Characteristic inflation

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Levels with all combat are particularily pointless.

 

8 points: +1 OCV or DCV (or ECV)

6 points: 3 dex: +1 OCV plus + 1 DCV. By selling back speed, which you *always* can do, since you never have a character who does not buy speed.

 

I agree and I don't. In a NCM game, that extra DEX is costing 15 points ( 9 x 2 less 3 point SPD rebate). Two levels with all combat allow you +1 OCV and +1 DCV, or +2 OCV, or +2 DCV, or +1 DC, for only one point more.

 

In a Heroic (NCM) game, skills are much more important than in a Supers (no NCM) game.

 

Ditch NCM and the cost of skill levels should be cut. But with NCM, such a price reduction to make them competitive in Supers makes them excessively cheap in an NCM game.

[CUnknown]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

IMO, and it is ever so humble, we will always have two problems:

 

1. Getting general agreement on what characteristics different races should have, and

2. Well, there is no 2., but 1. is such a big problem that it is going to fill at least a couple of bullet points.

 

Well, we only need this if we're playing in the same campaign. Seriously, though, it doesn't matter much to me how other people (or even Hero officially, for that matter) does their monsters and NPCs. I have my method. I base everything off the Monster Manual, 1st edition. Gygax is the man.

 

So, for me, giants have to be strong, tough, not too tough to hit, but able to hit easily themselves (due to high hit dice).

 

[...]

Giants need to be strong and tough, so increased STR and CON. They will have more BODY and PRE.

Agreed.

 

If the particular character is meant as a warrior, apply a warrior template (probably increased STR and DEX and, maybe, an extra point of SPEED).

Yikes, I'd never give giants extra speed, with my set-up, that would make them too deadly.

 

On the question of giants and levels, well, we have to look at sfx. You might want to give them 5 point OCV levels, but limit them so that they can only be used for OCV or damage increase: they are not carefully placing blows but they do hit quite a lot because their attacks cover a lot of area.

Hey, excellent idea.

 

Making attacks AoE brings in a set of new considerations, and probably requires a custom lim on the attack allowing it to be blocked by someone who at least has STR = the casual strength of the giant.

Also a great idea!

 

Ultimately we probably need to decide what sort of threat a giant is, or we want it to be, and build backwards from there, rather than building from scratch and hoping.

Yes. Gygax has already spoken, though, so for me, there is no reason to think.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Gary is a hard act to follow

[prestidigitator]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Hey, we can give Tolkien a little credit too while we're at it. In fact....

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Yes, there is stat inflation everywhere. Yes, a GM that uses other peoples material (vs material custom crafted for their exact needs at the moment) will either want to tweak or else accept that an exact fit will be rare. It's not unique to the HERO System, its common to RPG's in general though markedly more prevalent in some game lines than others.

[nexus]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

nWOD's super cops are a good example.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Something died in me that day.

 

I think it is still there, because I'm pretty stinky sometimes.

 

With apologies to Don McLean and "American Pie":

 

"I can’t remember if I cried

When I dreamt up my munchkin's pride

But something touched me deep inside

The day my gamer died."

 

[Vulcan]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

I highly disagree with giving them lots of levels. Giants should not be hitting people like they're prime knights that are trained. Giants' date=' in general, are not known for hitting; that's not what they are feared for or in other words, they are not known for their accuracy. What they are feared for is what happens [i']if[/i] they hit - you get your bones crushed by the force behind the blow. I'd begrudgingly give a 1 hex AE to a giant but would rather let the fear of being hit and crushed be the reason giants are feared. Armor or not, if you get hit by a giant, you're going to remember that - assuming you live through it.

 

It isn't so much the accuracy, but the fear that they'll turn your knight in full plate armor into something resembling a crushed can of tomatoes...

[Vulcan]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Levels with all combat are particularily pointless.

 

8 points: +1 OCV or DCV (or ECV)

6 points: 3 dex: +1 OCV plus + 1 DCV. By selling back speed, which you *always* can do, since you never have a character who does not buy speed.

 

The levels that make sense:

+1 to OCV for a single Attack for 2 points is decent.

 

+1 to OCV for a MP for 3 points is ok at best. You could also spend 6 points and instead of getting +2, you get +1/+1 and other stuff. But it has it's uses.

 

+1 DCV for 5 points is useless. You can also have +1 DCV for 6 points, which comes with a ludicrous amount of free stuff. I use 3 cp levels as "all DCV" to prevent DEX inflation for defensive purposes.

 

8 point levels are horrible for anyone except possibly mentalists. But then, they are usually better off buying EGO directly, since that only costs 6 points per +1 ECV and gives bonuses to ego rolls, skills (not many) and Mental Def.

 

10 points levels are again quite good, because they have got so many other uses. Still, you could buy (dex) +1OCV and +1DCV and have got 4 points left. Enough for a Skill Level, but not a really broad one. Or a slightly limited broad one.

 

 

And don't get me started on "+1 to all int skills" for 5 points...

 

 

Characteristics are too cheap due to figureds. I'm putting my faith in 6th. Actually, there was a great article on that in one of the last Digital Heros.

 

If the GM lets you buy more DEX/EGO, that is.

 

It's more of a newbie problem than anything else. An exprienced GM will have a pretty good idea of how high he'll let characters buy DEX and EGO in his game.

 

Our long-standing Champions GM sets his general limit for DEX at 20, with 18 for bricks, 23 for martial artists, and 26 for speedsters - at least to start. A little creep-up is allowed, but generally not more than 1 pt per 25-50 xp (roughly). EGO is likewise generally restircted to 15-18 (at most), with mentalists starting out 21 - 23.

 

So skill levels become much more important with experienced GM's.

[Kdansky]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

NCM isn't such a great idea to begin with, especially if you take it for 20 points (or you don't). I agree that it works on a "Everyone has to have it"-basis. But then, it just produces even stronger Soft Spots (Dex 20, str 20, con 20) which everyone wants. I know, most of the forums here will tell me "No, your mage cannot have 20 dex!", even though that would fit his concept. Why? Because it's game balance spilling over.

 

If STR, DEX and CON would cost double to begin with, that would work a lot better. Or rather, get rid of figureds (I am repeating myself, but for a good reason).

 

Our long-standing Champions GM sets his general limit for DEX at 20, with 18 for bricks, 23 for martial artists, and 26 for speedsters - at least to start. A little creep-up is allowed, but generally not more than 1 pt per 25-50 xp (roughly). EGO is likewise generally restircted to 15-18 (at most), with mentalists starting out 21 - 23.

So you are playing a game with strict classes, congratulations, you have just castrated HERO. This is the wrong approach (well, currently it's the only band-aid that exists), and you know it. In my games, there is no such thing as a "Brick" and "Speedster" and "Martial Artist". Dawkins calls this the "Discontinous Mind". We (humans) try to put categories on everything. But in a freeform system (or real life) everything is on a sliding scale. Is Colin Powell black? No, his skin colour is about as white as mine. Shades of grey everywhere. If I want to play a game with classes, I'd play DnD 4th.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

NCM isn't such a great idea to begin with, especially if you take it for 20 points (or you don't). I agree that it works on a "Everyone has to have it"-basis. But then, it just produces even stronger Soft Spots (Dex 20, str 20, con 20) which everyone wants. I know, most of the forums here will tell me "No, your mage cannot have 20 dex!", even though that would fit his concept. Why? Because it's game balance spilling over.

 

If STR, DEX and CON would cost double to begin with, that would work a lot better. Or rather, get rid of figureds (I am repeating myself, but for a good reason).

 

How would doubling the cost of some stats and/or getting rid of figureds avoid this problem? 20 (the max for regular price) would still be a good value (as compared to, say, 19) with a NCM limit. It just wouldn't be quite as good as before.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

So you are playing a game with strict classes' date=' congratulations, you have just castrated HERO. This is the wrong approach (well, currently it's the only band-aid that exists), and you know it. In my games, there is no such thing as a "Brick" and "Speedster" and "Martial Artist". Dawkins calls this the "Discontinous Mind". We (humans) try to put categories on everything. But in a freeform system (or real life) everything is on a sliding scale. Is Colin Powell black? No, his skin colour is about as white as mine. Shades of grey everywhere. If I want to play a game with classes, I'd play DnD 4th.[/quote']

 

Interesting way to put it. Heh. I too didn't think much of different limits for different character concepts. However, it would be possible to implement a slightly less subjective criteria as well. For example, a set of rules like:

 

• Str + Dex <= 36
  
• Con + Ego <= 36
  
• 3*(max CV) + 5*(max DCs) <= 60
  
• ...
  

 

This would tend to discourage "Bricks" from having a huge Dex, "non-Mentalists" from having a huge Ego, etc., but wouldn't be dependent on a list of typical character concepts or trying to pigeonhole any particular character into one of them or anything.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Godzilla dancing gif replaced with a smoother animation.

[Kelcyron]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Interesting way to put it. Heh. I too didn't think much of different limits for different character concepts. However, it would be possible to implement a slightly less subjective criteria as well. For example, a set of rules like:

 

• Str + Dex <= 36
  
• Con + Ego <= 36
  
• 3*(max CV) + 5*(max DCs) <= 60
  
• ...
  

 

This would tend to discourage "Bricks" from having a huge Dex, "non-Mentalists" from having a huge Ego, etc., but wouldn't be dependent on a list of typical character concepts or trying to pigeonhole any particular character into one of them or anything.

 

So if I want my brick-type character to have a STR of 60, he needs to have a maximum DEX of -24 (!)?

 

If I want my blaster-type to have a 12d6 EB (or the previously mentioned 60 Str brick), has to have a maximum CV of 0?

 

Kelcyron

[SteveZilla]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Heh. I've seen something like this where the combination of DEX and SPD determined the cap for DCs and defenses in an inverse relationship. Which is a convention that is seen thoughout comic books.

[Utech]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

For example, a set of rules like:

 

• Str + Dex <= 36
  
• Con + Ego <= 36
  
• 3*(max CV) + 5*(max DCs) <= 60
  
• ...
  

 

This would tend to discourage "Bricks" from having a huge Dex, "non-Mentalists" from having a huge Ego, etc.

 

I've tried similar things and like them. It works best if you can reassure your players that in order to be successful (and have a great time playing!) it is not necessary for all characters to have similar damage potential, Speed, CVs and so forth.

 

Yes, Thor and Wasp can be on the same team. They can both be challenged and have equal time in the spotlight.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

We use a vaguely similar system but like all our stuff its a soft cap. Cost doubles every five extra active points over the cap. we cap how many points over NCM in characteristics your characters can have at 70. Works just fine

I do have to say though. I'm extremely lucky with my players. Had the same core group for decades now and they all build to concept not power gaming etc.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

So if I want my brick-type character to have a STR of 60, he needs to have a maximum DEX of -24 (!)?

 

If I want my blaster-type to have a 12d6 EB (or the previously mentioned 60 Str brick), has to have a maximum CV of 0?

 

Obviously the limits, and probably even the combinations, would vary by campaign. That was aimed at the kind of low- to middle-powered heroic campaign where you'd likely find normal characteristic maxima, and was a reply to the example given above where the poster changed the maxima based on the character concept.

[Kdansky]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

I basically tell my players:

 

AP cap is roughly 60, so up to that point, you can have nearly anything. I will very rarely object to such constructs. If you want to go above that, you certainly may for some things. Examples include Area of Effect, or IPE, especially if heavily limited.

 

DC cap is 10 to 12, depending on your overall powers, speed and dex.

 

CVs are between 7 and 10, mainly depending on your Damage per hit and on speed. If you have speed 4, you may have a very high CV. If you have speed 7, not so much.

 

 

In the end, I eyeball everything That is not a clean solution, but it's not a bad one either.

 

I do things like: "Ok, you bought your attack as a power OAF, everyone else uses equipment or MPs, which is far cheaper for the same damage. You may ask me for some other crazy construct somewhere else (in this case, a 10 AP MP including KBresistance, Powerdef, Flashdef, Resistance, Mental Def and so on, all ultraslots) in exchange :)"

[Markdoc]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Heh. I've seen something like this where the combination of DEX and SPD determined the cap for DCs and defenses in an inverse relationship. Which is a convention that is seen thoughout comic books.

 

Except for characters like Wonder Woman, the whole super-family, Marvell, Supreme, Miracleman, etc, etc. There's an equally solid convention for lightning-fast bricks, as well. Now I agree there's a good game balance rationale for reining in such characters, but they're certainly common enough in the source material.

 

cheers, Mark

[CUnknown]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

For NCM fantasy games at least, I feel that making DEX cost 4 is an important step to limiting the 'everyone has 20 DEX' syndrome. Even then it is still a bargain for many character types. STR should cost at least 1.5, if not 2. CON, although equally bad as far as points gained per points spent, is not much of a problem in my experience, so I normally keep it at 2. It doesn't do anything unless you get hit, so it seems less prone to abuse. Also, ED is generally less important than PD in the games I play.

 

I tend to only very rarely let people raise their stats with experience points.

 

About Tolkien v Gygax, Tolkien is a huge influence, definitely! But, unfortunately, he didn't record the stats for his creatures anywhere. He definitely gets the prize for "Biggest influence upon the gaming world by a non-gamer." Heck, maybe even "Biggest influence" period.

 

As a gaming system, 1st edition D&D is ... shall we say dated? And full of ... quirks? But as gaming resources go, those books are excellent, far better than later editions of the game. I can't imagine ever having a use for the 3rd edition books (haven't seen 4th yet), but the 1st edition ones are still useful to me sometimes.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Hey' date=' we can give Tolkien a little credit too while we're at it. In fact....[/quote']

 

 

From an original idea by Tolkien

 

Will that do?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

I thought of something really cunning to say but then I forgot what it was, so can we just assume that I said it anyway and you can all congratulate me over it and, you know, get a round in?

 

Ooh - just remembered. First off I'm not entirely unconvinced that NCM shouldn't start at 15 rather than 20. After all we are building to a human template and very high characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous even amongst exceptional individuals.

 

Perhaps having NCM set at 20 is what throws us. Perhaps every genre should have its NCM, superheroes not excepted.

 

We have a sort of NCM in active point caps but they are rarely given the opportunity to matter in this context.

 

In fact - and this is an interesting point - in Heroic games the only characteistic we are probably really blocking is Strength, because it is the only one that is consistently useful that you can get up to high levels and still have enough points over to pay for basic continence. So back to 'Strength is underpriced' then

 

ALSO, and I know we shouldn't get hung up on labels (you try telling Saatchi and Saatchi that) but Normal Characteristic Maximum is extremely unfortunate for two reasons.

 

1. It is exactly the same acronym as Non Combat Movement. OK, context is everything but if it can be avoided, then it should be, and

 

2. It is plain not true - it is not a maximum but a break point at which the returns on your investment diminish. In fact we should call it the PDR (Point of Diminishing Returns). At least until we find something else in the system that needs that acronym.

 

OK, not that cunning, but if you ARE buying, mine's a pint.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

 

Ooh - just remembered. First off I'm not entirely unconvinced that NCM shouldn't start at 15 rather than 20. After all we are building to a human template and very high characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous even amongst exceptional individuals.

 

Perhaps having NCM set at 20 is what throws us. Perhaps every genre should have its NCM, superheroes not excepted.

 

.

 

I actually like that idea, given its a soft cap situation. It would allow tailoring characters to the genre a little better.maybe could even vary within the same campaign super vs normal vs hero etc.

[David Blue]

Re: Characteristic inflation

 

Ooh - just remembered. First off I'm not entirely unconvinced that NCM shouldn't start at 15 rather than 20. After all we are building to a human template and very high characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous even amongst exceptional individuals.

And in this case, top out at SPD 3? And top out defenses at PD6 ED6?

 

Perhaps having NCM set at 20 is what throws us. Perhaps every genre should have its NCM' date=' superheroes not excepted.[/quote']

So bricks pay double for everything above 15?

 

At least it will stop the droves of martial artists that buy STR to 23 or 25, and rather than buying brickishness, everyone is better off investing in flexible VPPs anyway.

 

Two general comments on this thread. First I agree that characteristic inflation is a serious problem and an important topic to discuss. Second, I agree that published NPCs, races, beasts etc. are the main thing driving it, especially for supers, because you see what the NPCs are and you know what you have to do; but I also have to call attention to weapon STR minima.

 

I notice this, because I'm playing a gun bunny in an unusual psionic teens Dark Champions game, where because we are teens the gamemaster has very rightly limited characteristics, especially STR. This has led to my running headllong into how oddly chosen the STR minima for various guns are, and mainly how high they often are. For example, any kind of Kalashnikov has a STR minimum of 14. The wielders of these demanding weapons must be rare and extraordinary people, almost as powerful as a human can be without paying double points for being some kind of burly super-freak. Either that, or something is wrong - wrong in a way that presses lightning-handed trigger-pullers to buy enough brawn to make wrestlers and weightlifters feel considerably less special than they should be.