themselves. I think the problem is that they devote one sentence to expalining that you don't have to use Perks, and then pages and pages describing them. This decreases the weight of the sentence by sheer volume. Why, after all, would they devote pages and pages to stuff they don't intend for you to use? Plus, once you are introduced to the idea that a Contact is worth points, it may be difficult to imagine not charging points for it.

 

Better, would perhaps be to illustrate ways of constructing different types of campaigns. So for example, instead of their vague references to "using simple Powers" in the Genre by Genre section, they could have charts, showing the kinds of campaigns, and which things would be used/not used. This could include a "Classic 1980s Champions" section that would list which game elements you would use, and which you would probably not use, if trying to reconstruct the "old school" feel.

 

So you're right, if they were more explicit about it, this would be a bit less of an issue.

 

C

[Lucius]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

Snipped for space.

 

Typically, back then, I made up a power if needed. I would certainly consider Eidetic Memory a very useful ability and would have constructed a power or (more likely) skill for it.

 

 

We used to do quite a bit with skills. The first incarnation of my character Stormwalker had "Weather Control" as a skill - Change Environment hadn't been invented yet.

 

In retrospect, that probably came closer to the way I envisioned it anyway - it was originally more a "Can you get us a sunny day for next weekend's picnic?" ability than "I want a fogbank in this room right now." Change Environment is great for radical, immediate, short duration, small area, but high powered changes. I wanted gradual, subtle, long term, very wide area effects. I'm not sure it shouldn't STILL be done as a skill, although today we'd probably call it "Power Skill."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Power Skill: Palindromedary

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Here's a relevant passage from the 1982 Champions Edition,

 

"The skill list given here is not intended to be exhaustive. We assume that each character is skilled in his Secret Identity's profession (doctor, lawyer, scientist, etc.). The character does not have to pay for this skill. If a character wants many such skills, then the GM should consider charging the character 1 Power Point for the equivalent of a college degree in the field. For 2 Power Points the character has the equivalent of an advanced degree, and has a base roll with the particular skill."

 

So yeah, the concept of paying for utility was there from the start. But then again, a normal set of common professional skills (doctor, lawyer, scientist) was not considered of particular utility in the genre. Or, looked at another way, one such skillset was considered an "everyman" skill, as long as they didn't start getting abusive.

 

As for money, the 1982 supplement, Champions II had a page devoted to "Money in Champions". Basically it lays out five different levels of income and devotes a paragraph to describing how to roleplay and GM the different levels. There is no point cost assigned for any level, players are told to "choose a salary range consistent with their character's profession."

 

There's also the following paragraph:

 

"Money and Power Points can overlap in their definitions, creating confusion about what can be bought with money, and what has to be bought with points. In brief, anything that can be bought with points, should be bought with points. The GM may well decide to let characters own a car or a gun without paying points for it, and this is fine, as long as the object in question rarely comes into combat. However, if the character plans to use his pistol as a superhero, he should pay the points for it."

 

The concept here of paying for utility is referring to utility as a superhero, particulalrly in combat. You couldn't use money to go out and buy weapons or armor or vehicles, but you didn't have to pay character points (or Power Points, as they were then called) for wealth that was simply part of your background. That you handled via roleplay.

[zornwil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Which hasn't really changed, essentially, for the supers genre in terms of money versus points. But it has changed in terms of the PS, and is a 50/50 proposition with money.

 

The primary thing is the core book is now not dedicated to supers.

[Questar]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Which hasn't really changed, essentially, for the supers genre in terms of money versus points. But it has changed in terms of the PS, and is a 50/50 proposition with money.

 

The primary thing is the core book is now not dedicated to supers.

 

Yeah, I agree 100%. Which is why I said that the old Champions still exists in 5E, it's just kind of buried.

 

That's not a knock at 5E. You said it, the core book is now not dedicated to supers. It opens up a lot more different styles of play to sdatisfy a wide range of different campaign types. Even in supers there are vastly different types of campaigns, possible now in ways that weren't under the original game.

 

My point about Dr. Destroyer, though, is that the source material in 5E for supers is one that models the highly detailed backgrounds and paying for every AK, CK, KS and PS in a highly nuanced way. Although it may not be intended, this encourages players and GM's to think that this is the "correct" way for supers to be bought. You look at what has been published to get a sense of "how to do it".

 

What Chessak seems to be wanting, and something that I, too, would love to see, is a "Silver Age" Champions setting, and support supplements for it. If they can do a "Golden Age", why not a "Silver Age"?

[Chessack]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Yes, Questar's comments are exactly along the lines I've been thinking about.

 

In a way the old school Champions system was kind of saying, "Your background is free. You do not have to pay points for it." And the newer way of doing it will even refer to KS, PS, etc, as "background skills" -- meaning that there has in fact been a fundamental change, from the idea that "you don't have to pay for your background" to, instead, "you *do* have to pay for your background."

 

I'd still love to see a Champions 2.5 ed where they basically update what existed in those books(I-II-III), in terms of the rules for the existing powers at the time (so, for instance, replace the old way of doing Vehciles with the current, much simpler, way, and so on), but leave out all the stuff that wasn't in those books (Perks, most Talents, etc). They don't need to change the Hero System... but it'd be nice if they had a book with *just* the parts of the Hero System that you need to play the old school variant of Champions, and nothing else.

 

I'd pay good money for that.

 

C

[Kristopher]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

It's hard for me to comment on much of this, since I only came into the HERO system with the BBB around early 1993.

 

I'm fairly detail oriented and have a great long-term memory, and to be honest, the 5th stuff sometimes overwhelms me. There's a lot there. I still don't entirely get the Rapid Attack and Sweep skills and rules (partially because I've never had a chance to use them), and the rules for adding damage are...eldritch?

 

While I appreciate the toolkit concept, it does get hard to compare characters from different creators / from different campaigns, because the assumptions and ranges can be so different even for the games that are nominally in the same genre and power level.

[Lucius]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Technically, you still get certain skills for free. They're called "everyman" skills and include an 11 or less with a chosen profession, if I"m not mistaken, in just about any genre.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Contemplating Everypalindromedary skills

[schir1964]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I would somewhat disagree with the blanket summary of making it harder - for experienced GMs' date=' especially if they are in HERO-experienced play groups, it also opens up options and gives ideas on running very different types of campaigns/games. So I think the effect is mixed for the GM.[/quote']

Well I was one of those few who was introduced to 4th Edition Champions and went almost immediately to becoming a GM for it.

 

Perhaps the use of the term "harder" is too relative. A more precise term would be more complex for the GM, due the volume of information and the amount of upfront work the GM now is burdened with as opposed to the earlier lighter versions.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

My point about Dr. Destroyer' date=' though, is that the source material in 5E for supers is one that models the highly detailed backgrounds and paying for every AK, CK, KS and PS in a highly nuanced way. Although it may not be intended, this encourages players and GM's to think that this is the "correct" way for supers to be bought. You look at what has been published to get a sense of "how to do it". [/quote']

I have an issue with the examples in supplements, but for a different reason.

 

Steve Long says the writeups in the supplements are not forced to adhere to the rules in the core book (other than point calculation). This means that even if a core rule forbids something, a writeup in a supplement may break this rule outright. This means that you can't depend on writeups in supplements to reflect the official way to build any particular thing.

 

But that is a separate issue.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Technically, you still get certain skills for free. They're called "everyman" skills and include an 11 or less with a chosen profession, if I"m not mistaken, in just about any genre.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Contemplating Everypalindromedary skills

Excellent catch, I was trying to find a reference to that and didn't think to check under "Everyman" - oddly, it isn't mentioned under the PS skill itself (or I missed it, always possible).

[zornwil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Well I was one of those few who was introduced to 4th Edition Champions and went almost immediately to becoming a GM for it.

 

Perhaps the use of the term "harder" is too relative. A more precise term would be more complex for the GM, due the volume of information and the amount of upfront work the GM now is burdened with as opposed to the earlier lighter versions.

 

- Christopher Mullins

That's probably the best term, good point. I'm sure I don't recall 4th's real impact well since I was playing well before then and, just as with 5th, I didn't begin implementing elements of 4th until well after I had first browed it.

[zornwil]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

I have an issue with the examples in supplements, but for a different reason.

 

Steve Long says the writeups in the supplements are not forced to adhere to the rules in the core book (other than point calculation). This means that even if a core rule forbids something, a writeup in a supplement may break this rule outright. This means that you can't depend on writeups in supplements to reflect the official way to build any particular thing.

 

But that is a separate issue.

 

- Christopher Mullins

But, forgive the tangent, it is a very good point and well illustrates Steve's and others' opinion of the core as a toolkit to be used and abused (just so to speak, please don't take that phrase literally). And if we want to view the system that way, which is definitely well and good by me, the core book needs to be more illustrative that way itself. And I would say that in this light it actually needs far fewer rules and more rules about how to make rules (such as Perks and so on). But that introduces another argument. So aside from whether it needs "far" fewer rules and "more rules about how to make rules" I do think at least it's clear to me that the system core rulebook does need to be more loose and accomodating in tone, regardless of what it suggests as standard values, and needs at least some more emphasis (the margins of the book would be a GREAT place) on where things can more freely be altered/dispensed with/exploded out in detail.

[schir1964]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

... I do think at least it's clear to me that the system core rulebook does need to be more loose and accomodating in tone' date=' regardless of what it suggests as standard values, and needs at least some more emphasis (the margins of the book would be a GREAT place) on where things can more freely be altered/dispensed with/exploded out in detail.[/quote']

That's precisely my issue. If they are going to allow supplements to blatantly break the rules in the core book, then why not remove those "forbid" rules and put in place a guideline that allows the GM to decide when and when not to follow the guideline. They already do this with the Caution and Stop Sign symbols. They don't say that you shouldn't allow Desolid, but instead that Desolid may unbalance certain games and the GM needs to look closely at this.

 

Tangent Ended

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

Chessack, I want to agree with you, and I want to disagree with you, sometimes in the same posting. That said, I'm going to respond to Questar's posting.

 

Here's a relevant passage from the 1982 Champions Edition,

 

"The skill list given here is not intended to be exhaustive. We assume that each character is skilled in his Secret Identity's profession (doctor, lawyer, scientist, etc.). The character does not have to pay for this skill. If a character wants many such skills, then the GM should consider charging the character 1 Power Point for the equivalent of a college degree in the field. For 2 Power Points the character has the equivalent of an advanced degree, and has a base roll with the particular skill."

 

So yeah, the concept of paying for utility was there from the start. But then again, a normal set of common professional skills (doctor, lawyer, scientist) was not considered of particular utility in the genre. Or, looked at another way, one such skillset was considered an "everyman" skill, as long as they didn't start getting abusive.

 

Essentially, the idea of everyman skills was in place already. I looked at my 3rd edition book today and it said the same thing; it also said that every character gets Stealth and Climbing at 8-, which I'd forgotten.

 

As for money, the 1982 supplement, Champions II had a page devoted to "Money in Champions". Basically it lays out five different levels of income and devotes a paragraph to describing how to roleplay and GM the different levels. There is no point cost assigned for any level, players are told to "choose a salary range consistent with their character's profession."

 

There's also the following paragraph:

 

"Money and Power Points can overlap in their definitions, creating confusion about what can be bought with money, and what has to be bought with points. In brief, anything that can be bought with points, should be bought with points. The GM may well decide to let characters own a car or a gun without paying points for it, and this is fine, as long as the object in question rarely comes into combat. However, if the character plans to use his pistol as a superhero, he should pay the points for it."

 

The concept here of paying for utility is referring to utility as a superhero, particulalrly in combat. You couldn't use money to go out and buy weapons or armor or vehicles, but you didn't have to pay character points (or Power Points, as they were then called) for wealth that was simply part of your background. That you handled via roleplay.

 

This is the kicker. This is something that should apply as much to Perks and Skills as to guns; if it's something your character is going to make use of in game, then you pay the points for it. That doesn't necessarily mean the GM has to give you the opportunity to make use of it (though a good GM will) but he can't not let you, barring Limitations built into the construct.

 

(Aside: Chessack, something I do disagree with you on, just remembered. Every bit on the character sheet has to be justified by the background writeup? That can, for some players, turn the background writeup into a list of his skills. ("And then he graduated from basic training, and then he went to his advanced riflery training, and then he went to DLI, and then he was assigned to the US Embassy in Poland, where he picked up his Persuasion skill, as well as Contacts in the international diplomatic community...") Part of the point of having the list format is to serve as a sort of shorthand alternative to a prose listing of the background bits (like a dossier, right? And if I'm going to write up a dossier I can sure as heck condense it to a list of skills...). I'm willing to let implied backgrounds go a long way... Dr. Destroyer is supposed to be a Dr. Doom-alike, right? Cultured, very very rich, has been around a long long time. I wouldn't even blink at the PS: Piano skill. As to whether it would be useful in game, almost certainly not as more than *ahem* background...)

[Questar]

Re: "Perk inflation" in Hero

 

This had been a really interesting thread to me, and I've enjoyed reading the posts and considering the different ideas and viewpoints. It's been fun digging out my earlier edition books and comparing them.

 

I admit that I haven't done a lot of browsing through the 5E book. It seemed to me that the difference between it and 4E was not nearly as significant as the difference between 3E and 4E. It was in 4E that a clear effort was made to create the "Hero" system as opposed to "Champions". The core rules were separated from supers and made generic (though in the BBB vesrsion, a super campaign supplement was included. The core rules themselves though, were generic, and even published separately.) So moving to 5E did not seem to be a big jump to me. I can't find anything that I would consider a major change in the core rules from 4E to 5E.

 

 

I think a fundamental issue that needs to be explicated is just what the role of points in this particular points-based system are. We know they afford control, essentially, to the player as well as declare limitations on that control (either with specific Limitations or Disads). But the core books have remained implicit rather than explicit on this at its core, and we really need some clearer philosophical guidelines to understand system construction and application.

 

I think you already answered that pretty well already in describing the concept of paying points for utility. That is the philosophical guideline that began in the earliest edition, and continues through 5E. As you say, the core books remain implicit on this in the sense that they let you decide for yourself what actually adds "utility" to your campaign. 5E does explicitly list perks, skills, powers and talents and defines an explicit value for each one. And if you only read that section of 5E, it does seem like a "rule lawyer" or "game mechanic" approach because of the minutia of costing out every small detail. It seems to be saying "this is how you should play the game".

 

However, if you read the sections that express the "philosphical guidelines" the best, particularly the Gamemastering chapter, you find very important admonitions such as, "DON"T LET THE RULES GET IN THE WAY OF HAVING FUN". (emphasis in the original). Here's another quote, "Don't let 'rules lawyers' among your players ruin everyone else's fun." Over and over there is advice to loosen the rules in the name of drama and storytelling and to ignore , discard or change any rule that spoils the fun. "Don't treat the dice as God", is the heading of one paragraph.

 

From Schir1964 I see that this philosophy is further encouraged by publishing source books where characters may specifically break the core rules. It seems to be reinforcing the message that YOU decide what parts of the rules work for you, and not to get hung up on them. I didn't really see that in the source books before this thread pointed them out.

 

The philosophical guidelines you refer to, Zornwil, to understand system construction, seem to be that you decide for yourself what has "utility" in your campaign and is therefore worth points.

 

In my campaign, with goals of tracking down supervillains, foiling their plots and defeating them in super-combat, the PS: Play piano is not of any real utility, and therefore worth no points in determining how different characters balance against each other.

 

Yes, it can add color, but it doesn't help the PC's accomplish their goals in a direct way. (No doubt someone could come up with a scenario where it might play a role, but realistically, playing piano is not going to help defeat supervillains.)

 

So I think that the philosophical guidelines are there, and clearly articulated. And the philosphy in 5E is the same as the earlier editions, in spite of the overwhelming rule minutia that makes it read like a "rules lawyer" tome.

[Chessack]

Re: "Point inflation" in Hero

 

(Aside: Chessack, something I do disagree with you on, just remembered. Every bit on the character sheet has to be justified by the background writeup? That can, for some players, turn the background writeup into a list of his skills.

 

Clearly, one does not need to justify every skill or power individually. If one has written down an explanation for the fact that, for instance, one's character is a black belt in Judo, the appropriate skills (KS: Judo, martial maneuvers, Find Weakness w/Judo attacks, skill levels, etc) can reasonably be assumed, and not only need not, but in the interest of good writing probably should not, be explained in painstaking detail skill by skill. Similarly if I explain that my character, say, "was born with his fire/ice powers" (in Marvel terms, he's a mutant), then this presumably explains any and all fire or ice Powers on his character sheet. There is no need to explain, then, where "Fire EB" or "Ice entangle" came from... these make sense based on the origin already.

 

However, one does not, in any campaign for which I am the GM, put 20 points of Judo martial arts, KS: Judo, and skill levels w/Judo, on one's character sheet, and then proceed to make no mention whatsoever of the character's martial training in the background.

 

In my experience as more and more things have been "buyable" with points, more and more things on the character sheet have been left totally unmentioned in the Background. The single biggest culprit of this has been, and remains, Perks. People think that if they buy "rich" they do not need to explain how their character came into money, or if they buy "Miltary rank:captain" they do not need to include the character's military history in the origin story. And at least when I'm the GM, they most certainly do.

 

After all, one must imagine that a background description for Batman would at least bear a passing mention of the fact that the Waynes were quite rich before mommy and daddy were popped in an alley by Jack Napier... and that his player would not simply put "Rich: 5 points" (or whatever) on his character sheet, and leave it at that.

 

C