STR discussion

[Yamo]

As I stated in the other thread, the HERO System does not guarantee equality just because two characters are built on the same point totals.

 

No, but it usually at least embraces balance as an ideal and attempts to encourage it, even if nothing is perfect. STR needs a change for that reason alone, I'd say.

 

Would you approve of RKA costing 60 points/DC and Energy Blast costing 5 simply because "Oh well. There's no real guarantee of balance anyway, so what does it matter?"

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo

No, but it usually at least embraces balance as an ideal and attempts to encourage it, even if nothing is perfect. STR needs a change for that reason alone, I'd say.

Then the best thing to do is what Lord Liaden has done and change it for your own game. There is a very big difference between "I do not like it, it should be changed for all" and "I do not like it, so I will change it for myself."

[Yamo]

Then the best thing to do is what Lord Liaden has done and change it for your own game. There is a very big difference between "I do not like it, it should be changed for all" and "I do not like it, so I will change it for myself."

 

There's also a very big difference between "I do not like it" and "It is a system flaw."

 

DEX costing 1/1 would be a system flaw. COM costing 9/1 would be a system flaw. STR costing 1/1 is a system flaw.

 

Why?

 

It's objectively provable that you get numeric benefit in excess of numeric cost. A drastic amount in excess, in this case.

 

That's demonstrably true. How can it not be a flaw?

 

Fix it, then encourage people to change it if they want. Don't leave it broken and then encourage them to fix it. That's not good game design. It's completely bass-ackwards.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith

Then the best thing to do is what Lord Liaden has done and change it for your own game. There is a very big difference between "I do not like it, it should be changed for all" and "I do not like it, so I will change it for myself."

 

Let's put it to a vote! We live in a Democracy. One man, one vote. Steve Long is the man. He has the vote.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo

There's also a very big difference between "I do not like it" and "It is a system flaw."

It seems to me that something should be considered a "system flaw" when the majority of players find it to be in error, not when the minority do.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by GamePhil

Let's put it to a vote! We live in a Democracy. One man, one vote. Steve Long is the man. He has the vote.

Just to be fair, all the partners in DOJ should get a vote.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith

Just to be fair, all the partners in DOJ should get a vote.

 

Perhaps, but that wouldn't sound right: 4 Men, 4 Votes? Or however many it is, 4 sounds right.

 

Besides, just take a look in that section at the top of the Forum list. Whose name is on all the replies?

[Yamo]

It seems to me that something should be considered a "system flaw" when the majority of players find it to be in error, not when the minority do.

 

It's not populism, it's mathematics. You spend X points and you get Y benefit where Y = > X.

 

Since the HERO ideal is getting what you pay for, that's clearly a flaw. Just because some flaws are inevitable is no excuse not to correct the known ones.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo

It's not populism, it's mathematics. You spend X points and you get Y benefit where Y = > X.

It is always populism. If the majority do not see it as broken, then to please the majority you should not change it. If you change it they become the minority. Making your majority your minority is never a wise thing. Just ask the Fusion guys about that.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by GamePhil

Besides, just take a look in that section at the top of the Forum list. Whose name is on all the replies?

Ok, you win. Steve Long gets to make the decision.

[Yamo]

It is always populism. If the majority do not see it as broken, then to please the majority you should not change it. If you change it they become the minority. Making your majority your minority is never a wise thing. Just ask the Fusion guys that.

 

But even if that were so, you've yet to prove the existance of a majority that would care strongly either way, which leaves us both on equal footing in that regard as of this moment in time.

 

Touche.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Yamo

But even if that were so, you've yet to prove the existance of a majority that would care strongly either way, which leaves us both on equal footing in that regard as of this moment in time.

I have seen about a 5-6 of these discussion come up over the last year. I have yet to see more than a dozen people demand that it be changed to 2 points. Overall though, the rule is not going to be changed unless Steve Long (or whomever is in charge during 6th edition) feels that the fanbase has a decided interest in seeing it changed. I think Steve has learned his lession from Damage Shield.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Yamo

It's not populism, it's mathematics. You spend X points and you get Y benefit where Y = > X.

 

Looking solely at the mathematics gives you a skewed perception. Yes, you get back 11 points for buying 10 STR. 11 points you probably wouldn't have bought otherwise. It's kind of like buying something at a 2 for 1 sale just because it's 2 for 1, even if you wouldn't have purchased it otherwise.

 

Which brings us to one of Mono's points: divorcing Figured from Primary Characteristics. I could go for that: they are complicated for new players and so on, though I am fond of them. However, I really think that most or all of them should be reduced in cost in that case.

 

A freind of mine used to buy Constitution up to 19 from 18, because it was "free", even though he would never have bought the Stun and END up. That always struck me as odd.

 

Is it more effective? In many games it is, so it should be increased in cost. In many games it is not, regardless of what the math seems to say, and so it should not be. If the majority of the players are playing in the former, it should be increased. If the majority of the players are in the latter, it should not be. So, back to populism, and simple business sense. I'll trust the Hero guys to make the decision on this.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Monolith

I think Steve has learned his lession from Damage Shield.

 

Actually, I'd dislike going back to the old way, the new way made sense to me. I would like to see it refined to take into account greater flexibility, though.

 

Oh, sorry.

[GamePhil]

Aaah! It's like a car accident! I can't stop looking!

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by GamePhil

Oh, it's that bad. I think enough people are tired of it to let it drop, though.

Heh, heh. How wrong you were. Barely three hours after posting, and already almost four pages of commentary.

 

BRING BACK THE GREAT LINKED DEBATE!

 

- Derek (ducking)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

Heh, heh. How wrong you were. Barely three hours after posting, and already almost four pages of commentary.

 

*censored!*

 

- Derek (ducking)

 

Ya, and many of the posts are mine. Oh, well...

 

However, I was more talking about the ... uhm ... *passion* of the debate previously. Which was as nothing to the Debate Not To Be Named, but still got out of control.

 

As the falling man said, "So far, so good!"

[RadeFox]

I had no idea of the history of this debate. Learn something new every day.

 

I noticed OldMans poll on the base Hero forum. Should have made an adjustment that the STR cost increase would apply mainly to heroic settings, but it will be an interesting result either way.

 

I'm glad to see Lord Liadem is on the side of 2/1 for heroic settings. Im pretty sure I'm going to do the same.

 

Someone said they HAD a template for designer that had STR cost at 2, perhaps they'd be willing to share it here????

[Lord Liaden]

I'd just like to point out that in Chapter Six in FREd, "Changing the System," Steve Long discusses altering Characteristics to suit a particular GM's concept (p. 351). He mentions both eliminating Figured Characteristics from the character calculation, and increasing the cost of some Characteristics (specifically citing doubling the cost of STR as the most common adjustment), and describes the pros and cons of making these changes. I would call that the best "official" accomodation of these changes that we could expect short of making them canon, and sufficient blessing for any GM to take this route in his own game.

 

I mean, if it's described in the rulebook, is it really necessary to demand more?

[megaplayboy]

A compromise solution for heroic level games would be to set the maxima levels lower for physical stats. You could set them at 15, and to get a 20 STR would cost 15 points, a 25 STR would cost 25 points, and a 30 STR(maximum legendary human STR in the Hero Universe) would cost 35 points.

A 20 STR in the 2/1 system would cost 20 points, and a 30 would cost 60 points!

 

I'm not sure a 30 STR would ever be worth 60 points, even with the figureds(+10 STUN, +4 REC, +4 PD) thrown in.

 

It seems to me the maximum "savings" in the existing system is no greater than 10 points.

 

Hey, 5 points of INT gets you at least 8 points of benefits--

+1 to all perception rolls(3 points)

+1 to all INT-based rolls(5 points)

+1 to memory rolls

 

so maybe INT and PRE should cost 2/1 as well

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Yamo

My hope is that Hero Games will do the right thing for 6th Edition

 

As someone who has every HERO book published, back to 1st edition, the rules making that change would pretty much put me in as a grognard and I would then seriously consider whether the new rules were for me.

 

STR is just fine where it is. Yes small sampling- I've played with over 100 players in 2 states, half of that heroic games. Never once have I seen an abuse of STR. So you can put me in the vocal opposition to changing STR.

 

If you think STR is not working for heroic games, houserule it, like was menioned earlier- using the guidlines in FREd.

 

Edit- removing a particulary snide comment that was unneeded.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

I mean, if it's described in the rulebook, is it really necessary to demand more?

 

If enough people have the perception that the game is "only good for supers", and if part of the argument is STR, then it behooves the makers of the game to increase the cost. The same note on halving the cost could be in the Changing The Rules section.

 

I'm not convinced this is the case, but it is a circumstance where it's a good idea.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by RadeFox

I had no idea of the history of this debate. Learn something new every day.

 

You can't swing a dead cat, with or without WF: Dead Cat, without hitting an old Hero debate.

[Toadmaster]

Wow, it never fails to amaze me what will come up as broken with HERO. I've been playing since 1st Ed Champions and have played FH since 85-86 (whenever it came out) and have yet to agree with the proposed changes people put forward. Never have found one yet that troubled me before or after the arguments.

 

You can put me on the "it ain't broke so don't fix it" side of the argument.

[Markdoc]

Me, I'm strongly in the 2 point camp. Of course what's "broken" is a matter of definition. Personally, I got sick and goddamn tired of every character having 18-20 STR in Heroic (especially FH) games.

 

So, I just houseruled it. I've been using 2 points per for years and have no intention of ever going back

 

If the Muscle beach syndrome bothers you, then do the same.

 

As for 6th ed., don't hold your breath. SteveL was heavily involved in the great STR debate while writing up FREd and while he concedes that the maths aspect of STR doesn't make sense, he felt that the trouble caused by changing virtually every character ever published is more grief than it is worth. There's nothing in this round of the debate that hasn't been said before, so I doubt that will change.

 

cheers, Mark