Balance versus flavour

[Trebuchet]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

The key elements for a GM to remember in this situation are what Theron calls "schtick protection" - making sure that each character has at least one area of expertise or usefulness to the group that is his and his alone - and "spotlight management' date='" or allotting each character time for his abilities or issues to take center stage.[/quote']"Schtick protection" has been a central theme of our campaign (long before I ever heard the term when reading this thread) since its inception in 1992. It's worked very well for us.

 

The other element that we've found important is to be pleased when another player's character shines. Your turn will come. We're all friends here; and why shouldn't we all be pleased when a friend is having a good time?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

It may not be a good thing if the brick's punch' date=' the MA's offensive strike, and the EP's energy blast all do 12d6. If the EP's FF gives him about the same defenses as the brick, that's worse. Even if all bricks have almost the same defenses as one another, that can be bad.[/quote']That's one reason we dropped damage caps in our campaign several years ago. When damage was capped at 12 Damage Classes, everyone on the team did 11d6 or 12d6 equivalents. Without caps the damage diversified from 10d6 to 15d6. It provided a lot more flavor. Besides, even if an MA hits for as many dice as the brick, he can't take the same kind of damage. We have an EB in our campaign with a FF that gives him the same ED as our team brick. Hard to hurt, yes. But he still lacks the brick's much higher CON and STUN, so he's nowhere near as tough as the brick.

[Mike W]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I think flavor is important. Most characters, if they are well built, are equally effective OVERALL, but they aren't always suitable for every task. If you run a variety of adventure types and situations, sooner or later everyone gets their turn to shine. It also adds more drama if you end up with the "wrong" character trying to accomplish a task. Although some creativity can get the job done anyway. One of the most memorable CHAMPS fights I've ever been a part of was one where our martial artist got stuck going one-on-one with Grond. It worked out well though because the martial artist kept taunting Grond then dodging behind the enemy agents. Grond did LOTS of damage - but all to his own guys trying to get at our martial artist.

[Curufea]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I don't have balance.

If more of the characters specialise in social skills - I have more social situations.

If, say, 40% of my players have security/B&E/thief type skills and background, I have a game with 40% B&E.

If I have a character playing a God, and a character playing a Hobbit - I make sure that some of the game is about religion, and some of the game is about relatives.

 

I don't care if one player has a 300pt character, and one has a 50pt. It just varies the roleplaying opportunities.

 

This may even apply to the superhero genre (I haven't tried it there).

[Robyn]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I think that a strong gamist could be content to know that the GM has used the strong point value basis of the system to balance the characters and so part of the 'fun' element for the gamist would be to test the parameters of his character and his ability to influence the game in a way that would not be possible with full revelation of the mechanics.

 

It's also interesting to truly explore how things work, not just pretend that you don't know, which is essentially what you're doing while roleplaying characters that don't know what you do. If you're just pretending, it's for the sake of roleplaying alone; there's no innate interest to it, because you already know. There's no mystery there. Finding out is no longer its own reward.

 

To bring that mystery back into the game along with new characters, those characters can be equated with the mystery. Each character's powers (including SFX) will, by nature, distort their perception of reality - but they can come up with an understanding that, although technically not fully correct, is a working understanding. It lets them do some things, but others seem impossible. With a new character (and new powers), a different (though still flawed) understanding is reached, providing a different perspective. Players can, with enough different viewpoints, thus try to figure out the underlying rules of their game world.

 

How's that for "the character's perception of how her own powers work, affects how they actually work", Sean?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

What kind of campaign was this?

 

There is another conflation here... with our conversation on design intent.

 

I would say (as much as I like them) Doc and Sean's examples deviate strongly from "what is Hero."

 

I don't want to say they are wrong. Far from it. But if Hero is anything, it is a game where 1) PLAYER control over the building of their character is emphasized and expected, and 2) Quantified, statistical knowledge of the capabilities of a character compared to the imaginary world they inhabit is emphasized and expected.

.

 

This is interesting because the rules used (albeit only applied/used by the GM with a descriptive player interface) were pure core hero. 3rd edition, IIRC.

 

I think that you are right: to a much larger degree than any other game I can think of, Hero impliedly expects the player to know the exact capabilities of the character and, by deduction, to ahve an excellent notion of the exact capabilities of NPCs and villains as well as other characters.

 

We did have a very different game from most other Hero games I've played though, because the way in which the game ran left far more uncertainty than in most games. It worked largely because the lpayers, although experienced and having played superhero games before, were relatively new to Hero and so not as erady to analyse the experience from a mechanical POV.

 

In fact in this game, Hero really was the 'physics' of the world - far more than in most Hero games, and, as a physical model, it worked excellently.

 

Players still rolled dice for actions - we did not want to divorce the 'game' experience entirely and have a pure 'storytelling' experience, although the GM used a look up table of pre-rolled totals to speed play (there was enough for the GM to do keeping track of END and STUN for EVERYONE).

 

I have to say it worked really well and is the touchstone for a lot of my perceptions of Hero...which may well explain a lot to some of you, whilst leaving others thoroughly confused

[RDU Neil]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

This is interesting because the rules used (albeit only applied/used by the GM with a descriptive player interface) were pure core hero. 3rd edition, IIRC.

 

I think that you are right: to a much larger degree than any other game I can think of, Hero impliedly expects the player to know the exact capabilities of the character and, by deduction, to ahve an excellent notion of the exact capabilities of NPCs and villains as well as other characters.

 

We did have a very different game from most other Hero games I've played though, because the way in which the game ran left far more uncertainty than in most games. It worked largely because the lpayers, although experienced and having played superhero games before, were relatively new to Hero and so not as erady to analyse the experience from a mechanical POV.

 

In fact in this game, Hero really was the 'physics' of the world - far more than in most Hero games, and, as a physical model, it worked excellently.

 

Players still rolled dice for actions - we did not want to divorce the 'game' experience entirely and have a pure 'storytelling' experience, although the GM used a look up table of pre-rolled totals to speed play (there was enough for the GM to do keeping track of END and STUN for EVERYONE).

 

I have to say it worked really well and is the touchstone for a lot of my perceptions of Hero...which may well explain a lot to some of you, whilst leaving others thoroughly confused

 

 

From a GM POV, my best experiences with Hero has been with players who don't really care to know all the mechanics and tweak out their characters. They tended to be players who came from other systems into my game because they had heard good things, but really had no desire to learn Hero or grind all the details. They gave me concepts and I built their characters. They had the character sheets, but in play said things like, "I want to use my power gloves to clamp on the guy's leg so he can't get away!" Then I'd say, "Ok, that is a grab maneuver... -1 to your OCV, but you get +4d6 to hold the guy because of your gloves" Slowly, over time they would piece things together... even read some of the rules and occasionally do some character building... but for the most part, they put that stuff in my hands as the GM, and just did stuff "in character." Yes, it implied a lot of trust in me, but I think they were some of the best players and best play experiences (for both sides) I've ever had.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

From a GM POV' date=' my best experiences with Hero has been with players who don't really care to know all the mechanics and tweak out their characters. They tended to be players who came from other systems into my game because they had heard good things, but really had no desire to learn Hero or grind all the details. They gave me concepts and I built their characters. They had the character sheets, but in play said things like, "I want to use my power gloves to clamp on the guy's leg so he can't get away!" Then I'd say, "Ok, that is a grab maneuver... -1 to your OCV, but you get +4d6 to hold the guy because of your gloves" Slowly, over time they would piece things together... even read some of the rules and occasionally do some character building... but for the most part, they put that stuff in my hands as the GM, and just did stuff "in character." Yes, it implied a lot of trust in me, but I think they were some of the best players and best play experiences (for both sides) I've ever had.[/quote']

 

 

My experience is very similar, mind you I'm still playing Hero with a lot of the guys from the game I mentioned, and it is not that they have beceom worse, but he experience has definitely changed as everyone has become more aware of the rules underlying the experience. The games we play now are different; still good, but with, perhaps, not the same highs and lows.

 

I think you have put your finger on an important point: HeroInnocence can great games make. I think this is in fact a testament to the power underlying the system that it can be so good even for end users through the GUI of the GM.