Is anything in the system correctly priced?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

So, as the man says ...

 

"Are we ready to play a game where everything's made up and the points don't matter?"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

..................

 

Sometimes it seems like people have been munchkining points for so long that the process of munckining is the only aspect that matters any more [and I think a lot of that stems from the fact that more people build characters then actually play them].

 

You see this is important: more perople build characters than play them. You don't do that in DnD or WoD or anything else, really, well nowhere near as much, but you DO do it in Hero, whenever you are sitting on the train or in a cafe and you have a pen and paper and nothing more interesting to do. Because you can. Because you know most of the costs and the rules, at least pretty close, so Hero, more than any other game in the RPG world is an entertainment even when you are not in group mode.

 

Now because we can and do spend so much time messing about and building the theoretical perfect concept/build/munchkin we tend to come across apparent conflicts and confusions, and then we bumble down here to thrash them out. So even when we are not sitting alone in a cafe or around a table with some mates, we are still getting value from Hero.

 

What an utterly splendid game this is

[zornwil]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

I think no game system is perfect.

 

I think that whether something is overpriced or underpriced depends a great deal on the game in question and the style of the GM and the players.

 

I think if you ever did try to 'perfectly balance' the point expenditures of the HERO System, you'd wind up with wonderful measurements like '6pts per die of Energy Blast' or '11.2pts per point of SPD'. Doing things in 5s or 10s, or the occassional 15, makes things easier, and sometimes doing things simply is preferential to making them balanced and/or realistic.

If odd values actually worked, I wouldn't see any issue with that, personally, but as you say up front, it's not possible to come up with a perfect balance that's universal to all games. And of course I recognize many would take issue with 7.5 for HA, 6.25 for KA, or such.

[zornwil]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

You see this is important: more perople build characters than play them. You don't do that in DnD or WoD or anything else, really, well nowhere near as much, but you DO do it in Hero, whenever you are sitting on the train or in a cafe and you have a pen and paper and nothing more interesting to do. Because you can. Because you know most of the costs and the rules, at least pretty close, so Hero, more than any other game in the RPG world is an entertainment even when you are not in group mode.

 

Now because we can and do spend so much time messing about and building the theoretical perfect concept/build/munchkin we tend to come across apparent conflicts and confusions, and then we bumble down here to thrash them out. So even when we are not sitting alone in a cafe or around a table with some mates, we are still getting value from Hero.

 

What an utterly splendid game this is

I don't spend time on character builds aside from out of necessity. But I do like to tinker with rules for different effects quite a bit, exploring that. I do that with lots of games, but more with HERO and I think HERO encourages that.

[casualplayer]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

So, as the man says ...

 

"Are we ready to play a game where everything's made up and the points don't matter?"

 

That man is wicked smaht.

[bcaplan]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

A lot of the pricing problems in Hero stem from the use of linear pricing. It's easy to make EB cost 5/d6, but since you have to get over the threshhold of ED to do any damage, the last d6 is worth a lot more than the first. Unfortunately, I don't think that quadratic or other non-linear price formulae are likely to catch on - people already complain enough about the math in Hero as it is.

 

Nevertheless, there are quite a few pricing problems that the system designers seem to accept, but handle with ad hoc restrictions instead of a simple linear price change. Two examples:

 

1. Making martial maneuvers like Offensive Strike too cheap, and compensating by requiring martial artists to have at least 10 points of maneuvers.

 

2. Forbidding the sell-back of more than one Figured Characteristic, instead of changing the formulae that make this so profitable. (Look at the value of the Figured Characteristics caused by a 5-point rise in S. They're worth more than 5 points!)

 

Bottom line: Prices won't be perfect because there's a trade-off between convenience and accuracy. But when you can improve both, why not go for it?

[Lucius]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

Not everything is perfect, but the prices of most things are at least acceptable.

 

 

For all of you.

 

When I'm making my character, everything should cost about half what it does. Except my Disads.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Is this palindromedary correctly priced?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

I've personally never once thought something was too cheap or too expensive when it came to character building.

 

If price is based on utility then it's all pretty good. I've gotten some amazing utility out of pretty much everything in the rules.

 

Except Leaping. The good news there is I just entered a PBEM game where the characters main form of movement is in fact Leaping. I'll have to gain some utility and then I'll have covered the book pretty solidly.

[zornwil]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

I've seen plenty of builds for people where something was overpriced compared to how it would really get used, but as a GM it's easy to fix this.

[Outsider]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

Anything that most of my players always buy up to the campaign limit (or to as high as they think they can get away with) is probably underpriced.

 

Anything that only the hardcore roleplayer -ever- buys is probably overpriced.

[Lucius]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

I've seen plenty of builds for people where something was overpriced compared to how it would really get used' date=' but as a GM it's easy to fix this.[/quote']

 

So what do you do, exactly? Increase the value of some limitations, give the character some extra starting points, or what?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a Zero END Persistant Palindromedary

[zornwil]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

So what do you do, exactly? Increase the value of some limitations, give the character some extra starting points, or what?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a Zero END Persistant Palindromedary

Most often lims.

[Mike W]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

At risk of the obvious, if we answered "yes" to this question, wouldn't the boards shut down to lack of activity.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

Anything that most of my players always buy up to the campaign limit (or to as high as they think they can get away with) is probably underpriced.

 

Anything that only the hardcore roleplayer -ever- buys is probably overpriced.

 

I don't much like the idea that something all players find essential to be underpriced. In games with NCM I always see a lot of DEX17+ and SPD 4 characters (being guilty myself of it sometimes). I don't think DEX or SPD are underpriced so much as overly relied upon. Or simply flat out essential in may gamers eyes.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

So what do you do, exactly? Increase the value of some limitations, give the character some extra starting points, or what?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a Zero END Persistant Palindromedary

I usually go with an alternate build that's cheaper and run the rest off of SFX. One example is the megaphone. According to the rule, it should (and really must) be bought using Hearing Group Images with a large area and some PER bonuses, and of course it must be 0 END, blah blah blah... Well, that's a bit too much just to project a voice, even after "Own Voice Only" and OAF Limitations. So I bought it as a 2d6 Hearing Flash, with 0 END, Incantations, Reduced By Range and OAF. 6 points is still kinda high, but better than 15 or so using Images.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

Anything that most of my players always buy up to the campaign limit (or to as high as they think they can get away with) is probably underpriced.

 

Anything that only the hardcore roleplayer -ever- buys is probably overpriced.

Or mayby the campaign limit is too low?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

Anything that most of my players always buy up to the campaign limit (or to as high as they think they can get away with) is probably underpriced.

 

Anything that only the hardcore roleplayer -ever- buys is probably overpriced.

 

So this would seem to mean that attack DC's are underpriced, as are defenses. In my general experience, the campaign max quickly becomes the campaign minimum as well.

 

I'm more inclined to agree with Ghost Angel that some purchases are pretty much campaign requirements. Ever see a Champs Super with a DEX of 8 or 10?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

A lot of price comparisons in Hero really are chalk and cheese: you can't really say whether 2d6 EB is worth the same as 5" of flight, especially as 2d6 EB is probbaly completely useless in a superhero game and 5" of flight will always have a use: there are economies of scale to consider. 100 points in EB has improved the usefulness far more that a similar spend in flight.

 

To make Hero 'right', you'd have to go back to square one and start again and you would not end up with Hero. In fact you probably wouldn't end up with anything but sizeable psychiatric bills.

 

In many cases you just have to look and feel, and get the idea from a distance. Power build synergies are an example: you can build something for 20 points that will take down a demi-god using 1d6 EB: is the cost of EB therefore massively out?

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that balance is illusion, at least mechanically. Game balance matters far more. I mean you might allow a character a grossly powerful ability that is not a problem in practice because of the way you play it, in fact two identical power builds with different disadvantages could well produce two characters with very different balance points.

 

The points thing gives us a starting point, no more. I'm not saying that there is no reason to refine it, and smooth out any obvious problems, but ultimately, you need to look at the finished product to decide whether you have got something that is way out of line.

 

Even the play style makes a world of difference: in a detective game, telepathy is dirt cheap at 5/1d6.

 

So is anything in Hero correctly priced?

 

Yes, or maybe no. I'm not sure it matters.

[Outsider]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

So this would seem to mean that attack DC's are underpriced, as are defenses. In my general experience, the campaign max quickly becomes the campaign minimum as well.

 

I'm more inclined to agree with Ghost Angel that some purchases are pretty much campaign requirements. Ever see a Champs Super with a DEX of 8 or 10?

 

 

That's my experience as well, as far as the maximum becoming the minimum.

 

As to the Champions Super with an 8 or 10 DEX, yes, I've seen such. Of course, he also had a good number of OCV levels and a whole lot of defenses.

 

 

What I am complaining about more is players who come up with a concept and/or origin, then largely ignore it while making the character. I dont know how many times I've come across a situation akin to this one :

 

Player says "My character grew up and lived as an expert hunter and trapper in a native wilderness. Then one day he stumbled on an ancient grove of holy trees, and the forest selected him as its special guardian, and gave him super-powers." Then I look at his character sheet and notice that the only 'hunter/trapper' skills he has are Stealth for 3 points, and a familiarity (8-) with PS "hunter/trapper", defined as his 'everyman' professional skill. But he does have a 38 DEX and SPD 8.

 

And yes, I suppose I could just rule as GM that the character needs to be written up differently (which leads to whiney players in my experience), or require ahead of time that every character spend 'X' points on skills (which then leads to (often legitimate) whining by some other player that that many points in skills just doesnt fit their character concept.)

[Outsider]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

I don't much like the idea that something all players find essential to be underpriced. In games with NCM I always see a lot of DEX17+ and SPD 4 characters (being guilty myself of it sometimes). I don't think DEX or SPD are underpriced so much as overly relied upon. Or simply flat out essential in may gamers eyes.

 

What I see in NCM (Fantasy) games for any melee combatant is 18-20 DEX, 4 SPD, 20 STR. At a minimum. Players just can't resist buying DEX til it doubles in cost, and they often keep buying STR even after it doubles. Both of them are just that good of a deal as a way to define the character as a 'skilled combatant'. STR because it effects the character's defenses (via encumbrance) and his offense (via STR mins on weapons & added damage) and DEX because it is just so much more efficient than skill levels to get one's OCV & DCV up.

 

Look at 30 points in DEX. Really 20 points, once we deduct the 10 point value of the SPEED gained secondarily. A 20 DEX results in an increase in base OCV/DCV of +4/+4 over the starting 3/3. For 20 points. To get the equivalent by buying combat skill levels would cost 40 points, twice as much. (4 All Combat Levels, limited to OCV only (-1/2) PLUS 4 All Combat Levels, limited to DCV only (-1/2)) And this isnt even to mention the DEX roll and Initiative advantages to having a higher DEX.

 

But this is an old, tired example. Everyone knows it, and it is just how the game works. A big part of the problem is that players rarely feel that their character is threatened except in combat, so they put all their points into combat effects. How often do people's characters become non-viable (dead?) because they didnt have the right social skills? Usually, such a lack just leads to a fight, which (of course) the PCs excell at. And if the GM puts them in a situation where the lack of the right non-combat skills will lead to a fight that the PCs can't possibly win, then the GM ends up with a room full of whiney players compaining about "GM fiat death traps". Sigh.

 

I am so burned out as a GM

[zornwil]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that balance is illusion' date=' at least mechanically. Game balance matters far more. (snip)[/quote']

 

Hooray, I've corrupted you!

[zornwil]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

What I see in NCM (Fantasy) games for any melee combatant is 18-20 DEX, 4 SPD, 20 STR. At a minimum. Players just can't resist buying DEX til it doubles in cost, and they often keep buying STR even after it doubles. Both of them are just that good of a deal as a way to define the character as a 'skilled combatant'. STR because it effects the character's defenses (via encumbrance) and his offense (via STR mins on weapons & added damage) and DEX because it is just so much more efficient than skill levels to get one's OCV & DCV up.

 

Look at 30 points in DEX. Really 20 points, once we deduct the 10 point value of the SPEED gained secondarily. A 20 DEX results in an increase in base OCV/DCV of +4/+4 over the starting 3/3. For 20 points. To get the equivalent by buying combat skill levels would cost 40 points, twice as much. (4 All Combat Levels, limited to OCV only (-1/2) PLUS 4 All Combat Levels, limited to DCV only (-1/2)) And this isnt even to mention the DEX roll and Initiative advantages to having a higher DEX.

 

But this is an old, tired example. Everyone knows it, and it is just how the game works. A big part of the problem is that players rarely feel that their character is threatened except in combat, so they put all their points into combat effects. How often do people's characters become non-viable (dead?) because they didnt have the right social skills? Usually, such a lack just leads to a fight, which (of course) the PCs excell at. And if the GM puts them in a situation where the lack of the right non-combat skills will lead to a fight that the PCs can't possibly win, then the GM ends up with a room full of whiney players compaining about "GM fiat death traps". Sigh.

 

I am so burned out as a GM

We're well off the mark but in valuable territory here - yes, a major problem is the inherent conflict between "I want my roleplaying experience to result in my character being uber-cool-killing-machine-guy" (which I am not invalidating, btw, the core power fantasy of RPGing is an important aspect) and "this should be a challenging game." Groups that more clearly hew to one extreme or another escape this to a large degree since they have a consensus more on the "roleplay at expense of challenge" or "challenge at expense of desired narrative outcome" sides.

 

Like you, I find it a challenge to inhabit the more commonly-desired middle ground. I don't have any real issue with players not putting in the right conceptual work or such, but I do have the issue that players all want to be equal on the combat field, essentially, in overt damage, not just equivalent in effect. This doesn't really go to my own feeling of combat, but just recently players clearly expressed that they felt that having 2 PCs being damage-making machines, basically, while 2 others played a more supportive role just doesn't work for them. Partly my fault as I haven't celebrated enough the support combat role in terms of pointing out how critical it's been (typically the damage-machines, so to speak, couldn't have succeeded, period, without the support role), but also just a play experience desire. It's a bit different issue, but at the core the same issue with level of challenge versus desire for player narrative control.

 

Not sure what to add, but the topic interests me, hence the response.

[arcady]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

The most abusive power in the game is on page [inset random page number here].

 

Which is often about as truthful as you can get. In the hand of the right player, anything is abusive.

 

This also plays into cost balance games - in the hands of the right player, anything is too cheap or too expensive for what you can get out of it.

 

But in the hands of a typical player trying to play 'right' - it then becomes a game of defining what is playing right. Are we playing for 'good player plays to genre' or are we playing for 'good player plays for game balance'. Those will lead to very different conclusions.

 

In the hands of a player who keeps an eye on balance, everything is balanced perfectly. But in that player's hands, the same is true of 1E AD&D...

 

In the hands of a player with an eye to genre, which genre matters, but most of them would have balance issues in a number of varying areas.

 

Is it all costed out to the 'best compromise or reasonable to expect assumptions'?

 

Generally so, or it would not have survived this long, but there are still popular sticking points.

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

Correctly priced for what? If this is a subjective question, the answers will of course vary. If this is an objective question, the answer is yes. Everything is priced exactly as the designers intended to price it and it is therefor correct.

 

It's a game. About simulating fictional environments. Correct?!

 

I think Oriental Avenue is way overpriced, and after 4 trips around the board I think everyone should get a raise to $300/ payday. That's subjective. Objectively, the rules are sufficient to play a game for an afternoon or two.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced?

 

........................

 

I'm more inclined to agree with Ghost Angel that some purchases are pretty much campaign requirements. Ever see a Champs Super with a DEX of 8 or 10?

 

Campaign, but not game requirements. A few years back we ran a game where we decided we would nerf spiralling SPEED levels; up to that point almost everyone had 5 or 6 SPEED, so we capped it at 4 without special permission, and wound up with a very different look and feel. Even now I usually expect superheroes to be built within normal human characteristic maxima unless there is a good reason not to: why should being able to fire bolts of plasma from your fist mean you have a 23 DEX?

 

As to the low DEX characters, I regularly build bricks (as villains) with such low DEX; they spend most of their time swinging/throwing large objects so they have a chance of hitting, but then that's probably what I'd do if I could benchpress a main battle tank, and I was of a villainic mind. The trade off is that they have saved 30+ points on the DEX spend (well 20+ if you account for speed) which is worth quite a bit as added defences or added strength

 

I also build speedsters with no great damage abilities and blasters with no real defences. We have to shake that 'template mentality'.