Points Equality

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

So GAZZA... if I played in something like that...start out as a veteran... lose points till I am master level... do I start acruing them at the master level or wither away?

You wither away.

 

The idea is that a Veteran is past his best, and while he starts off better than anyone else (in terms of both depth and breadth), he has to face the fact that he's only going to get slower, weaker, and older while his younger companions are improving.

 

That of course implies that whatever points a Veteran starts with is the maximum points that any PC will ever have. Adjust as you see fit with that in mind.

[feralucce]

Re: Points Equality

 

That is a pretty neat idea... and I am pondering... I like it though...

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

If you decide to pursue that, I'd certainly appreciate letting me know how it goes. A few other pointers:

• Activation Rolls, Side Effects, and so forth are not appropriate limitations for Master level characters. Master level abilities should be reliable. Activation Rolls are quite appropriate for Novices and Veterans, and Side Effects are very appropriate for Veterans (and Novices to a lesser extent). Requires a Skill roll abilities are OK for all of them, but Master skill rolls should be such that their powers would rarely fail under most circumstances.
  
• Things like Skill Levels, Penalty Levels, Combat Skill Levels, and so forth are not appropriate for starting Novices (though gaining such things along the way to Mastery is very appropriate).
  
• I would personally recommend that the DC limits for Veterans are about 4 higher than for Novices, and that defences are correspondingly higher as well. Having said that, this is a "Champions" perspective more than a Hero perspective, to some extent - you could quite reasonably play that Veterans simply have more abilities rather than qualitatively better abilities.
  
• Novices should probably have a lot of skills at the Familiarity level, and should probably not have any Skill Enhancers. Veterans should have lots of skills, but comparatively low physical (and maybe mental) characteristics, at least as they get older.

Nothing too dramatic there.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Points Equality

 

To expand on your powergamers' theory, in addition to selecting a Veteran, they should role play him horribly, horribly wrong. After all, the more his xp gets penalized, the slower his power will decline.

[OddHat]

Re: Points Equality

 

I've never actually run it, though, because my players (cynically, but accurately) pointed out that they might as well play Veterans, with the likelihood that the campaign would end before they lost enough to fall back to "Master" level or below. Which misses the point, but that's my lovable powergaming buddies.

 

I see what you're going for, but I'm not sure it models tha material all that well anyway. Obi is a more expensive character than Han from the start, unless you charge Han points for the Falcon (which you probably wouldn't in a Star Hero game). Obi and Yoda are just suffering from age related physical limits for their species.

 

In martial arts and weight training you'll often hear the term "Training Age". The rough idea is that a 24 year old who started training at 4 and a 34 year old who started training at 14 both have a Training Age of 20 years; they are equally veterans. Still, in a full contact bout, odds will go to the 24 year old; his skills will be as good as the 34 year old's, and his reflexes will be around 3-4% faster. For reference, see Mel Sif's "Supertraining".

[Publius]

Re: Points Equality

 

I'm something of a fanatic about equal point values, but I can see the utility of the sytsem that Gazza suggests, especially if combined with some form of Heroic Action Points a la Pulp Hero (i.e. your "little guys" get more Heroic Action points, the bigger stronger sort do not).

 

You can also suggest that some players purchase more subtle abilities but have the same total point values, those which have a game effect but are not especially showy. Skills and Super-Skills for example are really good for this sort of thing, have someone load up on them. I have also had games where one of the other players has an ability to evade damage but it only works when the special effect is something embarassing for him (think Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China, he hits the armored guy who falls on him and pins him down but it keeps him safe from harm, that sort of thing). It was actually used for great comedic effect.

[Vestnik]

Re: Points Equality

 

I'll play Xander if you'll let him have an adamantium skeleton and cool claws that shoot out of his knuckles.

[OddHat]

Re: Points Equality

 

You can also suggest that some players purchase more subtle abilities but have the same total point values' date=' those which have a game effect but are not especially showy. Skills and Super-Skills for example are really good for this sort of thing, have someone load up on them.[/quote']

 

This is the approach I pretty much favor these days. It gives more of a Buffy - Giles flavor than Buffy - Xander, but it's easier to make sure that the "low power" hero feels like a co-star rather than a side kick.

 

Off topic slightly, but a running gag that worked well in a 1930s pulp game came out of a highly trained martial artist with a slightly less powerful DNPC. The martial artist was smart, competent, and had 3d6 of Unluck; the DNPC was dumb as a rock, fat, slow, and had huge defenses, combat luck, and 6d6 Luck. The martial artists was Chinese, the DNPC was white. Everyone assumed the DNPC was the hero and treated the Martial Artists as the Side Kick.

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

To expand on your powergamers' theory' date=' in addition to selecting a Veteran, they should role play him horribly, horribly wrong. After all, the more his xp gets penalized, the slower his power will decline.[/quote']

Do people really do that, though? I never discriminate when handing out XP - everyone gets the same. I've never really been sold on any of the arguments to do it differently, since "how well you roleplay" is very subjective.

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

I see what you're going for' date=' but I'm not sure it models tha material all that well anyway. Obi is a more expensive character than Han from the start, unless you charge Han points for the Falcon (which you probably wouldn't in a Star Hero game). Obi and Yoda are just suffering from age related physical limits for their species.[/quote']

Err... that actually is what I'm modelling. Veterans have more points than Masters, so Obi is more expensive.

 

Now, perhaps you're intending to say that Obi as a "Master" would be more expensive than Han as a "Master". And you're probably right; Jedi are much more powerful than anyone else in the Star Wars universe (most people who want to play Star Wars want to be a Jedi, after all).

[OddHat]

Re: Points Equality

 

Err... that actually is what I'm modelling. Veterans have more points than Masters' date=' so Obi [i']is[/i] more expensive.

 

Now, perhaps you're intending to say that Obi as a "Master" would be more expensive than Han as a "Master". And you're probably right; Jedi are much more powerful than anyone else in the Star Wars universe (most people who want to play Star Wars want to be a Jedi, after all).

 

Ah. Actually I misinterpreted your intent; I thought Luke was the novice, Han the Vet, and Obi the Master.

[tesuji]

Re: Points Equality

 

Do people really do that' date=' though? I never discriminate when handing out XP - everyone gets the same. I've never really been sold on any of the arguments to do it differently, since "how well you roleplay" is very subjective.[/quote']

 

i have used flay experience, an award per session period regardless of what you do, as well as awards for performance (where what youdo matters.)

 

in my current system, every player gets ranking for five basic rpg elements.... taking the initiative, advancing your plots, teamwork, heroics and "fun stuff".... things directly tied in with the genre i am running. Players can score as much as 5 cp per session to 0 per session, although usually the numbers fall between 1-4.

 

are these subjective? sure, but then again, i dont try to run objective games. In a genre that stylistically favors teamwork and outlandish shenanigans and such, I dont see need to be objective and reward the moody, angst ridden loner for playing the out of genre character everyone else has to wor around.

 

However, truth be told, while i can buy this theory and see it at work in play, i really dont think it mattrs a whit. I think a person is gonna play what they want to play and i have never seen any significant change in play style or habits due to xp carrots or sticks.

 

So i cannot really argue with the approach of saying "hey dont play your angst ridden loner again.... its not good for this game" and letting everyone have even xp.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Points Equality

 

Do people really do that' date=' though? I never discriminate when handing out XP - everyone gets the same. I've never really been sold on any of the arguments to do it differently, since "how well you roleplay" is very subjective.[/quote']

 

Uhhhh... yeah, that smacks of touchy-feely "you all did great!" kind of stuff. I can't stand it. I reward accomplishment. Everyone gets mostly the same amount, but some people do get small bumps for a particularly dramatic scene or a really brilliant insight that helps move the game forward.

 

Mind you, I understand that not everyone is a roleplayer, so I try to even things out and equalize opportunity to earn additional xp. I tell people that if they want to contribute ideas for villians or scenarios, write up blue booking or more detailed backstory, contribute locales or events for the campaign city, or even - for our programmer in the group - write utilities to help the game, I will give additional points for all those things. Generally, people tend to even out, especially because I don't demand that they wow everyone so much as just get into the game. If I have a guy who could be a great roleplayer but is just sitting back and throwing the dice in combat and that's it, and a guy who is kind of a lame roleplayer but is really throwing out the subplot ideas and giving it his all to get some drama going with his character, well, the latter, and not the former, will get the bonus xp.

 

I'm strongly against systems of reward that do not recognize that people ARE different, and often make unequal contributions to the game. Those who contribute more are rewarded for it, period.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Points Equality

 

the problem with a disparity in points is that in a game system with a la carte construction, a higher point character can outdo a lower point character at EVERYTHING.

 

So, depending on the group, and depending on which specific player had the high point character, I might consider it. I can think of some specific scenarios where I would decline.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Points Equality

 

the problem with a disparity in points is that in a game system with a la carte construction' date=' a higher point character can outdo a lower point character at EVERYTHING.[/quote']

 

"Can," but rarely "will."

 

To quote a conversation with a friend of mine regarding some roleplaying design theories we were tossing about (don't worry about the original context, it's not required for the point to get through):

 

Alec: "Why would anyone buy Driving if Engineering costs on the same scale? You can do way more with Engineering."

Me: "Except drive places."

 

Characters built on lower points can be incredibly useful in their areas.

 

Of course, that undercuts my earlier point about Xander, who's not actually better than anyone else at anything, or at least anything that will ever come up (Giles, while built on the same points-template as Xander in the Buffy RPG system, does have skills where he's the best in the group, like Occult). I still maintain that Xander-type characters ("Zeppos") are useful just by being there, though - unless the higher point characters have Duplication as a power, the mere presence of the Zeppo is handy at times...

[OddHat]

Re: Points Equality

 

Of course, that undercuts my earlier point about Xander, who's not actually better than anyone else at anything, or at least anything that will ever come up (Giles, while built on the same points-template as Xander in the Buffy RPG system, does have skills where he's the best in the group, like Occult).

 

I'd say that's a difference in the write ups from system to system and writer to writer. Power levels shot up and down in Buffy, and Xander was actually surprisingly capable from time to time (he did have high Persuasion and Seduction skills when he needed them). Still, Giles had a great skill base, including martial arts (wasn't good at applying them because of an average or only slightly above average STR, DEX and SPD for a man of his age and build, but he knew them well enough to teach), Research, Occult Lore of various kinds, Magic Skill, and some excellent contacts. I'd write up Xander, even at his best, at no more than 100 points, and you could do up a reasonable starting Xander for 25+25 or less. Giles starts at 150 or so.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Points Equality

 

Well, that is true - HERO would consider them fairly differently. The basic point, though, was that a not-unreasonable system, and one that was designed specifically to recreate the Buffy characters, considers them as starting on roughly the same basic level. Which is to say that it's not crazy to group them into one "weight class." Doesn't mean you have to, of course, just that it's not insane to assert that it could be done that way.

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

Buffy is not really any different from something like DCs Justice League, Marvel's Avengers, or virtually any other superteam. Let an author dictate what will happen, and Captain America won't always be overshadowed by Thor; hand them over to individual players and change the medium to a roleplaying game and there's no guarantee that Batman still gets to have fun in a group containing Supes.

 

But there's no guarantee that he doesn't, either. Depends very much on the group. Yes, if player A has a low point total and player B has a higher total, then it is possible for player B to buy "everything player A can do, only better". If you have that player B in your group, then this idea is not for you.

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

Anyway, screw Buffy. You want to talk good Joss stuff, let's talk Firefly.

[OddHat]

Re: Points Equality

 

Well' date=' that is true - HERO would consider them fairly differently. The basic point, though, was that a not-unreasonable system, and one that was designed specifically to recreate the Buffy characters, considers them as starting on roughly the same basic level. Which is to say that it's not crazy to group them into one "weight class." Doesn't mean you have to, of course, just that it's not insane to assert that it could be done that way.[/quote']

 

Sure, agreed.

 

As I've said in similar conversations, so long as canonical tasks can be accomplished by a character you're adapting for HERO, points only really mean something relative to the other characters in the campaign. A write up of the DCAU Superman should be able to lift heavy stuff, take a pounding, fly, and use his supersenses and heat vision. He also needs his fortress. Whether you manage that on 450 points or 1450 doesn't matter, so long as he can perform in the campaign at about the level he performs on the show. So long as Xander and Giles can accomplish in game pretty much what they do on screen compared to the other characters, it doesn't much matter whether they're built on 25 points or 250.

[Checkmate]

Re: Points Equality

 

Well' date=' that is true - HERO would consider them fairly differently. The basic point, though, was that a not-unreasonable system, and one that was designed specifically to recreate the Buffy characters, considers them as starting on roughly the same basic level. Which is to say that it's not crazy to group them into one "weight class." Doesn't mean you have to, of course, just that it's not insane to assert that it could be done that way.[/quote']

Which is a perfect illustration of my original point: No one wants to play Xander. In the game system he "originates" he is brought up to the level of Watcher. I think most of us would agree, he comes no where near the usefulness of Giles in the show. As was mentioned Giles has Martial Arts, Magic, and a host of Contacts and useful Knowledge Skills. While Xander has some Luck (which explains how he got busy with Cordie) and a lot of BODY.

[casualplayer]

Re: Points Equality

 

Which is a perfect illustration of my original point: No one wants to play Xander. In the game system he "originates" he is brought up to the level of Watcher. I think most of us would agree' date=' he comes no where near the usefulness of Giles in the show. As was mentioned Giles has Martial Arts, Magic, and a host of Contacts and useful Knowledge Skills. While Xander has some Luck (which explains how he got busy with Cordie) and a lot of BODY.[/quote']

 

Xander is played by the person who is content with being the heart of the group, not the heavyweight.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Points Equality

 

Xander is played by the person who is content with being the heart of the group' date=' not the heavyweight.[/quote']

 

In our group, we call this "not stepping on other characters' schtick." As long as a player character can do something nobody else can do as well or better, it can work. This is really more an issue of player dynamics than system builds. When a player in our group wants to add a skill or ability that approaches another character's schtick, we ask that character's player for "permission."

 

As a recent example, Zl'f wanted to buy Stealth but her higher DEX score made her inherently better at moving quietly than our resident ninja-type, Cloud Dragon. After discussing it with Cloud Dragon's player and assuring him I had no intention of buying Zl'f Security Systems, Lockpicking, or other Skills which make a real stealth type, he decided it would be handy to have another quiet character on the team to work with Cloud Dragon and gave his blessing.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Points Equality

 

I occasionally play with people who are spotlight hogs.

 

I shudder to think of what a game would be like if they were allowed to play a character that was dramatically more powerful than the rest of us...

 

Oh, wait. There was this one time, with the GM's SO's PC, and I excused myself halfway through my first game there and never returned...

[GAZZA]

Re: Points Equality

 

I would imagine that the sort of person who wants to play a character based on a fictional source (whether that be Xander or Galactus) does so from the desire to play someone that they think is "cool". So if you have a person in your group who thinks Xander is cool, and prefers X to Buffy or Giles, then you're not likely to have any real arguments about power levels.

 

I'm of two minds about this. I want to say that I personally don't really see the appeal of playing "someone else's character", but if I'm being realistic, I probably create characters that merge "cool" abilities from various sources (even if it's at an unconscious level), so I don't really think I'm that much more original than the guy who wants to play Wolverine.

 

So while I personally don't get the appeal of Xander, it clearly does exist (given how quickly Wesley was written out of Buffy, I think Joss has a pretty good handle on fan opinion - and the Wesley in Angel was barely recognisable as the same character).

 

I still think Firefly avoids most of these issues though - I can find a reason to play any of those guys.