Jump to content

Discussion on costs of Characteristics


Thia Halmades

Recommended Posts

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Like I said, I haven't tried it because I knew how much resistance I would get, although I think that more people are coming around to that POV in my games, the 'problem' is that they're still holding on to old ideas of how things should work, although Jason got on board, and Masters would never argue with me because I'm the GM, Chris would be distressed, to say the least. So I've let it go in this case, although for the campaign following this one I will most assuredly enforce it. It really just seems to make more sense, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 547
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Like I said' date=' I haven't tried it because I knew how much resistance I would get, although I think that more people are coming around to that POV in my games, the 'problem' is that they're still holding on to old ideas of how things should work, although Jason got on board, and Masters would never argue with me because I'm the GM, Chris would be distressed, to say the least. So I've let it go in this case, although for the campaign following this one I will most assuredly enforce it. It really just seems to make more sense, to me.[/quote']

 

Yep. Mostly I've had to recruit Hero noobies, so when I tell them the rulebook has a couple of misprints, one of which is the price of STR* they just go "Ayup" :D

 

I have had the experience tho' of GM'ing for hardcore hero fans where we also used the (ahem) correct cost of 2 points. One hardcore player/GM went "Of course! It's all so obvious!" and introduced it into his own game. The other one didn't like it and stuck with a cost of 1 in his games. But both played in my game without any apparent qualms or problems for a couple of years, and both bought up their STR, so it's pretty clear that the resistance is at the Chargen level: once you're past that, it's essentially a non-issue.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

*no, not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I don't want to totally derail this thread into "We do it the right way! HERO is t3h wrongz!!" Although Mark & I (and a few others) clearly fall into this camp, which of course makes everyone else an infidel. The thing is I still haven't seen a really compelling argument for STR being priced correctly that doesn't also seem to chain to another argument about how things are priced incorrectly.

 

In regards to something Lucius said, that NCM is a kludge, I both agree and disagree with it. I frankly think 20 is just too bloody high to represent most 'normals,' other than people like our esteemed Markdoc, KS and a few others that just bought up silly amounts of INT. That's why I introduced the 15 max/2 stats over rule, to force (frankly, yes, force) more verisimilitude among character designs and point spreads. Generally everyone has embraced this, and it solves the problem of high STR among the party.

 

For example, Kalin purchased +5 STR, only to meet STR Minima (-1) No Figured (-1/2) (I think that's the right build) for his Paladin -- who has a base STR of 14. So I know that it worked just fine. But then, as I've said quite often, I'm blessed with players who hold to concepts, not points. Although to a man they have some power game in them. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I agree that 2:1 STR works great for a fantasy game, and I enfore it in any herioc level game I GM. I think for supers it breaks down, because the Brick "STR power framework" isn't there to balance against the other characters taking frameworks.

 

About Heroic games. My primary problem with STR at 1:1 in Heroic games is that its so cheap that everyone buys some of it. "Oh, you're a "frail" non-combat-oriented necromancer? Then why do you have a 13 STR?"

 

I like to play a game where the strong city guard/street tough has a 13 STR. These guys are in the prime of their lives, and make it their business to be able to beat people up. 13 STR is above average and fits that to a tee. These guys should be tougher than your average Joe. I'd rather not have the "weakest" PC be able to bar-room brawl with these street toughs 1-on-1. It just doesn't fit my idea of how it should work.

 

Making STR 2:1 forces the physically weak character concepts to pay for being strong. Further, it allows the mid-STR character types (strong theives, light and medium fighters, clerics) have a bit more of a protected niche in the 13-18 STR range. Because with normal 1:1, mages and other non-physical-combat types frequently buy 13 or 15 STR. Light and medium fighters, in order to differentiate have to go 18-20, and heavy fighters and strongmen have to go 20+. And that's way beyond where I want the campaign standards to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I agree that 2:1 STR works great for a fantasy game' date=' and I enfore it in any herioc level game I GM. I think for supers it breaks down, because the Brick "STR power framework" isn't there to balance against the other characters taking frameworks.[/quote']

 

There isn't anything stopping a character from taking a 'Strength' power framework. I've been making bricks with Strength Multipowers for literally decades at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I think 2: 1 would be ok, but would needs to have some other system changes added along with it, such as how Lift is calculated.

 

Otherwise your starting level brick in your 60Ap/12DC supers game is limited to the Spider-man/Beast range of lifting, as opposed to being in the Colossus/Thing range.

 

He also does much less damage than an energy projector. I suggest that will hamper Bricks to the point of unplayability.

 

No argument there :)

 

Nonetheless, I'd have to argue that, if you were building from scratch, a power that allowed you to do 1d6 damage, lift, throw and manipulate objects, exert specific force, carry objects, and had elements of indirect would probably be worth more than 5 points. Even without figured characteristics, I feel STR is worth more than 1point/point.

 

Yup. It's worth 7.5 points. It's called "Telekinesis", and it has Range. Now, if you made it No Range, that would be 5 points, except that its Indirect aspects are also likely much reduced, so it would then be less than 5 points per 5 points of TK STR.

 

I agree that 2:1 STR works great for a fantasy game, and I enfore it in any herioc level game I GM. I think for supers it breaks down, because the Brick "STR power framework" isn't there to balance against the other characters taking frameworks.

 

About Heroic games. My primary problem with STR at 1:1 in Heroic games is that its so cheap that everyone buys some of it. "Oh, you're a "frail" non-combat-oriented necromancer? Then why do you have a 13 STR?"

 

I like to play a game where the strong city guard/street tough has a 13 STR. These guys are in the prime of their lives, and make it their business to be able to beat people up. 13 STR is above average and fits that to a tee. These guys should be tougher than your average Joe. I'd rather not have the "weakest" PC be able to bar-room brawl with these street toughs 1-on-1. It just doesn't fit my idea of how it should work.

 

Whether STR costs 1 point or 2 points, some people will build characters out of concept, and others out of context. The latter is more commonly the issue than the former, in my view. The frail necromancer bought 13 STR because no one else ever buys less than 18 (at least in his view). When we make the campaign guidelines a bit more clear, he should be able to place himself below "tough brawler" on the STR scale.

 

He only needs to pay 2 points to be familiar with all common ranged weapons. Should he buy that, since it's quite useful, or refrain, since it's out of concept?

 

Another issue in fantasy is that players typically want their characters to be competent. When that frail necromancer designs an 8 STR character, what does he discover? Well, he's pretty much unable to use any weapon without penalty because he can't meet the STR minimum. And carrying his equipment around (a couple of books, say, whether spell books or otherwise) creates huge encumbrance issues for him so he can't effectively use his magical powers without dropping his backpack. So he says "well, the encumbrance and STR Minimum rules make an 8 STR untenable. I'd better buy more STR". And it will be just as untenable if we make STR cost 2:1.

 

Oh, and if you make STR cost 2:1, and it actually forces those frail characters to gear down, I suspect those necromancers will suddenly become much more nimble and quick (they need to offset those encumbrance and below STR min penalties somehow). So what have you solved?

 

I submit that any benefit to your game results less from changing the price of STR, and more having good, detailed, clear campaign guidelines for what 8 STR, 10 STR, 13 STR, etc. actually means in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

....................Yup. It's worth 7.5 points. It's called "Telekinesis", and it has Range. Now, if you made it No Range, that would be 5 points, except that its Indirect aspects are also likely much reduced, so it would then be less than 5 points per 5 points of TK STR.

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

 

 

I'd have to suggest that TK only costs what it does because strength costs what it does, HOWEVER, if you adopt the idea I mentioned earlier, you could buy the 'exert force/slow strength' element of strength, and make that ranged. It takes away the 'punch' element of TK, but that's not a bad thing IMO.

 

So, no one has really picked up on the idea of removing figured characteristics: what do we think of that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I submit that any benefit to your game results less from changing the price of STR, and more having good, detailed, clear campaign guidelines for what 8 STR, 10 STR, 13 STR, etc. actually means in the game.

 

Nope, not in my game. I have clear, succinct guidelines, and it's obvious the players understand them. However, I also respect players' choices. A GM who is cranking on a player because they put 3 points into STR and "that's not appropriate for a magic-user" is probably too controling to ever be a good GM, IMO. Players make teh choice to buy more STR, simply because the penalty for a low STR - as you note - is severe in a heroic game, and in exchange for that penalty, they get very few points back. It's one thing to play to concept: it's a bit much to expect players to wilfuly hobble their PCs purely on the basis for concept. It's also against teh Heron canon that you get what you pay for.

 

Far better IMO to design the rules to encourage players to design what I feel is appropriate, than simply say "No - design it my way".

 

And for what it's worth, with STR at 1:1, I don't think I have ever seen a PC sell STR back even for a "frail" character. At 2:1, I have seen that happen.

 

In short, changing the cost of STR encourages exactly the behaviour I (and apparently many others) want to see. That's a solid clue that 2:1 is the correct price.

 

As to the downside of the change, there is the problem that it's a change to the core rules: not something I do lightly. But in terms of downside, that's pretty much it.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

So' date=' no one has really picked up on the idea of removing figured characteristics: what do we think of that one?[/quote']

 

It's been suggested many times, but for no reason that I can adequately explain, it just makes me feel kind of queasy.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Maybe I am taking this out of context (I do not think so), or placing more significance on something than I should and reading more into it than is actualy there (Highly probable)

 

But don't you think that saying

 

In short, changing the cost of STR encourages exactly the behaviour I (and apparently many others) want to see. That's a solid clue that 2:1 is the correct price.

 

is an inherent logic error? I mean it boils down to "Me and some others like it this way, so we're right"

 

I mean, could I not say say:

 

In short, keeping the cost of STR encourages exactly the behavior I (and apparently many others) want to see. That's a solid clue that 1:1 is the correct price.

 

I mean both sides are about equal (actualy I would say there are 3 sides, 1 says that it should be changed, 2 says it should not be changed as the cascade effect is not worth it or that a compromise should be found, and 3 says to leave it alone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I'd have to suggest that TK only costs what it does because strength costs what it does' date=' HOWEVER, if you adopt the idea I mentioned earlier, you could buy the 'exert force/slow strength' element of strength, and make that ranged. It takes away the 'punch' element of TK, but that's not a bad thing IMO.[/quote']

 

I agree, I think TK's cost is based on STR's cost. TK Punching really should be EB, anyway.

 

So' date=' no one has really picked up on the idea of removing figured characteristics: what do we think of that one?[/quote']

 

I'm all for it, I dislike the entire concept of Figureds. No mechanical reason why higher STR should mean higher PD, or why higher CON should mean higher STUN. Logical reason? Sure. But Logical Reasons in HERO usually mean "SFX justification", not "here, free power!". Yes, my character can surround himself in a field of fire (FF). It makes sense anybody touching him would take damage. That means I'm justified in buying a DS; it doesn't mean I get a free DS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Maybe I am taking this out of context (I do not think so), or placing more significance on something than I should and reading more into it than is actualy there (Highly probable)

 

But don't you think that saying

 

 

 

is an inherent logic error? I mean it boils down to "Me and some others like it this way, so we're right"

 

I mean, could I not say say:

 

In short, keeping the cost of STR encourages exactly the behavior I (and apparently many others) want to see. That's a solid clue that 1:1 is the correct price.

 

I mean both sides are about equal (actualy I would say there are 3 sides, 1 says that it should be changed, 2 says it should not be changed as the cascade effect is not worth it or that a compromise should be found, and 3 says to leave it alone)

 

No logic error there. And you'd both be right, given true statements. The more people included in the "many others", the more solid the clue. There can be clues supporting both arguments (changing cost to 2/1, and keeping cost as is), even if they're mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Far better IMO to design the rules to encourage players to design what I feel is appropriate' date=' than simply say "No - design it my way".[/quote']I totally agree with this.

 

For a long time, my character guidelines built before character creation didn't prove all that helpful for me. While the players didn't necessarily ignore the guidelines I'd provide, they'd still use them to find ways to tweak their characters to maximize the bang-for-their-buck. Eventually, I gave up written guidelines for a discussion about them, and waited until the PCs had created their characters to actually write anything down.

 

Using this system, in some games, based on my advice, everyone would build characters with characteristics that fit. Other games, the wizard character would have a 15 STR, the thieves and light fighters would have 20s, and the heavy fighters and power gamers would have 23+ STRs. When this happened, I'd just make an new character guideline sheet, that put average STR at 13 (its a fantasy setting, everyone does physical labor :P), guards and thugs have 18, and heavy fighters were 23+. It didn't fit my idea of how it should be, but its what I had to do to get the feel I wanted. This way, the "badazz" wizard could still get beat up by the city guardsman in a drunken brawl, but at least he got to dip into the STR bonus point pool, too.

 

2:1 solved most of this for me, because STR becomes a serious investment most players don't take lightly. It's still a good investment, but for wizard and theif characters, those 6 or 10 points (10 or 8 base CHAR) to get to 13 STR might be better spent in DEX or CON. And 15 or 18 STR is out of the question for them. It's just too expensive. This enforces my genre conventions, without, as Markdoc astutely points out, telling my players "no."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

And for what it's worth' date=' with STR at 1:1, I don't think I have ever seen a PC sell STR back even for a "frail" character. At 2:1, I [b']have[/b] seen that happen.

 

On the other hand, I have both seen a player sell back STR at 1:1, and have done it mayself as a player.

 

To be honest, the reason, I've seen so little "weak" magic users, is that one, I know very few players that actually want to play a "pure" D&D style magic user. None of them want to play Raistalin (a character designed to some extent reflect the D&D paradigm). They want to play Gandalf, Elric, Vanyel, Kethry, etc. All are magic users, and they aren't necessarily a match in hand to hand with the greatest warriors of their worlds, none of them are dependent on their sorceroes alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

If design/concept realisation is the main issue then we should adopt a system that gives the most flexibility to the character creator.

 

To me, that would be a system that allows you to build exactly what you want, not have build parameters foisted upon you by the system...so I'm back to removing figured characteristics :)

 

Of course, playability is also an issues, and, arguably, figured characteristics make it easier to build a balanced character 'out fo the box'.

 

Arguably we could do away with characteristics altogether, and just have powers (although the name might upset some), but the trouble there is that you would be either be enormously complicating character design, or changing nothing, in effect, but a couple of labels. I have no idea what my point is, I'm just saying.

 

If we look at strength as a power then I'd say, just eyeballing it, you understand, that it is worth more (even without figured characteristics) than energy blast, working on a damage for damage basis. How do people respond to that? Removing figured characteristics from the equation, and assuming you could freely put strength in a framework, is enough strength to do 1d6 damage (with all that brings with it) more, less or as useful as enough EB to do 1d6 damage (with all that brings with it)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I may have phrased that poorly. What I was aiming at was I love the Hero Genre books, I hold them easily in as high esteem as I do the old GURPS source books (Which were a: Rules Moderate and b: Very complete and well researched). But ...

 

I found the Ultimate Books largely pointless for me but saw how they could be a valuable resource for others; However everything I keep hearing about UEP is disconcerting. Namely that it introduces a new rules set rather than being a discussion of how to use the existing rules. This seems completely contrary to what I percieved as one of the Hero system's greatest strengths; Namely the universality of the basic rules. It also feels a bit like it's heading down the road of the d20 Complete books (Wanna play an effective figher gotta have The Complete Warrior, wanna play an effective Energy Projector gotta have UEP).

 

Mildly frustrating is that I'm probably going to buy UEP, to either allay or confirm my concerns. I never really begrudge buying Hero products, plus when people whose opinions I find generally well reasoned and well phrased (I'm just ghonna say respect) tell me something's the best hand's down, how can I not check it out.

 

All of the Ultimate books bent the current rules or introduced new concepts to use with the existing rules, or new rules using the current structure. But they are all OPTIONAL, in all caps even.

 

Like House Rules that get used in one campaign, but not another. Different ways of doing different things for different effects - unlike the splatbooks the GM either Must implement the rule, or is isn't there. No "But I saw this cool thing in this splat book...." crap in Hero.

 

As for this STR thing... much ado about nothing I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I'll weigh in as firmly on the STR should cost 2 camp. According to the rules as written, 10 points of STR gives you:

 

+2 PD = 2

+2 REC = 4

+5 STUN = 5

+2d6 HtH Damage = 10*

+2 Leaping = 2

x4 Lifting Capacity = ?

Additional Throwing Capacity = ?

Increased STR-vs-STR Rolls = ?

Increased STR-based (9+STR/5) Rolls = ?

 

*6.667 Real, if you consider it the same as HA, which it really isn't, since it can be used for Grabs and other maneuvers, while HA can't.

 

That's 23 points worth of stuff for 10 points, ignoring the lifting, throwing, STR-related rolls! If you think the HtH damage is only worth 6.667, then it's still 19.667 points worth of stuff - call it an even 20 by assuming that lifting and throwing and rolling together are worth 1/3 of a point.

 

Yes, it's possible to rework the costs by changing the costs of some of the figured characteristics, as Hugh suggests, which could also be a workable system, to some extent, but how much can you reduce them to make STR come out correctly?

 

And some people have suggested eliminating figured characteristics entirely, which could also work, but I'll need to see the details of that. Do all the base characteristics retain their same prices? If so, CON would become way overpriced.

 

And re: TK - it can also be thought of as EB with a +1/2 Advantage that allows you to grab and manipulate things.

 

And yes, along with STR costing 2, I also eliminate the HA limitation. I haven't quite decided what to do about additional DCs with Martial Arts. Should they cost 6? Thoughts?

 

I have found, throughout most of my HERO experience (going all the way back to 1st edition), that in a supers game, bricks are overpowered. Sure, they're about the same in a straight combat as anyone else, but STR gives them so much additional utility. There are so many more things you can do with a pair of very strong arms than you can with a powerful zap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I'll weigh in as firmly on the STR should cost 2 camp. According to the rules as written, 10 points of STR gives you:

 

+2 PD = 2

+2 REC = 4

+5 STUN = 5

+2d6 HtH Damage = 10*

+2 Leaping = 2

x4 Lifting Capacity = ?

Additional Throwing Capacity = ?

Increased STR-vs-STR Rolls = ?

Increased STR-based (9+STR/5) Rolls = ?

 

*6.667 Real, if you consider it the same as HA, which it really isn't, since it can be used for Grabs and other maneuvers, while HA can't.

 

If 1d6 HTH is worth 5, is 1d6 Ranged which can be Spread for minor AoE or OCV bonuses, or can be bounced for minor indirect or OCV bonuses, also worth 5? Even if I agree Ranged and STR Adds are of equal value (implied strongly by KA pricing), isn't the ability to spread or bounce worth something?

 

Yes' date=' it's possible to rework the costs by changing the costs of some of the figured characteristics, as Hugh suggests, which could also be a workable system, to some extent, but how much can you reduce them to make STR come out correctly?[/quote']

 

Rather than raise the cost of STR (and CON - both generate more figured char than they cost themselves), what about reducing the cost of END, STUN and REC so the benefits granted by STR and CON are less costly for a lower STR/CON character to purchase directly.

 

I'd like to see +15 STR grant +5 stats (and a -1/2 limit for "No Figured"), and +15 CON grant 22 points of figured (with "no figured" priced at -2 3/4). At this point, you could sever them without complications (leaving only BOD). No need to change DEX - it works already.

 

This would require lowering the price of REC, STUN and END. Changing PD and ED changes the dynamic between other defense powers, so it should be avoided. As a rough guideline, I would consider the following:

 

Reduce the price of STUN to 1/2 point, REC to 1 point and END to 1/3 point. Declare them "defensive powers" so that adjustment powers do not gain a huge advantage.

 

Grant figured as follows:

 

STR grants STR/5 in PD and STR/7.5 in REC.

10 STR grants 2 PD and 1 REC

 

15 STR grants 3 PD and 2 REC, which costs 5 points otherwise.

No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on STR.

 

CON grants CON/5 in ED, CON/3.75 in REC, 2/3 CON in STUN and 2x CON in END.

10 CON grants 2 ED, 3 REC, 7 STUN and 20 END.

 

15 CON grants 3 ED, 4 REC, 10 STUN and 30 END, which costs 22 points otherwise. 30/(30-22) = 3.75, so No Figured on CON is a -2 3/4 limitation (yes, I know, it's more than -2; utter blasphemy - break it down into separate limitations for each figured stat to get them each below -2 3/4 and stop whining).

 

BOD grants BOD x 1 1/3 STUN.

10 BOD grants 13 STUN

 

15 BOD grants 20 STUN, which is worth 10 points. No Figured is a -1/2 limitation on BOD.

 

RESULT: No Figured Char is now mathematically correct - someone might actually take CON - no figured! DEX and SPD are unchanged, so -1/2 works.

 

We can now eliminate the "can only sell back 1 figured" restriction, since there's no advantage to buying up a stat and selling the figured characteristics back.

 

A standard (10's across the board) guy has the same base figured's as before.

 

BOD and CON contribute more, and STR contributes less. Appropriate as STR gives considerably more other benefits.

 

Potentially, this will cause other changes to the dynamic. For example, since there is no longer a "figured' advantage to high STR and CON, do we need to allow EC's of characteristics for Bricks and other stat-based characters to stay balanced with, say, blasters and others more reliant on frameworks?

 

In my experience, the system works. If it ain't broke, why fix it? However, the above approach, to me, makes more sense than doubling the price of STR, then adjusting Hand Attacks and martial arts DC's, then moving on to DC's of other attack powers, ad infinitum.

 

And re: TK - it can also be thought of as EB with a +1/2 Advantage that allows you to grab and manipulate things.

 

I might agree if TK were not also Indirect. STR, Ranged, Indirect (+1 1/4 in aggregate) No Figured (-1/2) costs 150% of the STR purchased.

 

And yes' date=' along with STR costing 2, I also eliminate the HA limitation. I haven't quite decided what to do about additional DCs with Martial Arts. Should they cost 6? Thoughts?[/quote']

 

Their cost should be higher than just increasing the ability to punch. Really, there should be "Only for direct damage maneuvers" (Hand Attack), "Only to Enhance Martial Arts" (DC/s with MA) and "Only to Enhance Maneuvers" (which would work with non-martial Grabs, Disarms, etc.).

 

I have found' date=' throughout most of my HERO experience (going all the way back to 1st edition), that in a supers game, bricks are overpowered. Sure, they're about the same in a straight combat as anyone else, but STR gives them so much additional utility. There are so many more things you can do with a pair of very strong arms than you can with a powerful zap.[/quote']

 

My experience differs from yours. I think a lot of "bricks are overpowered" experience stems from too liberally allowing SR to substitute for other powers (AoE by hefting large objects, EB by throwing objects, Entangle by wrapping people in guirders and lampposts, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

I mean it boils down to "Me and some others like it this way' date=' so we're right" [/quote']

 

correct :D Although more correctly, I should have added "for our games". I hadn't meant it in every context when I wrote it: only in the context of replying to Hugh, who suggested that in games where the cost had been changed, that maybe the fault lay in GM/player miscommunication.

 

I honestly don't think that's the case, since changing the cost encourages the "correct" behavior in a way that full communication does not. Hence - in that context - 2.1 is the correct price.

 

 

I mean, could I not say say:

 

In short, keeping the cost of STR encourages exactly the behavior I (and apparently many others) want to see. That's a solid clue that 1:1 is the correct price.

 

And for you that would be right.

 

I'm a free market kind of guy - you set up your market to produce the results you want and then let collective wisdom provide the optimal decision. That applies to gaming, too, which is why I like Hero.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

Which is odd considering how long MarkDoc has been using it.

 

Not really: I've never been much of a superhero GM - I realized the potential for what was then the thin blue book (Champions) as a set of fantasy rules after about my third game. I can even remember the epiphany - sitting at home suddenly thinking "You know, using these rules you could define a dagger as a 1/2d6 HKA and a misericorde as 1/2d6 AP HKA!" At which point I started scribbling....

 

It actually took me a while to get everything sorted, but in 1984/85, I switched my fantasy game (which had been AD&D) over to Hero system. And several of my co-GMs soon did the same thing, so that within a couple of years we were playing my "D&D" FH game, Karl's "D&D" FH game, Brian's Judge Dredd hero system game, Mike's Strontium Dogs Hero system game, Steven's Tekumel hero system game - plus Chris' original Champions game and a few other one-shots.

 

This was long before FH came out, so we had to build *everything* ourselves and we tinkered with the idea of equipment pools (before equipment pools existed), "paying points for stuff" (which is how I started) as opposed to "free stuff", etc etc.

 

And one thing that came through in ALL of the games (with the possible exception of Champions) was that STR was the shiznitz, the hands-down best buy there was (although SPD and DEX come pretty close :D)

 

So it's fair to say that the STR cost debate predates FH by a long period, but it might also be true that it only really became an issue once people started using Champions rules for non-superheroes. You can see the same problem in Champions, but it doesn't stand out as much: when OneEyeman can shoot force beams out of his eye, it doesn't seem so weird that the team's human detective/martial artist can lift one and a half tons. We found that your "average" supers martial artist usually has a STR in in the 20-30 range. In a supers game that's not a big deal: in a traditional fantasy game, it is.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

My experience differs from yours. I think a lot of "bricks are overpowered" experience stems from too liberally allowing SR to substitute for other powers (AoE by hefting large objects' date=' EB by throwing objects, Entangle by wrapping people in guirders and lampposts, etc.).[/quote']

 

But isn't this pretty genre? I admit my experience matches Phil's which is that the most combat effective characters have always been brick/brick variants. But then we have always let them throw buses as crude AoEs, swing telephone poles to "spread their STR attack" etc.

 

As a GM, I actually prefer to quantify these sorts of things into a "STR multipower" (and encourage it by putting large OCV/DCV penalties on throwing big things so that "STR plus environment" doesn't render the energy blaster totally redundant) but that simply gives the Brick even more utility unless you rein in the freebies STR gives - which is, in fact, what we've done in the past by recosting STR.

 

As Phil points out, the math still makes STR at 2:1 a cost-effective buy - depending on your assumptions, it still gets you 23-25 points of utility for 20 XP.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

If 1d6 HTH is worth 5' date=' is 1d6 Ranged which can be Spread for minor AoE or OCV bonuses, or can be bounced for minor indirect or OCV bonuses, also worth 5? Even if I agree Ranged and STR Adds are of equal value (implied strongly by KA pricing), isn't the ability to spread or bounce worth something?[/quote']

 

I guess the question is, are there any maneuvers available with HtH damage that aren't available with EB? If there are (Move Through, Moveby and sweep leap to mind) is increased damage there of roughly the same utility as Spread and bounce?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion

 

correct :D Although more correctly, I should have added "for our games". I hadn't meant it in every context when I wrote it: only in the context of replying to Hugh, who suggested that in games where the cost had been changed, that maybe the fault lay in GM/player miscommunication.

 

I honestly don't think that's the case, since changing the cost encourages the "correct" behavior in a way that full communication does not. Hence - in that context - 2.1 is the correct price.

 

 

 

 

And for you that would be right.

 

I'm a free market kind of guy - you set up your market to produce the results you want and then let collective wisdom provide the optimal decision. That applies to gaming, too, which is why I like Hero.

 

cheers, Mark

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...