Discussion on costs of Characteristics

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Because it's already there. "Being strong for some reason". It's not "being able to lift stuff for some reason' date=' because that is TK or (str: no figured), both don't give secondaries."[/quote']

 

I dont subscribe to this at all. I think it is entirely possible to ascribe SFX to characteristics - there can be any number of reasons that a person can use the abilities that they have with STR (and thus why we can ascribe advantages and limitations to characteristics).

 

What you said almost implies that you are strong because you have huge muscles - that would even more go against one of the fundamental principles of the Hero System - you describe the game effect you want - be that through powers/characteristics/skill and then place SFX on top of that.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

There are layers to sfx. You can build strength with sfx: I'm really muscly, I've got bionic limbs, I've got no limbs at all but I have short range TK, however, strength IS very tightly defined - you can't vary the PD damage to ED damage, you can't really do much with it, to be honest, that the sfx are there in the purest form - simply as a description; they do not change anything about the ability. If you define your EB as fire, or as ice, it looks different but also there are (minor) differences in how it works, and how it interacts with other sfx. That is far less true of strength. (So I'm agreeing with both of you )

 

Anyway, guys, two words:

 

Page Nineteen.

 

You know what I'm saying

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Oh' date=' ok, I was going for the 1:10 which I think does not work, and I though one would also go for something like that for stun. I can absolutely agree with changing costs of stun and end slightly, since I also think they are a tiny bit too expensive (or rather: other things are cheaper). Everytime I buy END/STUN on a first sketch of a character, later on these are converted to other things (Con and defenses mostly).[/quote']

 

My case summarized neatly in anecdotal evidence - thanks, Kdansky!

 

And my contradiction makes sense:

- Never give out things for free.

- If someone wants to have something unusual, it's ok to charge them extra.

 

Look at it like this: If someone wants to take STR, no figureds, he will have a reason, either he's getting above campaign standards, or has some neat tricks planned or whatever. And he needs these cost-savings because else it would not be affordable or break the game (eg. DC cap). On the other hand, if you give out free stuff for certain things, be prepared that everyone wants it. (EGO/5 Mental Defense for free if I have 1 point? Oh, I'm so going to take 1 point if I have 20 EGO!). But I've seen pretty "bad" or overpriced power constructs work very well.

 

This reads very "layer vs GM" to me. The player is getting away with something, so he should be charged extra. Maybe he's taking STR no figured because this makes sense given his SFX. He's not pulling a fast one, he's building his character according to what it should look like. I would rather the system priced abilities based on their utility and assumed players and GM's will act in the spirit of the game. "Beat the Munchkin" is an easy game to win with no book rules - change the game location and forget to tell him.

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Honestly, a lot of this has never been an issue for me. My players, when I had them (I'm so sad), never bought their STR or CON up to stratospheric levels like is being described, nor shoehorned STR into their special effect. Why not? Character conception. And I don't mean, "Oh, I'm so superior I would never manipulate the rules" role-players that think it's a sign of role-playing to build a weak character. I'm talking about inveterate power-gamers, people who use Disadvantages and Limitations where others would buy Powers to simulate an effect(I'm talking to you, Opal, although I know you're not around to hear it).

 

There's always a trade-off in creating a character. Yes, you get the illusory benefit of getting "more points" for your STR, but you've taken those points away from being truly great at what you're character does. If your concept doesn't include all those high stats, it is a waste of points to have them. Moreover, in most games I've played in and all games I've run there are other ways of making it through a fight that are at least as effective as buying up stats, so the argument that, "Yeah, but I get to role-play more because I'm still standing at the end" doesn't really hold water unless you're in a specific style of game.

 

However, if you are running that style of game, then I agree, STR should be increased in cost, and likely several other stats should be as well. A GM running a game where there is no other effective defense than having a high Defense and Stun score, for instance, would do well to think about increasing the cost of STR and CON. Doesn't mean I want it increased officially and make me constantly have to decrease its cost.

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Honestly, a lot of this has never been an issue for me. My players, when I had them (I'm so sad), never bought their STR or CON up to stratospheric levels like is being described, nor shoehorned STR into their special effect. Why not? Character conception. And I don't mean, "Oh, I'm so superior I would never manipulate the rules" role-players that think it's a sign of role-playing to build a weak character. I'm talking about inveterate power-gamers, people who use Disadvantages and Limitations where others would buy Powers to simulate an effect(I'm talking to you, Opal, although I know you're not around to hear it).

 

There's always a trade-off in creating a character. Yes, you get the illusory benefit of getting "more points" for your STR, but you've taken those points away from being truly great at what you're character does. If your concept doesn't include all those high stats, it is a waste of points to have them. Moreover, in most games I've played in and all games I've run there are other ways of making it through a fight that are at least as effective as buying up stats, so the argument that, "Yeah, but I get to role-play more because I'm still standing at the end" doesn't really hold water unless you're in a specific style of game.

 

However, if you are running that style of game, then I agree, STR should be increased in cost, and likely several other stats should be as well. A GM running a game where there is no other effective defense than having a high Defense and Stun score, for instance, would do well to think about increasing the cost of STR and CON. Doesn't mean I want it increased officially and make me constantly have to decrease its cost.

 

QFT, and repped.

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

There are layers to sfx. You can build strength with sfx: I'm really muscly' date=' I've got bionic limbs, I've got no limbs at all but I have short range TK, however, strength IS very tightly defined - you can't vary the PD damage to ED damage, you can't really do much with it, to be honest, that the sfx are there in the purest form - simply as a description; they do not change anything about the ability. If you define your EB as fire, or as ice, it looks different but also there are (minor) differences in how it works, and how it interacts with other sfx. That is far less true of strength. [/quote']

 

So do we charge people who buy up their STR without being really muscly for IPE? Or did you just describe some of the limitations of STR that should be taken into account when "properly pricing it" compared to other powers?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I've been thinking about Hugh's proposed re-costing of secondaries. It's interesting, but I don't quite like the way PD and ED are no longer "parallel" and some other things didn't quite sit right with me. But I've been thinking about the general idea, and have come up with this possible change:

 

STR and CON no longer provide any additional PD or ED.

STUN costs 1/2.

STR no longer provides any Leaping.

REC costs 1 (maybe - this is the one I'm less comfortable with)

Base PD and ED are both 2 (i.e., a base character starts off with 2 points of each for free).

 

Thus

Base REC is still STR/5 + CON/5

Base STUN is still BODY + STR/2 + CON/2

Base PD is just a flat 2

Base ED is just a flat 2

 

So 10 points worth of STR gives you 2.5 points worth of STUN and 2 points of REC. 4.5 points of figureds.

10 points worth of CON gives you 1.25 points worth of STUN, 1 point of REC and 5 points worth of END. 7.25 points of figureds.

 

I think I could live with that.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

And the argument about Primary stats granting Secondary stats being like a Framework doesn't quite hold up in the case of STR and CON. With a Framework, or any characteristic other than STR or CON, you're always paying positive points, even if you're getting stuff at a discount - it always costs you something. With STR and CON, you're actually getting back *more* than the full price you paid. It's more than 100% discount. 110% in the case of STR, or 105% in the case of CON. You're essentailly paying *negative* points for the benefit.

 

In the case of frameworks, even if we ignore all the drawbacks of frameworks, you're only getting

a 50% discount for EC slots

a 80% or 90% discount for MP slots

a 50% surcharge for VPP control cost.

 

You never get *more* back that what you paid in a framework. But with STR and CON, you do.

 

Having said that, I don't think it's that big a deal in the case of CON, since the base ability of CON is not that powerful or valuable, and the "can't sell back more than one figured" rule prevents most abuses. But with STR, in addition to the 110% in free secondaries, you also get Leaping and the very useful abilities of Lifting and Throwing and Grabbing and Escaping from Grabs and all the Attack manuevers you can apply your STR toward, from basic STR Strike, to HA, to HKA, to Martial Attacks, to Move-Thru and Move-By. The Leaping is another 10%, and the HtH maneuvers and other abilities are worth considerably more. I'd call it at least another 100%, a total of 220%. Frameworks don't come close to this.

[Lucius]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

But if you change PD/ED, that's not the case. Since Armor (or just "Resistant"), Force Field, Mental Defense (and to a tiny extent Power Defense and Flash Defense) are all working exactly on the same principle, we would have to look at these. If PD was only 1/2 of a point, why would you ever bother to buy Force Field for twice as much and in addition you pay END for it. Just make the PD resistant, it's cheaper AND better. And then you get to armor (though it's not so clear cut, as armor is also mispriced by being IPE and persistent for free, but we usually don't bother with these, and if you changed the cost to reflect that, people would probably take "visible" and "nonpersistent", to make it affordable, but that's another discussion), and after you're through Armor, you might want to look at Mental Defense, since that is suddenly way more expensive than PD, and it is also more limited. And if you change defenses, suddenly some other powers might get involved (Desolid? DR?).

 

No one has suggested changing the cost of PD and ED. I think they work fine where they are and everyone who has mentioned changing the figured characteristics has specifically excluded PD and ED.

 

Next is Stun: If you make stun cheaper, people will just have more. That changes average combat length and the "how good are 10d6 EB"-feel. But I don't think that's much of a problem.

 

That’s a good point.

 

END: End is ugly. Really ugly. If you let my buy END at 1/10, then I'll spend 10 points. That gives me about 140 End total. If we fight for 2 full turns, I have zero REC and a speed of 6, I can burn through more than 11 END per phase, that's 12d6 EB (6) + 20/20 FF (4) + moving (1) without breaking a sweat. And since rec is also cheap, you can easily ignore END altogether. END Reserve *is* way too cheap and highly abusable, and for that reason we don't allow it in the general case, or charge advantages on powers using it, or have highly limited REC ("only while doing x").

 

So far we’re talking about reducing the cost of END: I’ve suggested to 1:10 (After all I haven’t seen that many END Reserves in play) but not everyone’s talking about making it THAT cheap.

 

I agree that ou can't change the price of PD or ED. Those link to other abilities. I don't agree that lower priced STUN, REC or END would mean everyone buys it up. Right now, very few buy them up. Buying more defenses or Damage Reduction is virtually always selected over more STUN and REC. Buying reduced END is similarly common as compared to buying more END and more REC. Why?

 

Because one is more efficient for the points. So let's lower the cost of the weaker choice to bring it back in line - and fix the "STR and CON grant more than their cost" conundrum at the same time.

 

That doesn't mean END drops to 1/10 of a point. If you'll read my post on the matter, I psopose a much lesser drop. But a drop nevertheless - perhaps then we'll see some characters buy up STUN/END/REC rather than Defenses/Damage Reduction/Reduced END. But then, I prefer to encourage variety over homogoneity.

 

Thank you for making your case so well.

 

My opinion? I’m still making up my mind. Kdansky makes some good counterarguments too.

 

I've been thinking about Hugh's proposed re-costing of secondaries. It's interesting' date=' but I don't quite like the way PD and ED are no longer "parallel" and some other things didn't quite sit right with me. [/quote']

 

Okay, this is starting to bug me –

 

Unless I missed it, NO ONE is proposing the change the price of PD and ED.

 

But I've been thinking about the general idea, and have come up with this possible change:

 

STR and CON no longer provide any additional PD or ED.

STUN costs 1/2.

STR no longer provides any Leaping.

REC costs 1 (maybe - this is the one I'm less comfortable with)

Base PD and ED are both 2 (i.e., a base character starts off with 2 points of each for free).

 

Thus

Base REC is still STR/5 + CON/5

Base STUN is still BODY + STR/2 + CON/2

Base PD is just a flat 2

Base ED is just a flat 2

 

So 10 points worth of STR gives you 2.5 points worth of STUN and 2 points of REC. 4.5 points of figureds.

10 points worth of CON gives you 1.25 points worth of STUN, 1 point of REC and 5 points worth of END. 7.25 points of figureds.

 

I think I could live with that.

 

Thank you. I would disagree with some of this proposal…but then, maybe I just need to think about it more and suppress my “knee-jerk” reactions.

 

But has anyone compared the way Leaping and Throwing work? It does seem to me that, by default, you ought to be able to Leap at least as far as you can Throw your own weight.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

But the palindromedary warns me against throwing my weight around.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

STR and CON no longer provide any additional PD or ED.

STUN costs 1/2.

STR no longer provides any Leaping.

REC costs 1 (maybe - this is the one I'm less comfortable with)

Base PD and ED are both 2 (i.e., a base character starts off with 2 points of each for free).

 

Thus

Base REC is still STR/5 + CON/5

Base STUN is still BODY + STR/2 + CON/2

Base PD is just a flat 2

Base ED is just a flat 2

 

So 10 points worth of STR gives you 2.5 points worth of STUN and 2 points of REC. 4.5 points of figureds.

 

To me, this is still a bit too much from STR, which has other uses. Mind you, my approach isn't a lot lower, but this pushes No Figured to almost -1 to be compatible.

 

10 points worth of CON gives you 1.25 points worth of STUN' date=' 1 point of REC and 5 points worth of END. 7.25 points of figureds.[/quote']

 

And I don't think CON is providing enough Figured under this model - being resistant to being Stunned should not be well over half the cost of CON.

 

When I looked at my model, I ended up moving more points into CON. We've always gotten equal REC and STUN from STR and CON, so we're used to that concept. But should it be that way? Is being muscular equally important in granting REC and STUN to being healthy and having good stamina? I'd rather make REC and STUN more a function of CON and less of STR. Plus, I'd rather have CON grant more Figured and STR grant less. Maybe CON could also grant 1/5 PD and ED - that would make 11.25 points of Figured for +10 CON - a bit closer to reasonable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Can we imagine a character with a 60 STR but the Stun and REC of a normal human?

 

If so, shouldn't we be able to build it without giving away character points (you can't buy down more than one figured characteristic, at least not to get points back). Why should figured characteristics be figured at all? If we are going to all this trouble to balance them, why not disconnect from primaries, and recost THEM as necessary? CON would definitely be cheaper. STR not so much.

 

Oh, and just as a note: page 20.

[Kdansky]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Sean: 1

Rest: 0

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Having said that' date=' I don't think it's that big a deal in the case of CON, since the base ability of CON is not that powerful or valuable, and the "can't sell back more than one figured" rule prevents most abuses. But with STR, in addition to the 110% in free secondaries, you also get Leaping and the very useful abilities of Lifting and Throwing and Grabbing and Escaping from Grabs and all the Attack manuevers you can apply your STR toward, from basic STR Strike, to HA, to HKA, to Martial Attacks, to Move-Thru and Move-By. The Leaping is another 10%, and the HtH maneuvers and other abilities are worth considerably more. I'd call it at least another 100%, a total of 220%. Frameworks don't come close to this.[/quote']

 

Exactly. In the end, after playing around with various approaches for years, it's why the only major changes I have made to the base rules in my houserules were STR/HA.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I want to come back to the “free equipment” issue. The fact that most equipment, especially in fantasy games, enhances STR and is carried by STR enhances the value of STR in such games. Assessing a point cost (equipment VPP; resource points) eliminates this disparity.

 

The general counterargument is that there is a logical disconnect when Brian the Barbarian cannot pick up a suit of armor without divesting of other gear. I agree that’s a logical disconnect. But we ignore a lot of logical disconnects caused by the requirement that points be spent to acquire new abilities. How is the need to divest of other equipment to retain new equipment on a long-term basis any less logical than:

 

Long-term adventuring companions and friends Leopold the Learned and Trigar the Traveler have a problem. They are trapped by a cave-in. They have plenty of air, and there’s a small underground lake with potable water and fish. They even have fishing gear. They can survive indefinitely, but can’t get out.

 

To pass the time, Leopold (who speaks 27 languages and has PS: Language Teaching at 17-) will teach Trigar (who speaks 19 languages) to speak Auld Wyrmish. Once he learns that, they’ll move on to some other language they don’t share. Eighteen months later, they are rescued by a group that speaks only Auld Wyrmish. They travel with these people for another year, peacefully, acquiring no XP. In that 30 months, since Trigar has no points to spend, he has not learned a single word of Auld Wyrmish. Yet he clearly has linguistic skills, has been trained by an expert for 18 months and has been immersed in the language for another 12. How logical is that?

 

Wulfgar the Wondrous Wizard has found a scroll. It is of a fairly simple spell, and was created by his old mentor, now deceased, who taught him the Arts Arcane. Wulfgar can cast much more complex spells, and he now has a detailed roadmap on how to cast this one, crafted in the style in which he learned magic from the outset. Yet he cannot learn to cast this spell without investing points.

 

In Hero, we accept that characters spend points to acquire new abilities. In both cases above, we would say “Circumstances justify Trigar/Wulfgar purchasing a language/spell with XP, but he must spend the points to acquire the ability.” How is that any more logical, or less justifiable, than saying that circumstances justify Brian buying a higher equipment pool, or new equipment, but that he must spend the points to acquire the ability? They all stick to the model that there must be both an in-game explanation and a spending of character points to acquire new abilities. They all seem illogical if the character points are not spent. But, for some reason, we readily accept two and vehemently decry the third.

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

I entirely agree with what you're getting at, here. However, just to be contrary...

 

On the point of the language learned in the cave: I'll assume the characters were not played through the grand adventure, "Fishermen In A Cave". However, this is a perfect opportunity for a slight rebuild. Neither character has gotten sun in two years: let them lower their CON. Other skills may have attrophied. I haven't Tracked in a long time, let me drop my Tracking skill. They should also buy up their Fishing a little unless catching fish in the cave was a trivial exercise. And so on.

 

Wulfgar I'd allow to cast that spell with a Power Trick, especially if he had any similar spells (bigger penalty if he doesn't, but it's still in his old master's list, so it's similar magic) until he bought it.

 

There's almost always a way to use the rules in a way that get around the illogic. For Resource Points, the way around is generally, "Have you seen the picture of the Compleat Adventurer? You're starting to look like that." You just can't carry around all of that stuff without some kind of penalty, with some exceptions.

[Markdoc]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

In Hero, we accept that characters spend points to acquire new abilities. In both cases above, we would say “Circumstances justify Trigar/Wulfgar purchasing a language/spell with XP, but he must spend the points to acquire the ability.” How is that any more logical, or less justifiable, than saying that circumstances justify Brian buying a higher equipment pool, or new equipment, but that he must spend the points to acquire the ability? They all stick to the model that there must be both an in-game explanation and a spending of character points to acquire new abilities. They all seem illogical if the character points are not spent. But, for some reason, we readily accept two and vehemently decry the third.

 

It's a good point, but it's also telling that you needed a fairly contrived example to make the point, whereas problems with with equipment pools arise regularly and routinely.

 

So yes, I agree that there is a logical disconnect in both cases but the fact that players acquire - and equally importantly, lose - equipment on a regular basis (often multiple times within an evening's play) means that the problem with equipment is a far, far worse problem.

 

This is no theoretical consideration - I have played in and GM'ed multiple games over several years, with equipment pools, or even "equipment" bought full price (in this case you don't buy "a sword" or a mace, but a HKA (with or without variable advantage) defined as "combat skill with X". It can work, but that's greatly outnumbered by the occasions where it was giant roaring PITA - and where the GM waived the rule (a tacit admission that the rule did not, in fact, work as desired).

 

Basically, why make a change that is much more complicated and irritating to partially solve the problem of STR, when the issue can be dealt with fully by changing the cost of STR? Me, I changed the cost years back and have been a happy camper ever since - and more importantly, so have my players.

 

As I mentioned before, I no longer need an alternate solution, because I no longer have a problem. I'm offering my experience here in the hope that it offers solution to GMs with the same problems I had.

 

I'm a fairly practical chap: I prefer to only make changes that are needed. The question of cost is often an indicator of a potential problem. But - as I noted, in the Ego Attack thread, that's not always the case. Ego Attack seems to be grossly underpriced, but for various reasons, it doesn't seem to be an issue in-game. STR also seems to be grossly underpriced, and it very often IS a problem in-game. Hence, I altered one and not the other.

 

My suggestion would simply be to try running several games with the altered cost and see how it flies. If it doesn't work for you, you have your answer. But it does seem to me that the people arguing against the change have never tried it - and the people who have tried it are largely in favor of it. Even allowing for selection bias, that suggest strongly to me that it's a good idea.

 

cheers, Mark

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

It's a good point, but it's also telling that you needed a fairly contrived example to make the point, whereas problems with with equipment pools arise regularly and routinely.

 

So yes, I agree that there is a logical disconnect in both cases but the fact that players acquire - and equally importantly, lose - equipment on a regular basis (often multiple times within an evening's play) means that the problem with equipment is a far, far worse problem.

 

This is no theoretical consideration - I have played in and GM'ed multiple games over several years, with equipment pools, or even "equipment" bought full price (in this case you don't buy "a sword" or a mace, but a HKA (with or without variable advantage) defined as "combat skill with X". It can work, but that's greatly outnumbered by the occasions where it was giant roaring PITA - and where the GM waived the rule (a tacit admission that the rule did not, in fact, work as desired).

 

Basically, why make a change that is much more complicated and irritating to partially solve the problem of STR, when the issue can be dealt with fully by changing the cost of STR? Me, I changed the cost years back and have been a happy camper ever since - and more importantly, so have my players.

 

As I mentioned before, I no longer need an alternate solution, because I no longer have a problem. I'm offering my experience here in the hope that it offers solution to GMs with the same problems I had.

 

I'm a fairly practical chap: I prefer to only make changes that are needed. The question of cost is often an indicator of a potential problem. But - as I noted, in the Ego Attack thread, that's not always the case. Ego Attack seems to be grossly underpriced, but for various reasons, it doesn't seem to be an issue in-game. STR also seems to be grossly underpriced, and it very often IS a problem in-game. Hence, I altered one and not the other.

 

My suggestion would simply be to try running several games with the altered cost and see how it flies. If it doesn't work for you, you have your answer. But it does seem to me that the people arguing against the change have never tried it - and the people who have tried it are largely in favor of it. Even allowing for selection bias, that suggest strongly to me that it's a good idea.

 

cheers, Mark

 

As I still have never seen a problem with strength (other than mathamatical, which means NOTHING once the game has started), please tell me what problems you have seen.

 

Please note the following I do not consider a problem

1) Characters tended to have higher STR's than a normal person

2) Anything to do with character generation, I want in game problems

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

So, we get rid of our reliance on points, and everything makes sense. Cool.

 

Why are you all looking at me like that?

 

The problem here is we go one of three ways. Well, one of them is stay here, so that is not really a way at all. OR we make everything point based. OR we drop points.

 

The trouble with equipment is that players look at the book, work out what makes their PC most effective and use that. There are ways around that. James Bond (a favourite example of mine) famously uses a Walther PPK, even though it is not the most powerful, accurate or easily concealed weapon.

 

I presume therefore that he has a power like this:

 

Signature weapon: Walther PPK +1 OCV +1 DC (0 END) Only with Walther PPK (-1) for 6 points. Then he can certainly pick up and use other weapons, but that is a pretty significant bonus, and makes it the equivalent in efficiency terms of almost any of the other handguns. Moreover, the GM won't let him change the points to another gun, at least not unless he uses another gun for a significant period.

 

Of course if he'd picked a better gun to begin with, he wouldn't have needed to spend the 6 points.

 

It works, but doesn't make a lot of sense, to have a point approach in heroic games. The better gun is right there. Why can't I use it? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE XP. That is daft and metagamey.

 

STR is more of a feature for melee weapons - never forget the increased END cost of STR in heroic games though. Not exactly a balance but it helps.

 

Get rid of points though, or push them tot he background, so that they are used as one of several methods of character balancing, and almost all of the current problems go away. JB can have his signature weapon power, and doesn't have to pay for it.

 

You get a lot more new ones. of course, but hey - there has to be balance

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

But it does seem to me that the people arguing against the change have never tried it - and the people who have tried it are largely in favor of it. Even allowing for selection bias, that suggest strongly to me that it's a good idea.

 

cheers, Mark

 

See, that's flawed reasoning right there, by your own previous statements. The people who are arguing against the change have, by and large, played the game for many years without trouble as it is. So, they have, as you said, played with it for (more than a) few games and liked it. The people who have tried it have, for them, played with it as it is and it's caused trouble, so they changed it and, lo and behold, liked the change. So, all it suggests is that people who were already dissatisfied made this change and liked it, nothing more.

[Tonio]

See' date=' that's flawed reasoning right there, by your own previous statements. The people who are arguing against the change have, by and large, played the game for many years without trouble as it is. So, they have, as you said, played with it for (more than a) few games and liked it. The people who have tried it have, for them, played with it as it is and it's caused trouble, so they changed it and, lo and behold, liked the change. So, all it suggests is that people [i']who were already dissatisfied[/i] made this change and liked it, nothing more.

 

Not really flawed reasoning. Markdoc's argument doesn't work both ways. Those who've tried increasing the cost of STR have ALSO played the game with the original cost. So they've tried both, and in all (most?) cases, they've decided to go with the increased cost. Those who haven't gone with the increased cost are only (mostly?) those that haven't tried it, so their decision is not as informed, being based only on theory, not on practice.

 

Markdoc's argument boils down to that: regardless of what theory says, practice argues for increasing the cost of STR. And it's an entirely valid argument, too. Not deterministic, and I won't comment on the veracity of the statements (because I honestly don't know), but certainly a valid one.

 

Edit:

 

An analogous argument would be: "People who've watched High Definition videos say it's the best thing since sliced bread. People who say it's no good haven't ever watched any." Sure, you can argue 'till your face is blue about how HD video is flawed and looks like crap, but if everybody who's actually watched it endorses it, that's a strong indication it's a good thing. You can't argue the same for people who haven't watched it, because they lack experience: they haven't made a decision as informed as those who've watched it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Not really flawed reasoning. Markdoc's argument doesn't work both ways. Those who've tried increasing the cost of STR have ALSO played the game with the original cost. So they've tried both, and in all (most?) cases, they've decided to go with the increased cost. Those who haven't gone with the increased cost are only (mostly?) those that haven't tried it, so their decision is not as informed, being based only on theory, not on practice.

 

Markdoc's argument boils down to that: regardless of what theory says, practice argues for increasing the cost of STR. And it's an entirely valid argument, too. Not deterministic, and I won't comment on the veracity of the statements (because I honestly don't know), but certainly a valid one.

 

Edit:

 

An analogous argument would be: "People who've watched High Definition videos say it's the best thing since sliced bread. People who say it's no good haven't ever watched any." Sure, you can argue 'till your face is blue about how HD video is flawed and looks like crap, but if everybody who's actually watched it endorses it, that's a strong indication it's a good thing. You can't argue the same for people who haven't watched it, because they lack experience: they haven't made a decision as informed as those who've watched it.

 

I'm obviously going to have to watch how I frame my arguments around you.

 

No. Hell. I'll just jump in feet first as usual, with unsupported clap trap. Business as usual

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

Not really flawed reasoning. Markdoc's argument doesn't work both ways. Those who've tried increasing the cost of STR have ALSO played the game with the original cost. So they've tried both, and in all (most?) cases, they've decided to go with the increased cost. Those who haven't gone with the increased cost are only (mostly?) those that haven't tried it, so their decision is not as informed, being based only on theory, not on practice.

 

So, let me make sure: Anyone that likes the system as-is is, by definition, less informed about the decision making process than people that aren't satisfied.

 

And, anyone that IS satisfied with it is living in the times of B&W TV? Seriously.

 

I feel no reason to continue arguing, as there is no point in arguing with anyone that assumes that any way but his way must be so inherintly inferior that their opinions should be discounted.

[JmOz]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

a quick bit of personal philosiphy on Hero Gaming

 

I consider, as far as rules go to have different levels, the levels are basicaly

 

Theory, Rules, Genre, sub genre, Setting, sub setting, Campaign, Game

 

Before you change anything I feel a need to figure out what level the change is at, the closer to the top (Theory) the more reluctant I am to change it

 

So I have no problem with as a SETTING rule of "this costs this much instead". Espesialy if we see a lack of frameworks in the setting (or to a lesser extent a few other things). I do feel that the default for the main rules, and the genre books is that it should be the 1:1. First I find that when you use the whole system it balances better (But realise that most settings will cut some of the stuff out. I do feel that the genre books should talk about the effect on feel changing costs will have on the game

 

Not really flawed reasoning. Markdoc's argument doesn't work both ways. Those who've tried increasing the cost of STR have ALSO played the game with the original cost. So they've tried both, and in all (most?) cases, they've decided to go with the increased cost. Those who haven't gone with the increased cost are only (mostly?) those that haven't tried it, so their decision is not as informed, being based only on theory, not on practice.

 

Markdoc's argument boils down to that: regardless of what theory says, practice argues for increasing the cost of STR. And it's an entirely valid argument, too. Not deterministic, and I won't comment on the veracity of the statements (because I honestly don't know), but certainly a valid one.

 

Edit:

 

An analogous argument would be: "People who've watched High Definition videos say it's the best thing since sliced bread. People who say it's no good haven't ever watched any." Sure, you can argue 'till your face is blue about how HD video is flawed and looks like crap, but if everybody who's actually watched it endorses it, that's a strong indication it's a good thing. You can't argue the same for people who haven't watched it, because they lack experience: they haven't made a decision as informed as those who've watched it.

 

So, let me make sure: Anyone that likes the system as-is is, by definition, less informed about the decision making process than people that aren't satisfied.

 

And, anyone that IS satisfied with it is living in the times of B&W TV? Seriously.

 

I feel no reason to continue arguing, as there is no point in arguing with anyone that assumes that any way but his way must be so inherintly inferior that their opinions should be discounted.

 

The first post is to bring up my true thuoghts on this once again. As a GM I have ran Str at 1.5, 2, 3. I have ran Ego at 1, 1.5, 2, 3. Dex as gone as high as 5 (But I was a player not a GM). I have no problems changing characteristics to get the feel I want in the game, but a conversation like this has to be about the default, not the "In my fantasy game I only want dedicated warriors to be STR 15 so I will raise str to help steer players in that direction

 

Tonio: YOu are under the false assumption that those of us who argue against 2:1 have never experienced it, for some of us we have, and we might even see some advantages to it, but those advantages have a cost, and when, at least for me, those advantages are less than the cost, well you get me arguing the point. When I have been in 2:1 games I have found characters to have less str (well du'uh), which when I look at most heroic fiction it does not fit in well, it breaks for me a genre convention, this to me is a problem (or cost) of the 2:1 idea, for those who support it this is a benefit, an inherent problem with this kind of argument. I will note that when I asked for problems 1:1 generated that did not fall into one of two camps no one responded, makes you think doesn't it. As for "Practice says" I will bet that there are as many or more who can say that in practice 1:1 works. Macdoc's argument is trumped by everyone else saying THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT 1:1

 

GAmephil: I know how you feel

[Kenn]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

An analogous argument would be: "People who've watched High Definition videos say it's the best thing since sliced bread. People who say it's no good haven't ever watched any." Sure' date=' you can argue 'till your face is blue about how HD video is flawed and looks like crap, but if everybody who's actually watched it endorses it, that's a strong indication it's a good thing. You can't argue the same for people who haven't watched it, because they lack experience: they haven't made a decision as informed as those who've watched it.[/quote']

 

Except we aren't saying the picture is no good. All of us have admitted that the picture quality is better. What we are saying is, that yes, while the picture quality is better, we need to balance the cost of a $2000 television versus a $400 television and six months of car payments.

[Tonio]

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

 

So, let me make sure: Anyone that likes the system as-is is, by definition, less informed about the decision making process than people that aren't satisfied.

 

And, anyone that IS satisfied with it is living in the times of B&W TV? Seriously.

 

I feel no reason to continue arguing, as there is no point in arguing with anyone that assumes that any way but his way must be so inherintly inferior that their opinions should be discounted.

 

No no... not "anyone that likes the system as-is", but "anyone that hasn't tried the alternate method". Of course they're less informed; they haven't had both experiences. Someone who's tried chocolate both with and without peanut butter is more informed (and can make a more informed decision) than one who hasn't tried it with peanut butter.