Decoupling Figured Characteristics

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I am gradually warming to the idea of decoupling primaries from "figureds" (of course, you wouldn't be able to call the "figureds" anymore - I'll call them "secondaries"). But not to the idea of decoupling them from everything else - skills, CVs, PER, etc.

 

So that would leave just 4 characteristics that would be changed: STR, DEX, BODY, and CON. What should the prices of these be, assuming they do everything they do now, but don't provide any secondary stats? My initial stab at it is this:

 

STR 1

DEX 2 (functionally no change from the standard rules)

CON 1/2 (1 seems too expensive)

BODY 1 (a net of no change from the standard rules)

 

How would you price them?

[lemming]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

My pricing would have CON at 1. It's useful enough versus certain rolls and not being stunned.

[Opal]

STR' date=' DEX, BODY, and CON. What should the prices of these be, assuming they do everything they do now, but don't provide any secondary stats? [/quote']

 

STR would have to stay at 1:1, just to stick to the 5pts-damage-class thing.

 

DEX: should also probably stay at 3:1, this keeps it balanced with levels. At 2:1, it'd be too tempting for a character taking 5 pt combat levels to simply up his DEX. (Yes, I know, selling back SPD already does that. IMX, most characters buy /up/ SPD when they consider improving thier DEX substantiatilly - you don't see a lot of DEX 30/SPD 4 characters. This would be different on a psychological level.).

 

CON: No question the cost should be reduced, but probably not as low as COM, even if 1:1 seems a little high. CON rolls can matter in game, and resistance to stunning is not trivial. So, 1:1.

 

BOD: Net-of-stun cost makes perfect sense, since both are strictly bookeeping stats. 1:1.

 

It'd be kinda nice having more stats at the intuitive 1:1 cost, really.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I worry that CON and BODY at 1 are going to result in many characters with quite high values, but maybe not. I certainly wouldn't lower CON to 1/2. My god, who wouldn't buy a CON of 30 if it only cost you 10 points? And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, we should be looking to get rid of 1/2 point costs not adding new ones.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Certainly you can have a strong willed without being skilled at mental combat, either offensively or defensively. Easily done without any further decoupling, and without the need to buy Characteristics with Limitations on them: You buy a high EGO and don't buy any skill levels in Mental Combat.

 

And again, you can easily be very agile without being skilled in combat. Buy a high DEX, but don't buy any combat skill levels. If you definition of "strong-willed" doesn't include having a base ECV that is higher than a normal person, you should define in game terms what that is and purchase that effect. Same with being "agile".

 

A high Ego character who is easily struck and has a poor OCV in mental combat, or a very dextrous individual with no actual skill in combat, offensive or defensive, seems a reasonable character possibility to me. At least as reasonable as a very healthy (high CON) person who nonetheless tires easily (low END and REC).

 

To me' date=' CV isn't a figured Characteristic. It isn't, as you note, a characteristic at all. It is a base value figured from DEX for physical CV, and EGO for mental CV. Just as I have no interest in separating how much you can lift from STR, or which Segments you have Phases on from your SPD, I have no interest in separating your CV from your DEX, or your ECV from your EGO. PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN on the other hand are separate Characteristics whose base value is currently figured from other Primary Characteristics. But in my opinion those are separate enough from the things they are based on that they shouldn't be based on anything, and should be purchased on their own.[/quote']

 

It seems pedantic to suggest that, simply because OCV and DCV are bought up through skill levels, rather than directly, they are not figured characteristics. They have not been defined as such, but it would be a very simple matter to redefine them. To me, a person's skill in combat (either landing or avoiding blows) is something that can logically be separated from their DEX score, especially considering the many different things DEX measures.

 

I have never personally tried to build a character whose concept included a high EGO but lower than figured ECV' date=' or a high DEX, but lower than figured CV. Nor have I ever personally known anyone who has. But I have had to work around the linking of Figured Characteristics for quite a number of characters that I've designed, as have most of the people that I've gamed with.[/quote']

 

I've never sen any significant isues with figured characteristics either.

 

Yes' date=' a case could be made to decouple everything from Characteristics and get rid of them entirely. I think that that would produce an inferior game to what we currently have with 5ER. It would add a great deal of complexity without adding sufficient advantage to make it worthwhile. However I think getting rid of the linking of Figured to Primary characteristics is a worthwhile change. It wouldn't add much in the way of complexity, as at least in my experience most people look at all of their stats during chargen to make sure they are where they want to be already. And it would add utility in giving the player better control over what their character's Characteristics are without having to resort to things like putting Limitations on them.[/quote']

 

But they should not, by your reasoning, have control over their CV's. I find that inconsistent.

 

I am gradually warming to the idea of decoupling primaries from "figureds" (of course' date=' you wouldn't be able to call the "figureds" anymore - I'll call them "secondaries"). But not to the idea of decoupling them from everything else - skills, CVs, PER, etc.[/quote']

 

It seems to me the highly intelligent, but woefully imperceptive, person is a stereotype in many genres. Yet we don't allow for that posibility in Hero at all - if you are smart, you are automatically perceptive.

 

A high DEX thief who isn't a great swordsman or archer is also something I would consider a reasonable character concept, but you can't have a 20 DEX without a top notch CV.

 

So that would leave just 4 characteristics that would be changed: STR, DEX, BODY, and CON. What should the prices of these be, assuming they do everything they do now, but don't provide any secondary stats? My initial stab at it is this:

 

STR 1

DEX 2 (functionally no change from the standard rules)

CON 1/2 (1 seems too expensive)

BODY 1 (a net of no change from the standard rules)

 

How would you price them?

 

I pretty much agree with the above. While the cost of CON seems quite low, if all it does is prevent being Stunned, it's a very limited value stat. An automaton gets "cannot be stunned" for 15 points - that would be a 40 CON in the above model, or 25 if we price CON at 1:1. A 40 CON equivalent seems much more reasonable to me.

 

Can someone buy CON up to unreasonable levels? Sure, without GM oversight. They can also buy unreasonable attacks and defenses.

[GamePhil]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

STR 1

DEX 2 (functionally no change from the standard rules)

CON 1/2 (1 seems too expensive)

BODY 1 (a net of no change from the standard rules)

 

How would you price them?

 

Much as I dislike the idea of increasing the price of STR but keeping the rules otherwise as they are, I am pretty comfortable with leaving the cost the same but removing the Figured Characteristics.

 

If the cost of everything else stays the same, DEX might be well priced at 3. Many argue that DEX is underpriced now, comparing it to CSLs, SLs, and initiative. They usually leave out things that CSLs do that DEX doesn't, but it's not far off.

 

CON should be a cost of 1 or even 2, but more should be done with it to justify the cost.

 

BODY is one of those things that it's hard to say for. Games with low lethality, you will almost never need more than 10. Games with a high lethality almost require some extra. Should the cost vary? Probably no more than it should with EGO, but it feels like it should.

[JmOz]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

on the half point thing...what would happen as a global change everything got incresed by a multiplier of 4, so a 1d6 EB would cost 20 points...

 

Just an idea I saw somewhere else

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Can someone buy CON up to unreasonable levels? Sure, without GM oversight. They can also buy unreasonable attacks and defenses.

 

Maybe we should price all Characteristics at 1 and leave it up to GM oversight to make sure things aren't out of line.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Maybe we should price all Characteristics at 1 and leave it up to GM oversight to make sure things aren't out of line.

 

Or perhaps we should price them based on their relative utility and leave it to the GM's to prevent abuses. If the only thing CON does is prevent being Stunned, and if complete immunity to being Stunned is worth 15 points (and that is what an automaton pays for it already), then CON at 1 point is overpriced.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

If you abolish figured then why not also abolish CON and have the STUN number be based on BODY+EGO or somesuch?

 

BOECV (Based on CON)?

Also holding your breath.

 

I'd say we could dump all of these into Ego alone. This would make Ego a more valued stat, even for non-mentalists. Your strength of will enables you to avoid being stunned, resist hallucinogenic drugs and hold your breath.

 

CON is pretty much a Figured generator now, so removal of Figured seems to lead logically to removal of CON.

 

Oh' date=' I'd missed that Rod's list still includes COM. Yeah, I'd favor dropping COM in favor of a Perk or Talent as well.[/quote']

 

I could live with dropping COM and replacing it with a Perk; however' date=' I prefer it as a Characteristic. After all, what is the difference if you pay 5 (or 10 in my suggested list) points for a COM of 20 or pay 5 points for a Perk: Very Attractive? Actuallly, the fact that Champions had a stat for just how good looking you were was one of the things that I liked about the system from the very beginning.[/quote']

 

While I agree it should have a defined game mechanic, I think COM as a stat is appropriately maintained. If you're going to pay 5 points per "level" of Attractiveness (or Hideousness), that's really no different than paying 5 points for +10 COM and giving it the same effect as 5 points of Attractiveness.

 

Alternatively, scrap PRE as well and rely solely on Reputations to make you more impressive, a "Not easily Impressed" talent to resist PRE attacks and skill levels to enhance interaction skills.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I'd say we could dump all of these into Ego alone. This would make Ego a more valued stat, even for non-mentalists. Your strength of will enables you to avoid being stunned, resist hallucinogenic drugs and hold your breath.

 

CON is pretty much a Figured generator now, so removal of Figured seems to lead logically to removal of CON.

 

And you'd end up with a lot of people buying EGO (-1 Only works for physical resistance not mental resistance or mental combat) for 1 pt per, so you may as well leave CON with a 1 point cost.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

A high Ego character who is easily struck and has a poor OCV in mental combat' date=' or a very dextrous individual with no actual skill in combat, offensive or defensive, seems a reasonable character possibility to me. At least as reasonable as a very healthy (high CON) person who nonetheless tires easily (low END and REC).[/quote']

 

I guess that depends on what you think Ego means.

 

And as to being very dexterous with no actual skill in combat, I already covered that. If you don't want skill in combat, don't buy any skill in combat.

 

It seems pedantic to suggest that' date=' simply because OCV and DCV are bought up through skill levels, rather than directly, they are not figured characteristics. They have not been defined as such, but it would be a very simple matter to redefine them. To me, a person's skill in combat (either landing or avoiding blows) is something that can logically be separated from their DEX score, especially considering the many different things DEX measures.[/quote']

 

Yes, it would be fairly simple to redefine them. It would be fairly simple to make a great number of sweeping changes. The simplicity of something is not the same as it being a good idea, or it being similar to the current situation.

 

I've never sen any significant isues with figured characteristics either.

 

But I, and a great many others have. While the only issues I've seen with CV being coupled with DEX and ECV with EGO have been in theoretical discussions like this one.

 

But they should not' date=' by your reasoning, have control over their CV's. I find that inconsistent.[/quote']

 

No, they shouldn't. As I've said many times, my reasoning is that CV is to DEX like lifting power is to STR. It is an innate part of the Characteristic, and part of what defines what that Characteristic is.

 

It seems to me the highly intelligent' date=' but woefully imperceptive, person is a stereotype in many genres. Yet we don't allow for that posibility in Hero at all - if you are smart, you are automatically perceptive.[/quote']

 

Well, the Characteristic Intelligence is poorly named. It isn't a measurement of how smart you are. It is a measurement of how quickly you process and react to information. As 5ER states, you could be ignorant or a genius and still have an INT of 10. So you can easily be smart and not very perceptive. How smart a character is is a roleplaying issue.

 

A high DEX thief who isn't a great swordsman or archer is also something I would consider a reasonable character concept' date=' but you can't have a 20 DEX without a top notch CV.[/quote']

 

I guess you and I disagree as to what a top notch CV is. Someone with a 20 DEX, no weapon familiarities and no skill levels doesn't have what I'd call a top notch CV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I guess that depends on what you think Ego means.

 

By the same logic, whether it is appropriate to decouple figured characteristics depends on what you think the stats they are currently coupled to mean. I would suggest being very healthy and physically fit (higher than average CON) means, among other things, having higher than average endurance (a combination of END and REC). In fact, physical fitness also builds muscle tissue to some extent, so linking STR to REC doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.

 

I would suggest Ego means "strong-willed". It does not mean "skilled in making mental attacks". If Captain America picked up Professor X's telepathic abilities, I fail to see why he would be skilled in using them solely because of his strength of will. But his ECV will match any mentalist of the same ego level, and Cap is as strong-willed as they come.

 

No' date=' they shouldn't. As I've said many times, my reasoning is that CV is to DEX like lifting power is to STR. It is an innate part of the Characteristic, and part of what defines what that Characteristic is.[/quote']

 

By the same token, I would say endurance is part of CON and reaction time (SPD) a part of DEX.

 

Well' date=' the Characteristic Intelligence is poorly named. It isn't a measurement of how smart you are. It is a measurement of how quickly you process and react to information. As 5ER states, you could be ignorant or a genius and still have an INT of 10. So you can easily be smart and not very perceptive. How smart a character is is a roleplaying issue.[/quote']

 

I see. When the things you want to keep linked would logically be de-linked, it's because the stat is misnamed. When the things you want to remove from being linked logically should remain, presumably the stat will also be misnamed (eg. CON really has nothing to do with physical fitness and good health, but is solely a measure of a person's ability to hold his breath and resist being staggered by trauma).

 

I guess you and I disagree as to what a top notch CV is. Someone with a 20 DEX' date=' no weapon familiarities and no skill levels doesn't have what I'd call a top notch CV.[/quote']

 

Not having the books in front of me makes it tough to verify, but I suspect you will find that a 20 DEX (7 OCV and DCV) is better than the standard writeup for police and soldiers. You don't need weapon familiarities to use a club, your fists or a thrown object. They are also commonly ignored in Super games (where CV's well above 7 will be considerably more common).

 

Of course, this is likely because DEX is misnamed and should be "combat acumen".

 

The fact is that, by the book, most characteristics provide a basket of abilities whose link together is tenuous.

 

STR - lift, figured's, HTH damage, leaping. They all tie back to STR, but it's not hard to envision someone above average in only some of these areas.

 

DEX - combat skills, reaction time (moving first), hand/eye co-ordination, gross motor skills and fine motor skills.

 

CON - good health, including figured's; resistance to trauma.

 

BOD - well, I said most. BOD is a bookkeeping stat to replace Hits to Kill.

 

INT - quick thinking, knowledge (sorry, but trivia buffs aren't necessarily quick thinking and INT enhances knowledge skill rolls), perceptiveness

 

EGO - strength of will, resistance to shock (pre defense), skill in mental combat, self-discipline (overcoming psych limitations)

 

PRE - impressiveness, persuasiveness, resistance to shock

 

COM - well, I said most. COM lacks any game effect, a situation which should be changed.

 

If we're going to remove the link between primaries and secondaries, why stop there? It's just luck of the draw that CV, for example, wasn't made a figured characteristic. Why not break each stat down into its component parts so the character is fully customizable, not just partially customizable.

 

Sure, you can limit the characteristics to remove some of the things they provide. But one such limitation (which, I admit, needs its pricing revisited) is No Figured Characteristics, for those characters who should not get those figured characteristics (because they only want part of "what CON really means", for example).

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

By the same logic' date=' whether it is appropriate to decouple figured characteristics depends on what you think the stats they are currently coupled to mean. I would suggest being very healthy and physically fit (higher than average CON) means, among other things, having higher than average endurance (a combination of END and REC). In fact, physical fitness also builds muscle tissue to some extent, so linking STR to REC doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.[/quote']

 

Except that there are already stats that deal with END and REC, which is to say END and REC. Having more than one stat dealing with the same value is redundant.

 

I would suggest Ego means "strong-willed". It does not mean "skilled in making mental attacks". If Captain America picked up Professor X's telepathic abilities' date=' I fail to see why he would be skilled in using them solely because of his strength of will. But his ECV will match any mentalist of the same ego level, and Cap is as strong-willed as they come.[/quote']

 

But Captain America wouldn't be as skilled in making mental attacks. He would have a similar basic ability (assuming you think their EGOs would be similar), but wouldn't have the training in making those attacks. I.e. he wouldn't have any appropriate skill levels or ego combat maneuvers.

 

By the same token' date=' I would say endurance is part of CON and reaction time (SPD) a part of DEX.[/quote']

 

And I would disagree.

 

I see. When the things you want to keep linked would logically be de-linked' date=' it's because the stat is misnamed. When the things you want to remove from being linked logically should remain, presumably the stat will also be misnamed (eg. CON really has nothing to do with physical fitness and good health, but is solely a measure of a person's ability to hold his breath and resist being staggered by trauma).[/quote']

 

No, that isn't the case. I say that Intelligence is misnamed because it is. It makes people think it is talking about how smart someone is, when the book definition of the Characteristic very specifically states that that ISN'T what it means. Before you accuse people of being dishonest you might try actually making sure you know what you are talking about.

 

Not having the books in front of me makes it tough to verify, but I suspect you will find that a 20 DEX (7 OCV and DCV) is better than the standard writeup for police and soldiers. You don't need weapon familiarities to use a club, your fists or a thrown object. They are also commonly ignored in Super games (where CV's well above 7 will be considerably more common).

 

Of course, this is likely because DEX is misnamed and should be "combat acumen".

 

Actually a person with a 20 DEX and no weapon proficiencies and no skill levels has an OCV of 4 and a DCV of 7. And you do need a weapon proficiency to use a club, it is just generally considered to be an everyman skill. A 15 DEX person with 3 CSLs using a Martial Strike (or ranged version) easily matches them.

 

However you seem to want to make this personal, attacking me instead of my points. So I don't think I've really got anything else to say to you.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

ByIf we're going to remove the link between primaries and secondaries' date=' why stop there? It's just luck of the draw that CV, for example, wasn't made a figured characteristic.[/quote']Indeed, OCV and DCV are 'figured' from DEX, and can be bought up (via levels) for 5 pts each. The only difference between them an a figured characteristic is that they're not listed in the same column as PD and ED on the character sheet.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Indeed' date=' OCV and DCV are 'figured' from DEX, and can be bought up (via levels) for 5 pts each. The only difference between them an a figured characteristic is that they're not listed in the same column as PD and ED on the character sheet.[/quote']

 

Well, that and the game system does not call them Figured Characteristics.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Indeed' date=' OCV and DCV are 'figured' from DEX, and can be bought up (via levels) for 5 pts each. The only difference between them an a figured characteristic is that they're not listed in the same column as PD and ED on the character sheet.[/quote']

 

Except that you can't buy up OCV or DCV. You can buy levels that allow you to increase them when you choose to, but you can't actually increase CV in any way other than increasing your DEX.

 

Granted you could argue that CV could easily be turned into a Figured Characteristic, but it isn't one now, and I think turning it into one would be a mistake. As I said before, there have been arguments that all of the characteristics could be gotten rid of and the things that depend on them could be purchased separately. I just disagree that that is a good direction for Hero to go. I think it adds too much complexity without a sufficient addition of usability/playability/enjoyment.

 

Contrary to what some people seem to think, I don't feel that the Figured Characteristics should be decoupled from the Primaries because they are called Figured Characteristics. I think they should be decoupled because I think that each of them should be Characteristics on their own merits. I also think that Leaping should be decoupled from Strength, even though it isn't a Figured Characteristic.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Except for the technicality that you have to 'distribute' them at the top of each phase, a 5-pt 'all OCV' level and a 5pt 'DCV level' might as well be OCV and DCV. Of course they're 'levels' not 'figured characteristics,' - but, since they /are/ figured from a primary characteristic, and can be improved by spending points, it's a distinction without much of a difference.

 

You could, if you were trying to get to an "all stats cost 1:1" ideal, break out the kind of DEX that gives you OCV and the kind that gives you DCV (precision vs agility, perhaps).

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Except for the technicality that you have to 'distribute' them at the top of each phase, a 5-pt 'all OCV' level and a 5pt 'DCV level' might as well be OCV and DCV. Of course they're 'levels' not 'figured characteristics,' - but, since they /are/ figured from a primary characteristic, and can be improved by spending points, it's a distinction without much of a difference.

 

You could, if you were trying to get to an "all stats cost 1:1" ideal, break out the kind of DEX that gives you OCV and the kind that gives you DCV (precision vs agility, perhaps).

 

Except that none of the rules that are specific to Figured Characteristics apply to them. And the fact that you have to distribute the skill levels is more than just a technicality. You can't just blanket state that you always walk around with your DCV levels "up", and if you get surprised you don't get the opportunity to put them up before you are attacked.

 

And fortunately I'm not interested in getting to some "all stats cost 1:1" ideal. Or any other ideal. I'm just interested in decoupling Figured Characteristics and Leaping from the Primaries.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

You can't just blanket state that you always walk around with your DCV levels "up"' date=' and if you get surprised you don't get the opportunity to put them up before you are attacked.[/quote']True, of course, if you're surpised out of combat, you're 0 DCV anyway, so that also doesn't make much of a difference.

 

And fortunately I'm not interested in getting to some "all stats cost 1:1" ideal. Or any other ideal.

Neither am I, but it has been mentioned, so I thought I'd point it out.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

True' date=' of course, if you're surpised out of combat, you're 0 DCV anyway, so that also doesn't make much of a difference.[/quote']

 

Actually if you are surprised out of combat you are at 1/2 DCV, not 0 (5ER p.373). So it can make a difference. The big difference between being in or out of combat for surprise is whether or not hit location modifiers are halved.

[Opal]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

Actually if you are surprised out of combat you are at 1/2 DCV' date=' not 0 (5ER p.373). [/quote']I seem to remember surprised in combat, 1/2 DCV, suprised OOC, 0 DCV. But, my memory is often less than serviceable: could be an earlier version, or I could just be remembering it wrong at the moment. Plus, I don't have FRED leaning against my CRT (yeah, I still have a CRT, so sue me).

[jtelson]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I seem to remember surprised in combat' date=' 1/2 DCV, suprised OOC, 0 DCV. But, my memory is often less than serviceable: could be an earlier version, or I could just be remembering it wrong at the moment. Plus, I don't have FRED leaning against my CRT (yeah, I still have a CRT, so sue me).[/quote']

 

Surprised OOC is 1/2 DCV but take 2x stun and target penalties are halved.

[archermoo]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

I seem to remember surprised in combat' date=' 1/2 DCV, suprised OOC, 0 DCV. But, my memory is often less than serviceable: could be an earlier version, or I could just be remembering it wrong at the moment. Plus, I don't have FRED leaning against my CRT (yeah, I still have a CRT, so sue me).[/quote']

 

Don't have the book here at work, but I do have access to the PDF.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics

 

STR would have to stay at 1:1' date=' just to stick to the 5pts-damage-class thing.[/quote']

Interesting, given your views on the "STR is underpriced" thing.

 

DEX: should also probably stay at 3:1, this keeps it balanced with levels. At 2:1, it'd be too tempting for a character taking 5 pt combat levels to simply up his DEX. (Yes, I know, selling back SPD already does that. IMX, most characters buy /up/ SPD when they consider improving thier DEX substantiatilly - you don't see a lot of DEX 30/SPD 4 characters. This would be different on a psychological level.).

DEX is already 2:1, for all practical purposes. I've never seen a character, published or otherwise, that had a SPD < DEX/10+1. The "temptation" to take 5-pt CSLs would be exactly the same as it is now.

 

CON: No question the cost should be reduced, but probably not as low as COM, even if 1:1 seems a little high. CON rolls can matter in game, and resistance to stunning is not trivial. So, 1:1.

I don't recall *ever* making a CON roll in the game. They aren't tied to skills or anything else. As a GM, I deliberately invented something to require a CON roll in a game once: to see if the characters could tolerate the spicy food served in a particular area the visited.