Too many stats in Hero

[Kristopher]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

HERO is fine the way it is.

[zornwil]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

HERO is fine the way it is.

 

I know you're very conservative on this matter, and that's fine, but I am curious at what point (which edition) you feel HERO was fine and further development was unnecessary? If I had to pick, personally, I'd pick 3rd, though as you know I'm equally comfortable with tinkering. I have mixed feelings about how "finished" any ruleset as I know I'll tinker with it. Anyway, I'm just curious at what point you felt further change was essentially frivolous, if I may use that word (correct me if you wish).

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

 

Zornwil hits the nail on the head. Yes, bonuses to PRE skills apply iuf a chatracter has an especially persuasive argument. How often does/should an 8 INT character think of that very persuasive argument under pressure? How eloquently can an 8 PRE character present his argument? If I'm using my high player INT and PRE to offset my low Character INT and PRE, that's just bad roleplaying/metagaming.

Whatever penalty to the die roll the character "nought" is still applied. it is never lost or offset. Had the character been built with more points in those traits, she would not be getting a -1 for the stats and would have a greater chance of success.

 

If instead you not only penalize them with the -1 thet stats enforce AND refuse to permit them to make the right choices, you are doubly-damning them by having them put themselves in worse situations AND ALSO applying a penalty to the mechnical rolls involved.

 

"Your argument is, of course, very cogent, and your presentation as a player was flawless. Unfortunately, Mordo the Spaz has a 5 PRE, and in receiving delivery his speech, the Princess has discovered, to her disgust. that Mordo is a spitter."

 

and as such he takes 10- base starting point as opposed to 11-, and then we apply the reasonable skill modifiers... say "easy" since the point he is arguing is "very cogent" and with a good speel even though the sipt thing was distracting. Had he not been a spitter, had he a 10 pre, he would have an 11- base and them applied the "easy" modifier.

 

In short, the difference between 5 pre and 10 pre in the above example is 10- vs 11- base starting point, not 10- vs 11- base AND ALSO not allowing the character to chose the tact which will result in "easy" as opposed to "difficult." If you do the latter, you in effect turn that 5 pts of presence from a -1 modifier net to a -2 or -3 modifier net, which is out of whack with its savings.

 

Again, what requirements do you mandate for players being allowed to make "good meaningful choices" in all those other areas without being called nasty names for doing so? How much tactics skill do i need for common superheroic level teamwork?

[zornwil]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

 

 

Whatever penalty to the die roll the character "nought" is still applied. it is never lost or offset. Had the character been built with more points in those traits, she would not be getting a -1 for the stats and would have a greater chance of success.

 

If instead you not only penalize them with the -1 thet stats enforce AND refuse to permit them to make the right choices, you are doubly-damning them by having them put themselves in worse situations AND ALSO applying a penalty to the mechnical rolls involved.

 

 

 

and as such he takes 10- base starting point as opposed to 11-, and then we apply the reasonable skill modifiers... say "easy" since the point he is arguing is "very cogent" and with a good speel even though the sipt thing was distracting. Had he not been a spitter, had he a 10 pre, he would have an 11- base and them applied the "easy" modifier.

 

In short, the difference between 5 pre and 10 pre in the above example is 10- vs 11- base starting point, not 10- vs 11- base AND ALSO not allowing the character to chose the tact which will result in "easy" as opposed to "difficult." If you do the latter, you in effect turn that 5 pts of presence from a -1 modifier net to a -2 or -3 modifier net, which is out of whack with its savings.

 

Again, what requirements do you mandate for players being allowed to make "good meaningful choices" in all those other areas without being called nasty names for doing so? How much tactics skill do i need for common superheroic level teamwork?

 

But I disagree, at least in part. You are referring to "easy" and "difficult" sorts of modifiers which are circumstantial and have nothing to do with the modification the PC brings. And as such, if a PC spent time preparing for a specific encounter or if it were life-and-death and they role-played well, I'd surely give them a bonus to represent that. But that bonus is against the easy or difficult modifier and all is additive.

 

In any case, Tesuji, do you not see a problem with granting an extra +1 for a roleplaying person who can act with great PRE "for" his PC but whose PC does not have that PRE? I suppose that's the crux of the matter, and if you really have no trouble with that, c'est la vie. I feel it unfairly condemns people who aren't that good at RPing PRE - and a lot of gamers aren't!

 

As to your last two questions, the first is too abstact. To answer it in the abstract, though, as those choices represent heroic choices common to such characters, I won't penalize unless they have some inhibiting factor. OTOH, if they are making a choice that is near-metagaming or seems unusual, I'll say something (and not call nasty names of course). As to the second question, no Tactics if the team has been around a while, but if the team has not been around, I don't give them much advantage beyond rolling their DEXes and the like.

 

By the way, I like M&M's Leadership ideas applied to Tactics in HERO, though I tend to think it takes a half phase for game balance considerations if the PC is going to grant other PCs' additional CVs and such. Just a tangent...

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

But I disagree, at least in part. You are referring to "easy" and "difficult" sorts of modifiers which are circumstantial and have nothing to do with the modification the PC brings. And as such, if a PC spent time preparing for a specific encounter or if it were life-and-death and they role-played well, I'd surely give them a bonus to represent that. But that bonus is against the easy or difficult modifier and all is additive.

Not sure what your distinction is.

 

I AGREE... all modifiers from any source factor into the equation. Thats my point. The -1 for the 5 savings in cp is already going to be applied and no force on heaven oru heck can prevent that. For -5 cp in pre, he gets a -1 to his chance of success.

 

He does not ALSO get a mandate from the Gm that he also choose deliberately poor options which will in turn also make his odds of success less.

 

If a guy has a 3 less dex, saving 6 cp roughly, he gets a -1 to all CVs and such automatically. he does not ALSO have to make "poor dex use" decisions. if a guy has 5 less int and thus a lower per roll, he does not ALSO have to deliberately choose to put himself in positions where he gets a penalty to his per rolls. he can choose to freely move his character to high ground to afford himself a better view.

 

 

In any case, Tesuji, do you not see a problem with granting an extra +1 for a roleplaying person who can act with great PRE "for" his PC but whose PC does not have that PRE? I suppose that's the crux of the matter, and if you really have no trouble with that, c'est la vie. I feel it unfairly condemns people who aren't that good at RPing PRE - and a lot of gamers aren't!

OK lets put this on the table.

 

I do not have a problem with rewarding with circumstantial bonuses, or penalizing with circumstantial bonuses (if you want it in HERo speak, adjusting the skill modifier for difficulty "easy", "difficult" etc see page 28) based on the player choices.

 

If the player makes good choices, he will get a better chance of success than if he makes poor choices.

 

My players are not there to observe their character's stats. They are there to play and by that they expect to be given the opportunity to make MEANINGFUL DECISIONS that will affect the outcome. They come to the table expecting that their decisions will have some weight.

 

If i ever led them to believe that its all going to be determined by the stats and the dice, why should they show?

 

Do the dice and the stats matter? Sure. That -1 difference for the 5 cp saved on PRE will matter EVERY SINGLE TIME the player has his character undertake a pre related action. Its a -1. It will apply whether he says something stupid or says something brilliant. It is never lost, never offset, never avoided... it applies. He will every single time have -1 less than he would have if he had spent those points on PRE.

 

If i also tell him he cannot himself make good choices, and must instead make bad choices too, i am doubly whamming him.

 

Allow me an example:

 

Jimmy is playing Edgar the Simpler, an Int 5 Pre 5 fighter. Due to an ironic set of circumstances, Edgar is in the queen's parlor and is the only one left to talk with her. He knows they need her help against the forces of darkness. He really wishes Daewen the wise, his team leader, was here but...

 

Queen: "Your friends are in peril and will not last long. You seek my help. Why should i help you?"

Player thinks and says...

Edgar: "Oh crap... they are dying, lady. Get off your boney buttocks and help or else."

or

Player thinks and says...

Edgar: "Lady, i really wish Daewen was here, but he's busy trying to not get kil't. He could 'splain it more better. Sometime he think gooder than me. othertimes he thinks things harder. You are good people. You do good things. You treat you peoples good. We are good peoples too. We do good things. They are bad peoples. They hurt peoples. They hurt my peoples. They hurt you peoples. When bad peoples do this, good peoples stop them. My daddy told me that before he died. Daewen tells me that. Now i am telling' you that too. You are good peoples and good peoples help stop bad peoples. I wish Daewen was here... so he could 'splain it betters." looks down and sighs.

I would never in any game i ran tell the two players with those two different answers that their choices on how to answer the queen were IRRELEVENT. I would never ever tell them that "hey its great but it wont affect the chance of success." The first would likely get a PENALTY (or a harder difficulty modifier) while the latter would likely get a bonus (or an easier difficulty modifier.)

 

Their PRE score still applies its penalty or bonus in terms of the base roll needed, but then the choices the player makes weighs in as well.

 

I see this as no different than one player deciding to stop at 5" range and suffering a -2 range penalty while another moves into 4" and suffers no penalty.

I see this as no different than a player who tells me his character is using his dagger to open the box from the side while another player tells me he just opens the box.

I see this as no differently than a player who decides to shoot at the guy who is at half dcv while another guy decides to shoot at someone still at full dcv.

 

In each of those cases, the players CHOICE (good or bad) has a meaningful impact which will affect the probability of success or desirability of the outcome. Whatever stat created bonuses or penalties still apply and add into the mix, but the player can make meaningful choices and have them affect the outcome. he can do this all the time.

 

Thats why he is there, sitting at the table, instead of just having to email me his character sheet and let me email him the results of the conflict.

 

Assuming the queen is not an evil person secretly in league with the dark forces...

 

Would you in your game give the two above guys answers to the queen (if they both had 5 pre and 5 int) the same chance of success in convincing her? Would the players CHOICE be meaningless? or would you give the latter case a better chance of succeeding?

 

i would, obviously, give the first a penalty, possibly only slight if the queen is normally dismissive of "lessers" and give the latter a bonus.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

Not sure what your distinction is.

 

 

Let's take your example for a spin. Both of your responses are legit for the character in question. Now, let's say Edgar's player replies with:

 

"Prithee, Milady, allow me to extoll upon the virtues of aiding my comrades at arms." He then launches into an extesive geo-political analysis of the likely impact on the Queen's kingdom, based on the PLAYER's knowledge of your hgame world's 250 year history, providing the inescapable conclusion that "Your Majesty, clearly thine aid of my colleagues is the only proper choice. Failure to come to their aid would be tantamount to surrendering thy throne."

 

That doesn't sound like Edgar the Simpler to me. That sounds like a player with a degree in political science. No bonus, and a "poor roleplaying" xp penalty.

[Gary]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

"Your argument is' date=' of course, very cogent, and your presentation as a player was flawless. Unfortunately, Mordo the Spaz has a 5 PRE, and in receiving delivery his speech, the Princess has discovered, to her disgust. that Mordo is a spitter."[/quote']

 

I hope you don't expect your players to roleplay that out...

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

 

 

Let's take your example for a spin. Both of your responses are legit for the character in question. Now, let's say Edgar's player replies with:

And so, would you give the "good guys" guy a better chance of success (a bonus to his needing value or a better "difficulty" modifier) because of his better choice? Would the "or else" guy get a lower chance?

 

or would you tell them the stats determine the odds and make them roll the same chance?

 

The stats are the same, only the choice made by the player was different.

 

Would it matter if this were the fifth time something like this had occured rather than say the first?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

And so, would you give the "good guys" guy a better chance of success (a bonus to his needing value or a better "difficulty" modifier) because of his better choice? Would the "or else" guy get a lower chance?

 

or would you tell them the stats determine the odds and make them roll the same chance?

 

The stats are the same, only the choice made by the player was different.

 

Would it matter if this were the fifth time something like this had occured rather than say the first?

 

The first option ("get off your bony butt", I believe) would probably have seen a beheading. Rolls only take you so far. The second? What has the character given the Queen besides his best efforts at persuading her. There's no non-interaction skill case made. I'd be inclined to give him a bonus just for the nice, in-character role playing but whether that's a bonus to the roll or a bonus xp is open to debate. Regardless, he has a chance at success, which is more than I can say for the first approach.

 

The better question would be how I view the Queen's persona. Is she likely to be swayed by this particular line of argument, or isn't she? If she's a romantic at heart, he's pulled some real strings there. If she's a jaded cynic, he hasn't. So he may get a bonus based on the situation - he may have made the kind of argument the Queen is inclined to hear favourably. But it's not the player's eloquence causing that modifier - it's the Queen's personality interactinjg with the aproach chosen by the character, Did he hear earlier that she's an incurable romantic and use it to his advantage? Good for him - he earned a bonus. Did he just get lucky? Again, good for him. He gets a bonus. And he played it in character.

 

Now what about Mr. Political Dissertation. Does he deserve a bonus for making the perfect argument, notwithstanding that it was completely out of character for his 5 PRE 5 INT character to make that speech, or does he get an XP penalty for poor role playing? Or do you give him both?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

I don't remember GURPS well enough, and I'm not familiar with Tri-Stat at all, but I know d20. There are many who delude themselves into thinking it has fewer stats than HERO.

 

Hero has 14. 8 Base STR, BODY, CON, DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, COM, and 6 figured SPD, PD, ED, REC, END, STUN.

 

D20 also has 14. 6 Base, S, I, W, D, C, Ch, and 8 figured Fortification Save, Reflex Save, Will Save, Attack Bonus, Armor Class, Hit Points, Character Level, and one other that I thought of but can't remember now. (I don't play deendee.)

 

I know GURPS has four Base stats and Tri-stat has 3 base stats. Can anyone tell us how many figured stats they have?

[dataweaver]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

It depends on what you mean by "Derived Stats". In GURPS, you have ST, DX, IQ, and HT as primary attributes; Hit Points, Fatigue, and Speed are clearly derived traits. In addition to these, though, there are issues such as Will and Alertness (which technically aren't stats - yet - but can be thought of as traits derived from IQ. Likewise, the Reaction Modifier can be thought of as another "pseudo-Attribute", hidden in the guise of numerous Ads and Disads which provide bonuses and penalties to it. Then there are things such as "Fearlessness" and the like - other Advantages and Disadvantages which can potentially produce results equivelent to additional Characteristics. BESM does something similar, with its equivelent to Perquisites/Talents/Powers (called "Attributes") providing situation-dependent modifiers to its three Stats. In addition, you have Health Points, Energy Points, Attack Combat Value, Defense Combat Value, and an optional Shock rating.

 

OTOH, Hero System also has a few "hidden Characteristics" in the form of Running, Leaping, Swimming, Mental Defense, OCV, DCV, ECV, and possibly others.

 

The only real difference between Hero and these other systems is that Hero doesn't disguise its complexity: it presents all of its Primary Characteristics and six of its Figured Characteristics in one massive lump, making it look messier than it really is. And even eight Primary Characteristics can be made far more palatable if properly presented.

[zornwil]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

Not sure what your distinction is.

 

I AGREE... all modifiers from any source factor into the equation. Thats my point. The -1 for the 5 savings in cp is already going to be applied and no force on heaven oru heck can prevent that. For -5 cp in pre, he gets a -1 to his chance of success.

 

He does not ALSO get a mandate from the Gm that he also choose deliberately poor options which will in turn also make his odds of success less.

 

If a guy has a 3 less dex, saving 6 cp roughly, he gets a -1 to all CVs and such automatically. he does not ALSO have to make "poor dex use" decisions. if a guy has 5 less int and thus a lower per roll, he does not ALSO have to deliberately choose to put himself in positions where he gets a penalty to his per rolls. he can choose to freely move his character to high ground to afford himself a better view.

 

Apples and oranges. You are referring to physical actions a heroic person can take to offset a physical disability, and it involves personal risk. The PRE-deprived person may be able to do the same, trying to use INT or other compensatory factors, but where those lack or are irrelevant, he can do little more - just as the low-DEX person can do little if he cannot close rnage or cannot set or brace.

 

In all of these cases - the apple-to-apple part - the issue here is the degree to which unusual effort must be made and the degree to which the player still ought be constrained by good roleplaying. And good roleplaying means playing an 8 PRE - or an 8 DEX. And I will darn well say that an 8 DEX and 8 INT guy in my campaign better not be figuring out moves such as you described above on any sort of consistent basis - or he'll face more-frequent dice rolls in combat against his INT. Or I'll demand he buy Tactics.

 

OK lets put this on the table.

 

I do not have a problem with rewarding with circumstantial bonuses, or penalizing with circumstantial bonuses (if you want it in HERo speak, adjusting the skill modifier for difficulty "easy", "difficult" etc see page 28) based on the player choices.

 

If the player makes good choices, he will get a better chance of success than if he makes poor choices.

 

My players are not there to observe their character's stats. They are there to play and by that they expect to be given the opportunity to make MEANINGFUL DECISIONS that will affect the outcome. They come to the table expecting that their decisions will have some weight.

 

If i ever led them to believe that its all going to be determined by the stats and the dice, why should they show?

 

A player taking an 8 PRE character is to ROLEPLAY an 8 PRE character, not a 13 PRE character.

 

Do the dice and the stats matter? Sure. That -1 difference for the 5 cp saved on PRE will matter EVERY SINGLE TIME the player has his character undertake a pre related action. Its a -1. It will apply whether he says something stupid or says something brilliant. It is never lost, never offset, never avoided... it applies. He will every single time have -1 less than he would have if he had spent those points on PRE.

 

If i also tell him he cannot himself make good choices, and must instead make bad choices too, i am doubly whamming him.

 

Tesuji, stepping back for a minute, are you seriously saying you're okay that if I personally, a player in your game, happen to be forceful and eloquent in real life, and I want to play an 8 PRE character, but with the ease of my expressive capabilities you'll essentially always give me a +1? I do not understand that logic. And in my mind that is in very large part what we are discussing here - but perhaps it is not what you are discussing.

 

If you are saying that a player going the extra mile earns a bonus, surely. But I posit that if that "extra mile" is achieved with ease every time a PRE roll comes up (and PRE rolls should only come up when it matters at least somewhat), it is no extra mile whatsoever - it is metagaming, deliberate or not.

 

Allow me an example:

 

Jimmy is playing Edgar the Simpler, an Int 5 Pre 5 fighter. Due to an ironic set of circumstances,

 

Right there you've begun the setup for some success, this being a unique circumstance (unless ironic circumstances are so common in your game).

 

Edgar is in the queen's parlor and is the only one left to talk with her. He knows they need her help against the forces of darkness. He really wishes Daewen the wise, his team leader, was here but...

 

Queen: "Your friends are in peril and will not last long. You seek my help. Why should i help you?"

 

or

 

I would never in any game i ran tell the two players with those two different answers that their choices on how to answer the queen were IRRELEVENT. I would never ever tell them that "hey its great but it wont affect the chance of success." The first would likely get a PENALTY (or a harder difficulty modifier) while the latter would likely get a bonus (or an easier difficulty modifier.)

 

I see this as askew to what I'm saying if it so dire as represented. I have already stated that this being a heroic game, in the crunch such roleplaying is well within boundaries and will gain a bonus.

 

However, if the player approaches every situation, as an 8 PRE character, with such eloquence, I WILL bump up his PRE, whether he likes it or not, by giving him XP for obviously having gained greater ability with his PRE. Whereas other players will likely get bonus XPs for things they really need!

 

Their PRE score still applies its penalty or bonus in terms of the base roll needed, but then the choices the player makes weighs in as well.

 

I see this as no different than one player deciding to stop at 5" range and suffering a -2 range penalty while another moves into 4" and suffers no penalty.

I see this as no different than a player who tells me his character is using his dagger to open the box from the side while another player tells me he just opens the box.

I see this as no differently than a player who decides to shoot at the guy who is at half dcv while another guy decides to shoot at someone still at full dcv.

 

In each of those cases, the players CHOICE (good or bad) has a meaningful impact which will affect the probability of success or desirability of the outcome. Whatever stat created bonuses or penalties still apply and add into the mix, but the player can make meaningful choices and have them affect the outcome. he can do this all the time.

 

You ignore that PRE is partly a matter of willpower and choice, while DEX is absolutely not. And that the GAME ALREADY GIVES A MECHANIC EQUAL FOR BOTH - PREPARATION!

 

You also ignore or do not believe that a character ought to roleplay his stats. In the cases of mental/mind stats, that involves roleplaying them at the level they are on the page most of the time. Otherwise, why do they have these stats?? I contend it makes no sense to play an 8 PRE character like a 13 PRE character with anything at all approaching regularity.

 

I fully admit that the "this is heroic, a must-do" is a bit of a double-standard, but that is a "problem" with the genre. Take that one up with the writers of yore!

 

Thats why he is there, sitting at the table, instead of just having to email me his character sheet and let me email him the results of the conflict.

 

Assuming the queen is not an evil person secretly in league with the dark forces...

 

Would you in your game give the two above guys answers to the queen (if they both had 5 pre and 5 int) the same chance of success in convincing her?

 

It would depend somewhat on the player. Some players are not (to stick with this singular example) PRE-savvy. They simply can't turn in such performances. I've known plenty of guys like this. If they play a 20-PRE character, I'm only going to ding them for poor roleplaying if they just make a roll and don't want to try. Otherwise, I'm going to be sympathetic - after all this is a fantasy heroic game!

 

Would the players CHOICE be meaningless?

 

No. But you ignore the range of choices, including not to use their PRE at all or to use their PRE improperly. By saying "I'm going to try to orate as best I can, mustering up my courage, and telling her what a powerful empress she is," they have made their action, their choice, even if it is less eloquent than someone who actually is eloquent.

 

or would you give the latter case a better chance of succeeding?

 

Depending on the player and circumstance. In this circumstance, and if the player were working at this hard (which means if they naturally speak as in the latter example above I am absolutely NOT giving a bonus), yes. In this circumstance, if the player were casting about pitifulyl and trying but inept, I'd be pretty likely to give a bonus. In this circumstance, if they don't give a crap, I'll demerit.

 

i would, obviously, give the first a penalty, possibly only slight if the queen is normally dismissive of "lessers" and give the latter a bonus.

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

 

The first option ("get off your bony butt", I believe) would probably have seen a beheading. Rolls only take you so far. The second? What has the character given the Queen besides his best efforts at persuading her. There's no non-interaction skill case made. I'd be inclined to give him a bonus just for the nice, in-character role playing but whether that's a bonus to the roll or a bonus xp is open to debate. Regardless, he has a chance at success, which is more than I can say for the first approach.

Ok, so while you cannot decide whether or not he gets a bonus, you are certain the other guy gets a penalty... automatic failure. At least we have that.

 

In my games, for the same reasons your decisions on how to approach this can give you a penalty to your chance of success, they can also give you a bonus to your chance of success. i don't want my players to think the only effect their own choices can have are negative impact.

 

The better question would be how I view the Queen's persona.

Which leads us into "who knows for this example" land.

 

certainly in any case, there can be circumstantial modifiers. The queen's ex could have been named Edgar and so she might be angry at all men named edgar.

 

 

Now what about Mr. Political Dissertation. Does he deserve a bonus for making the perfect argument, notwithstanding that it was completely out of character for his 5 PRE 5 INT character to make that speech, or does he get an XP penalty for poor role playing? Or do you give him both?

 

Players describe what the character ATTEMPTS to do, not what they do.

Player may say "Rufus jumps the 30' span" but he is really saying "attempts to jump..."

 

In the rather blatent case you describe, about two sentences in i would ask the player to make an int check (assuming the character did not have a more appropriate skill) and would see a failure as indicating that the character was getting his geopolitical facts wrong. It would be assumed the character was not as eloquent at the discourse as the player was speaking... whereas in the case I listed, since the dialog was kept to simple terms there would not be such a problem.

 

The net result would likely be no bonus, as the faltering character does not have the skill or wherewithal to pull off the task, anymore than he could jump the 30' gap.

 

These highlight just what i mean... the first makes a bad choice and gets a penalty. The second makes a good choice and keeps it within his character's capabilities.... he gets a bonus. The one you mention (do you have players who actually do this or is this just a wild outlandish example?) is a case where the decision is not bad but a poor choice for the character. It would be akin to having a short ranged character stay at range during a fight... it might be a good idea IN GENERAL but unsuited to the character's strengths.

 

As for Xp awards, i never base Xp on performance, so frankly all three would come out with the same XP. In my game, the benefits of good decisions vs bad decisions is the results they create in the game, period. A side benefit of that is a definite fostering of having the choices effects represented in game as opposed to an atitude of "maybe i will just reward him later with an out of game Xp bonus."

 

Everyone gets the same Cp per session or levels up at the same point if the system levels. if the system does levelling, i dont bother with Xp points and that nonsense, just set a timetable for levelling. Typically, its a level every 3 months. in a Cp system its typically a cp per session. \

 

heck, i dont even dock you for non-attendance. if you are out, your character earns just the same.

 

 

 

just my preference.

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Apples and oranges. You are referring to physical actions a heroic person can take to offset a physical disability, and it involves personal risk. The PRE-deprived person may be able to do the same, trying to use INT or other compensatory factors, but where those lack or are irrelevant, he can do little more - just as the low-DEX person can do little if he cannot close rnage or cannot set or brace.

I am speaking about CHOICES. If my character has a lower dex, i can still try and possibly succeed at dextrous things. At the point that you hit impossibilities ("cannot set or brace") we are not talking choices and odds but simply restrictions. having an 8 PRE does not restrict you from making better choices.

 

In all of these cases - the apple-to-apple part - the issue here is the degree to which unusual effort must be made and the degree to which the player still ought be constrained by good roleplaying. And good roleplaying means playing an 8 PRE - or an 8 DEX. And I will darn well say that an 8 DEX and 8 INT guy in my campaign better not be figuring out moves such as you described above on any sort of consistent basis - or he'll face more-frequent dice rolls in combat against his INT. Or I'll demand he buy Tactics.

aren't 8 dex, 8 int, 8 pre the typical stats? Average person around oage 223 has 8's.

 

whyb should i assume that anything my "non-superhero" friend sitting across the table from me can figure out based on his own average guy intellect that his 8's average guy statted hero cannot... making exception for specific skills such as computing knowledge and the like?

 

8s are not infrimed or retarded or crippled... they are average guy... and even average guys can state their cases well sometimes.

 

A player taking an 8 PRE character is to ROLEPLAY an 8 PRE character, not a 13 PRE character.

ie not do better than any average guy could?

 

Tesuji, stepping back for a minute, are you seriously saying you're okay that if I personally, a player in your game, happen to be forceful and eloquent in real life, and I want to play an 8 PRE character, but with the ease of my expressive capabilities you'll essentially always give me a +1? I do not understand that logic. And in my mind that is in very large part what we are discussing here - but perhaps it is not what you are discussing.

Other than hubirs, what leads you to believe that you would always earn a +1?

 

What i would do, is almost always when you make good choices, you would see benefits and almost always when you made bad choices, you would see penalties.

 

I would want you, as my player, to always come away knowing that your choices matter, that your decisions affect the outcome, and never ever to walk away with the notion that your own efforts are irrelevent and you might have well had just sat back and rolled dice.

 

If you are saying that a player going the extra mile earns a bonus, surely. But I posit that if that "extra mile" is achieved with ease every time a PRE roll comes up (and PRE rolls should only come up when it matters at least somewhat), it is no extra mile whatsoever - it is metagaming, deliberate or not.

I really have never seen a benefit to the bad names thing.

 

Right there you've begun the setup for some success, this being a unique circumstance (unless ironic circumstances are so common in your game).

uhhh... well, so much for flavor text. i probably should have skipped the ironic part and just given the queen's stats, right?

 

 

BTW, what part of ironic leads you to equate that with success?

 

I see this as askew to what I'm saying if it so dire as represented. I have already stated that this being a heroic game, in the crunch such roleplaying is well within boundaries and will gain a bonus.

So are you saying that...

if his friends are in peril, this is a dire circumstance and he can earn a bonus for his choices (and presumably a penalty)...

but...

if his friends were not and this was just a conversation while they are off buying supplies and he meets the queen, then he would NOT be getting a bonus (or penalty) for his choices?

 

me, i see the bonus or penalty for choices as a given, regardless of dire or not dire... all the extra factors do is influence urgency and perhaps poigniancy.

However, if the player approaches every situation, as an 8 PRE character, with such eloquence, I WILL bump up his PRE, whether he likes it or not, by giving him XP for obviously having gained greater ability with his PRE. Whereas other players will likely get bonus XPs for things they really need!

Are you saying that you feel the second edgar example to be an example of high PRE?

 

You ignore that PRE is partly a matter of willpower and choice, while DEX is absolutely not. And that the GAME ALREADY GIVES A MECHANIC EQUAL FOR BOTH - PREPARATION!

actually i feel the game already provides a mechanic for both... the die roll and believe that in both cases the stats will matter. i just do not see the merit in also insisting the players cannot make choices that can either improve or reduce the odds of success.

 

You also ignore or do not believe that a character ought to roleplay his stats.

Did you not think either of my edgar examples were in line with the stats? i thought they were both good examples of it.

 

In the cases of mental/mind stats, that involves roleplaying them at the level they are on the page most of the time. Otherwise, why do they have these stats?? I contend it makes no sense to play an 8 PRE character like a 13 PRE character with anything at all approaching regularity.

They have the stats to determine the BASE mechanical point for the resolution. its establishes that if they have an 8, they start with a roll of 11-, not a roll of 17-, not a roll of 13-, but an 11-. They start with the same base chance as someone else with an 11 or a 9 or a 10.

 

From that base chance, their CHOICES will affect that likelihood.

 

I fully admit that the "this is heroic, a must-do" is a bit of a double-standard, but that is a "problem" with the genre. Take that one up with the writers of yore!

Again, i dont really see the need to enforce a vague sense of "entenuating circumstances" or "only if dire" counter to this. The mechanics handle themselves, i habdle everything else and it works fine.

 

It would depend somewhat on the player. Some players are not (to stick with this singular example) PRE-savvy. They simply can't turn in such performances. I've known plenty of guys like this. If they play a 20-PRE character, I'm only going to ding them for poor roleplaying if they just make a roll and don't want to try. Otherwise, I'm going to be sympathetic - after all this is a fantasy heroic game!

 

 

 

i have those too. in my current game i have a guy whose character is social skills out the wazoo and when i put the player in a social skill scene, he botches it mightily. aS HIS gM, i know his character is better than that. I know i cannot roleplay the conversation and hand him leading questions and openings and expect he, the player, will catch the hints and take the advantages. So the technique i use is to dialog the conversation, not roleplay it. I summarize what she says, not have her say it out... i have him give me generral or even specific instructions on what his character is trying to do, NOT HOW HIS CHARACTER IS DOING IT. (Just like i would ask a player what he was trying to do as in "hit the bad guy" or "hack the computer for data files" and NOT ask the player to describe the combat moves or the programs used. )

 

Even so, i can answere the question i asked.

 

You cannot? Ok.

 

 

 

No. But you ignore the range of choices, including not to use their PRE at all or to use their PRE improperly. By saying "I'm going to try to orate as best I can, mustering up my courage, and telling her what a powerful empress she is," they have made their action, their choice, even if it is less eloquent than someone who actually is eloquent.

I dont ignore the range of choices, i present two and ask how you would handle them. its really quite simple.

 

 

 

Depending on the player and circumstance. In this circumstance, and if the player were working at this hard (which means if they naturally speak as in the latter example above I am absolutely NOT giving a bonus), yes. In this circumstance, if the player were casting about pitifulyl and trying but inept, I'd be pretty likely to give a bonus. In this circumstance, if they don't give a crap, I'll demerit.

 

So it epends on the player's emotional state? if they are trying, bonus, if they are not, no bonus or maybe a demerit. Its the player-angst-level or player-strain-meter and not the choice made that determines the difference between bonus-irrelevent-penalty?

 

and here some people think i am invalidating stats by letting the choices matter a whit!

 

:-)

[dataweaver]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

How about this: for players with low intelligence or savvy, let the GM make an INT or PRE roll (respectively) on the character's behalf any time that the player's choice is, in the GM's opinion, stupid or crass. On a successful roll, he gives the player the option to reconsider his choice, giving hints as to why the player's choice might be inappropriate and possibly even suggesting a better alternative if the roll went especially well. The inverse - requiring a roll any time the player comes up with a brilliant idea that the character probably wouldn't have thought of - doesn't work nearly as well; in these cases, a better alternative is to take the player aside and advise him about his poor roleplaying.

[caris]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Tesuji – I find it interesting that you seem to be arguing sides of the argument here. In the example you gave, for the two possible choices you posited you did not require any sort of skill or INT check, but for the choice that Hugh suggested you than required a skill or INT check. Why? The apparent reason would be that because in your two choices Jimmy is not doing anything out of line for his character’s INT, but in Hugh’s he would be. To phrase differently Jimmy in your examples is playing his character’s INT so is not being penalized by being forced to a game mechanic to deal with the situation, where as in Hugh’s because he is not playing in his character’s INT he is being penalized by being forced to rely on the game mechanic. Yet, you seem to be implying that every time a social interaction comes up, you base the result on the die roll. If you abstract all aspects of character interaction and all results are ultimately based on what I roll, why bother putting any effort into being entertaining or “getting†into character at all?

 

In your example, assuming that Jimmy took actions to convey to me that Edgar is a lot more impressed and to an extent intimidated by his surroundings and the situation than Adarick the 21 PRE courtier was. I would not require a roll at all. The queen would swayed by my interpretation of her reaction to his presentation and choice of tactic. In your example, I would not give any modifier to the PRE roll or the skill check because it wouldn’t be the final decider in the situation. Just as if the situation were reversed, and if I were playing the Queen appealing to Edgar for his aid in saving the Kingdom, I wouldn’t expect Jimmy to base his decision to help or not solely on how well the Queen rolled on her Persuasion skill check. I would certainly appeal to Jimmy to use the result of the skill roll as a way of determining the Queen’s presentation, or comply with a request from Jimmy for a skill roll to help him in formulating his decision.

 

I’m not sure if it is your intention, but you are coming off like a person I used to game with. He would build a female character and give them persuasion, seduction, etc. and than attempt to use them on other PCs like some sort of mind control. To paraphrase a situation that actually happened: “My character, who has been insulting your character all game day, couldn’t carry any food with her, because I succeeded on my unmodified seduction roll Caris your character is so turned on by her he will give her some of his food.†I was never so glad that I had already established my PC’s non-heterosexuality with the GM before a campaign started.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

In the rather blatent case you describe' date=' about two sentences in i would ask the player to make an int check (assuming the character did not have a more appropriate skill) and would see a failure as indicating that the character was getting his geopolitical facts wrong. It would be assumed the character was not as eloquent at the discourse as the player was speaking... whereas in the case I listed, since the dialog was kept to simple terms there would not be such a problem.[/quote']

 

 

And that is the key difference. In your example, the player is role playing his character well. He has played to the character's limnitations, not tried to achieve a better result than the character could have achieved by imposing his own, superior, personal qualities. Edgar can't deliver a political dissertation. His player likely cannot fight effectively with a greatsword.

 

These highlight just what i mean... the first makes a bad choice and gets a penalty. The second makes a good choice and keeps it within his character's capabilities.... he gets a bonus.

 

You keep commenting on choice. Let's also be aware that our 23 PRE 18 INT PLAYER made a choice to design a 5 INT 5 PRE CHARACTER. If he refuises to differentiate between his own abilities and those of the character, he is not accepting the remifications of that choice. The player who tries the "Get yer bony backside out there and help" approach and whines how "Edgar would never really say that" as he's being hauled of to the dungeon has accepted the consequences of his actions.

 

The one you mention (do you have players who actually do this or is this just a wild outlandish example?) is a case where the decision is not bad but a poor choice for the character.

 

To your () question, if the question is "Have I encountered such players", yes, absolutely. Do I game with them? No, they tend not to last long when their character's limitations are actually enforced. I do recall, some years back, a player who insisted his 1/2 orc fighter would know precisely how to man a large seacraft because he, the player, had this knowledge. Thuis, he should descriobe what the 1/2 orc does, and it should have the correct results, notwithstanding our 1/2 orc friend had no clue what the correct course of action would be.

 

 

As for Xp awards' date=' i never base Xp on performance, so frankly all three would come out with the same XP. In my game, the benefits of good decisions vs bad decisions is the results they create in the game, period. A side benefit of that is a definite fostering of having the choices effects represented in game as opposed to an atitude of "maybe i will just reward him later with an out of game Xp bonus." [/quote']

 

Ahhh...so my choices as a player have no effect in growing my character in the game. So when a player ignores psych lim's because it's the right choice for the situation, how does that get addressed? Of course, there's the ultimate xp sanction - you just aren't invited any more and your character earns no more xp as a result.

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

 

Tesuji – I find it interesting that you seem to be arguing sides of the argument here. In the example you gave, for the two possible choices you posited you did not require any sort of skill or INT check, but for the choice that Hugh suggested you than required a skill or INT check. Why?

Example: Player says ",y character brushes his teeth." i say OK requiring no roll. The action the player described was well within his capabilities and thus needed no roll. I believe under the skill section in HERo it goes into not requiring rolls for such things. The two examples i gave were both well within the capabilities of and fairly good examples of IMO a low int low pre character. So no roll was needed to make sure the character said what the player wanted him to say.

 

Hugh's example was not such a case. So a roll weas neded to see if the character had the facts right. His player made a poor choice, he decided to base his action on a speel requiring good recollection of facts. Think of this as the mental equivalent of (to put it in comvat terms so it might be more recognizable here) a player running a balster who has multiple levels oto offset range penalties who chooses to fly up to point blank range with a brick. Now thats not choosing a tact which plays to his strong suit and he will likely fare worse than the guy who chose one which did. (He will likely get ounched.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Example: Player says ",y character brushes his teeth." i say OK requiring no roll. The action the player described was well within his capabilities and thus needed no roll. I believe under the skill section in HERo it goes into not requiring rolls for such things. The two examples i gave were both well within the capabilities of and fairly good examples of IMO a low int low pre character. So no roll was needed to make sure the character said what the player wanted him to say.

 

Hugh's example was not such a case. So a roll weas neded to see if the character had the facts right. His player made a poor choice, he decided to base his action on a speel requiring good recollection of facts. Think of this as the mental equivalent of (to put it in comvat terms so it might be more recognizable here) a player running a balster who has multiple levels oto offset range penalties who chooses to fly up to point blank range with a brick. Now thats not choosing a tact which plays to his strong suit and he will likely fare worse than the guy who chose one which did. (He will likely get ounched.)

 

I think we're on the same page here. We may differ as to the specific bonuses/penalties involved in any given situation, but that's always a subjective judgement call issue.

 

Have to admit I think the combat analogy muddies the water, however. First, combat always requires rolls. Second, although the Blaster has chosen an approach which may not play to his strengths, he has chosen an approach which is well within the character's capabilities. He can fly, and he did. Not a smart maneuver, but one wel within his physical and mental capabilities to undertake.

 

Now, if he had "Fears melee combat" as a disadvantage, I would have a problem with his choice of tactic, and would possibly require a roll. He is now trying to play the character outside its abilities and conception.

[tesuji]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

I think we're on the same page here. We may differ as to the specific bonuses/penalties involved in any given situation, but that's always a subjective judgement call issue.

 

Have to admit I think the combat analogy muddies the water, however. First, combat always requires rolls. Second, although the Blaster has chosen an approach which may not play to his strengths, he has chosen an approach which is well within the character's capabilities. He can fly, and he did. Not a smart maneuver, but one wel within his physical and mental capabilities to undertake.

 

Now, if he had "Fears melee combat" as a disadvantage, I would have a problem with his choice of tactic, and would possibly require a roll. He is now trying to play the character outside its abilities and conception.

 

I use the combat anaolgy because of tweo reasons... first in my experience hero guys tend to get combat examples and tend to accept a lot of detailed tactical choices as acceptable... i do not think i have ever heard a Gm start to balk when, for the umpteenth time, the hero maneuvers so as to be able to knockback the villain into a wall instead of into the open road in HERo. The presumtpion of " i ought to be able to milk the tactical emphasis of the system to its utmost" seems a given. Yet, have an average PRE and try to talk you way out of s situation and suddenly the "well he is metagaming evil evil EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!" chants begin.

 

There are two DIFFERENT DISCREET and SEPARATE things being discussed here.

 

One is... "is the action the player describing within his character's range of capabilities." Whether thats a movement inches measure or a geopolitical thesis from a half-wit, thats an issue of "does he succeed" in the HOW. In most cases, a die roll can determine whether or not Edgar remembers the geopolitical laundry list or not.

 

The other is... "is it a good choice, a good thing to do, and will this choice help or hinder the thing you are trying to do." Within the scenario, the player, whether he is using his strong suit or his weak suit, should have meaningful decisions to make and should not be told by the GM (or not told and just have it done to him in secret) that his choices wont matter. OK, to cover my bases, insert "in the vast majority of cases." Good choices which improve the chance of success and bad choices which hurt the cnance of success can be done WITHIN the character's limitations.

 

of course, if your GM believes that good choices will just get you your stats and bad choices will get you decapitated... you might well just do whatever little you need to get to the stats rolls... after all, you can only hurt your case.

 

but, at its very simplest level, whether your pre is 5 or 10 or 15 or 90, in my games, you will have choices, meaningful choices, and those choices when resolving the social encounter can adjust the chance of success upward or downward. if you always choose the right choices and keep them within character, you will always get a better chance than if, in the same circumstance, you made worse choices.

 

The guy with 5 more pre, making the same choices, is even more likely to succeed.

 

meaningful choices... simple enough really.

[zornwil]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

I am speaking about CHOICES. If my character has a lower dex' date=' i can still try and possibly succeed at dextrous things. At the point that you hit impossibilities ("cannot set or brace") we are not talking choices and odds but simply restrictions. having an 8 PRE does not restrict you from making better choices.[/quote']

 

Bah, now I think you're nitpicking for the sake of it or deliberately ignoring what I wrote.

 

I will repost - "The PRE-deprived person may be able to do the same, trying to use INT or other compensatory factors, but where those lack or are irrelevant, he can do little more " - where did I leave out his choices?

 

IOW, so far, we are on the same page - the lower PRE character may prepare, may use skills, use his INT, all to boost effectively his PRE. Yes, I have not disagreed with that. IN FACT I STATED IT IN THE PRECISE SECTION YOU QUOTED! Pardon my shouting but really!

 

aren't 8 dex, 8 int, 8 pre the typical stats? Average person around oage 223 has 8's.

 

To my knowledge, the "average person" is not so tactically gifted - again, on a consistent basis, which is the CRUX of our seeming disagreement - as you described.

 

And in my experience, across two coasts and three different groups, players did not dwell on tactics to the extent you seem to paint if they had 10 INT - let alone 8 INT - characters.

 

I will add, for a tasty tangent, those 2 points from "average NPC human" to "average PC" factor in somewhat to the degree to which the PC has flexibility - after all, I'm not going to let the point-shaving pass for NOTHING. But it's a marginal point at best so, surely, I grant the point well enough that if you like we can equate 8 and 10 as the die roll is the same (though personally, I think 8 versus 10, given the definitions from the book, is a GREAT example of how points matter even if the die roll does not).

 

whyb should i assume that anything my "non-superhero" friend sitting across the table from me can figure out based on his own average guy intellect that his 8's average guy statted hero cannot... making exception for specific skills such as computing knowledge and the like?

 

8s are not infrimed or retarded or crippled... they are average guy... and even average guys can state their cases well sometimes.

 

Where did I say that would not happen "sometimes"?

 

ie not do better than any average guy could?

 

 

Other than hubirs, what leads you to believe that you would always earn a +1?

 

An average person? I'm sure they wouldn't. Other than getting into the truly picayune and mundane argument of what lattitude I give an 8 PRE PC versus a 10 PRE PC, we're still on here. (Incidentally, none of this argument so far is academic to me - we have an 8 INT PC in our group)

 

Our discussion kicked off from the point that we have a player who knows how to play a 13 PRE all the time and does so whenever he feels the need. Or, rather, that is the implication that I reacted to and tried to specifically point out prior to your example, and I still stand by the point that if you as GM will give a player +1 to his PRE every (or most of the) time he waxes eloquently, then you are encouraging that player to metagame - particularly and "criminally" (so to speak, i.e., against the rules of RPGing) when he is doing so in defiance of his character - whom he saw fit to buy with an 8 but play with a 13 whenever it pleases him.

 

What i would do, is almost always when you make good choices, you would see benefits and almost always when you made bad choices, you would see penalties.

 

We're still discussing choices instead of acting and discussing PRE? Indeed, we are spot on still!

 

I would want you, as my player, to always come away knowing that your choices matter, that your decisions affect the outcome, and never ever to walk away with the notion that your own efforts are irrelevent and you might have well had just sat back and rolled dice.

 

 

I really have never seen a benefit to the bad names thing.

 

I have no clue what you mean by this last sentence. I didn't say to call someone a metagamer, but I am stating and I will stand by that it is metagaming to consistently play a character in a way that is more convenient to being successful in the game than the way you constructed the character.

 

uhhh... well, so much for flavor text. i probably should have skipped the ironic part and just given the queen's stats, right?

 

 

BTW, what part of ironic leads you to equate that with success?

 

Specifically, it sounds like a plot twist where the low-PRE character saves the day. A common heroic-fiction device, and one where we expect our PC to suddenly surprise us.

 

So are you saying that...

if his friends are in peril, this is a dire circumstance and he can earn a bonus for his choices (and presumably a penalty)...

but...

if his friends were not and this was just a conversation while they are off buying supplies and he meets the queen, then he would NOT be getting a bonus (or penalty) for his choices?

 

No, not at all, I suppose I'll have to apologize as my point must have been poorly made.

 

Look, this game is all about - and IMNSHO ONLY about - heroic fantasy/story-telling. In the crunch, we can accept one to rise above oneself. But in the mundane, we expect the fool to be the fool, the shy to be the shy, the brave to be the brave, the cowardly to be the cowardly, etc.. Not every moment, and not enforcably per incident, but on the whole, certainly.

 

So I believe a GM ought to be more willing to grant bonuses to enable those big dramatic moments than in those more mundane steps along the way.

 

me, i see the bonus or penalty for choices as a given, regardless of dire or not dire... all the extra factors do is influence urgency and perhaps poigniancy.

 

Are you saying that you feel the second edgar example to be an example of high PRE?

 

HighER PRE. Yes. At least for many gamers I have met. I'd say the majority of gamers I've met can write as you wrote, but around half can actually speak as you wrote that. (Very roughly, my gut feel)

 

However, now that I've reread (see my note below), I can see that both of these could come from an 8 PRE character - though not being there to see the player acting it out, I can't tell if that's quite true, as the second example you gave could have been delivered with moving sentiment or hesitant stammering. If the former, and if I didn't know of the character's abilities, I'd assume he were an above-average PRE and a low INT. If the latter, again not knowing the character's ability, I'd assume he were average or worse PRE and average or better INT.

 

actually i feel the game already provides a mechanic for both... the die roll and believe that in both cases the stats will matter. i just do not see the merit in also insisting the players cannot make choices that can either improve or reduce the odds of success.

 

Again, there has been no restriction on the player's CHOICES from my end.

 

Did you not think either of my edgar examples were in line with the stats? i thought they were both good examples of it.

 

Actually, I went back just now, and I don't feel like correcting the above (feeling sick still, thought I was better, now sick again - ah hell I'll go back up and correct anything above (in THIS post I mean)), but let me say that actually your second example was in fact in character for a player in the crunch. Whether I gave a + or not for it would really depend - innately I don't know that I would. I was reacting more from a hasty reading and your comment of adding +1, and I apologize.

 

So stepping back, would I give a bonus? Only if it was in keeping with the queen's character to be touched by such. If not, no.

 

Would I give the first version a demerit? Probably not.

 

However, now that I've reread (and again please accept my sincere apology) , the reactions to both would be different somewhat regardless of the die roll. The first version will carry no favor to it in response, at least not intrinsically. The second version will at least get the queen to discuss the matter (barring utter failure - sometimes it's fun to let whimsy occur - or barring the queen's character standing well to the contrary) and allow the character some more thinking time.

 

 

They have the stats to determine the BASE mechanical point for the resolution. its establishes that if they have an 8, they start with a roll of 11-, not a roll of 17-, not a roll of 13-, but an 11-. They start with the same base chance as someone else with an 11 or a 9 or a 10.

 

From that base chance, their CHOICES will affect that likelihood.

 

 

Again, i dont really see the need to enforce a vague sense of "entenuating circumstances" or "only if dire" counter to this. The mechanics handle themselves, i habdle everything else and it works fine.

 

Personally, I think if you do not allow for extenuating or dire circumstances to affect some chances (again, if the player is making an attempt), you are missing half the point of heroic fiction. But that's your business.

 

i have those too. in my current game i have a guy whose character is social skills out the wazoo and when i put the player in a social skill scene, he botches it mightily. aS HIS gM, i know his character is better than that. I know i cannot roleplay the conversation and hand him leading questions and openings and expect he, the player, will catch the hints and take the advantages. So the technique i use is to dialog the conversation, not roleplay it. I summarize what she says, not have her say it out... i have him give me generral or even specific instructions on what his character is trying to do, NOT HOW HIS CHARACTER IS DOING IT. (Just like i would ask a player what he was trying to do as in "hit the bad guy" or "hack the computer for data files" and NOT ask the player to describe the combat moves or the programs used. )

 

Even so, i can answere the question i asked.

 

You cannot? Ok.

 

Well, let's be fair here, I did anyway.

 

But the ISSUE AT HAND is that your example is not the real issue here. The real issue here is: do you allow a person who is a smooth talker to take an 8 PRE, with no Conversation Skill, get a bonus for his normal smooth talking most every time he plays his character? I would certainly hope not. Yet your answers to date seem to have stubbornly dug in and, rather than addressed that head-on, insisted by this moment-in-time example, "it's okay!"

 

I dont ignore the range of choices, i present two and ask how you would handle them. its really quite simple.

 

Well, your two choices both related, I believe, to the players ACTING ability, NOT to a conscious ability to speak one way or the other. Again, I don't know this player playing Edgar. YOU do.

 

It's much like saying that in your DEX example the player can only move forward or hang back. If he only had those two choices, and his INT were 10 or better, surely going forward would be appropriate each and every time. If his INT were 8, I'd hope to see the PC screw up once in a while, but I wouldn't expect it much and wouldn't presume [b0]much[/b] as to where to draw the line.

 

So it epends on the player's emotional state? if they are trying, bonus, if they are not, no bonus or maybe a demerit. Its the player-angst-level or player-strain-meter and not the choice made that determines the difference between bonus-irrelevent-penalty?

 

and here some people think i am invalidating stats by letting the choices matter a whit!

 

:-)

 

You really don't think what a player puts in matters? So if the guy just says "whatever, sure, fine" you count that as good RPGing as "I, uh, well, I try to persuade him by, um, flattering him, right? And then I try to...uh...talk about his family!?" Or the same as the player saying, "oh, hang on, hang on, let me get this thing out of my bag! oh, yeah - here - (he pulls out a stuffed rabbit) - okay, I touch his face like this (putting his hand to a cheek) and - WATCH THIS! - I then deftly move my hand down to his toe and tickle it, a sign of affection among his people, I know, 'cause my character lived there" - using his INT and as a player also being rather clever and demonstrative.

 

Naturally in each case we have to adjust a little for the people we know and love.

 

Anyway, THAT is what I am talking about. Absolutely, I will bonus or demerit accordingly.

[Vorsch]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Players should play there characteristics, if you want to be persuasive buy high presence, otherwise dont.

 

Its a roleplaying issue, build the character the way you in tend to play him

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Our discussion kicked off from the point that we have a player who knows how to play a 13 PRE all the time and does so whenever he feels the need. Or, rather, that is the implication that I reacted to and tried to specifically point out prior to your example, and I still stand by the point that if you as GM will give a player +1 to his PRE every (or most of the) time he waxes eloquently, then you are encouraging that player to metagame - particularly and "criminally" (so to speak, i.e., against the rules of RPGing) when he is doing so in defiance of his character - whom he saw fit to buy with an 8 but play with a 13 whenever it pleases him.

 

********************************************************

 

I have no clue what you mean by this last sentence. I didn't say to call someone a metagamer, but I am stating and I will stand by that it is metagaming to consistently play a character in a way that is more convenient to being successful in the game than the way you constructed the character.

 

**********************************************************

 

HighER PRE. Yes. At least for many gamers I have met. I'd say the majority of gamers I've met can write as you wrote, but around half can actually speak as you wrote that. (Very roughly, my gut feel)

 

However, now that I've reread (see my note below), I can see that both of these could come from an 8 PRE character - though not being there to see the player acting it out, I can't tell if that's quite true, as the second example you gave could have been delivered with moving sentiment or hesitant stammering. If the former, and if I didn't know of the character's abilities, I'd assume he were an above-average PRE and a low INT. If the latter, again not knowing the character's ability, I'd assume he were average or worse PRE and average or better INT.

 

**********************************************************

 

But the ISSUE AT HAND is that your example is not the real issue here. The real issue here is: do you allow a person who is a smooth talker to take an 8 PRE, with no Conversation Skill, get a bonus for his normal smooth talking most every time he plays his character? I would certainly hope not. Yet your answers to date seem to have stubbornly dug in and, rather than addressed that head-on, insisted by this moment-in-time example, "it's okay!"

 

Well, your two choices both related, I believe, to the players ACTING ability, NOT to a conscious ability to speak one way or the other. Again, I don't know this player playing Edgar. YOU do.

 

 

I've sliced up Zornwil's post above - apologies if that takes it out of context. I agree with everything said above. And yes, like Zornwil (I believe) I have a problem with a player who sells back 5 points of PRE and them plays him as eloquent and persuasive, expecting to offset the drawbacks of his character design CHOICE by role playing the character as something he is not. If your character has a 5 PRE because he is shy, I expect him to be played as shy. If he has a penalty to interaction skills because he is gruff and abrasive (a disadvantage), I expect him to be played as gruff and abrasive. In both cases, the character obtained points for accepting a limitation - now PLAY the limitation. A character's drawbacks are every bit as much a part of the character as his strengths. So make wise tactocal choices - let the 23 PRE act as spokesperson and avoid that role as much as possible. But don't expect you can role play your way to the same advantages as a 23 PRE character when the guy who spent thoise extra 18 points isn't there to negotiate for you. He doesn't get +8 STR and 3 levels in HTH when you're not there in combat!

 

I'll also add one further muddying factor to the water. So far, we're talking about player characters. If Edgar the Simple (PC) can get +3 to his roll (to pick a number out of the air)( by choosing his words with care, how does Igor the Dullard (an NPC of the same point level as Edgar) obtain a similar bonus? He has the same stats. He paid the same points. He is a "major NPC", not a Mook. He should have al the same advantages as Edgar. If Edgar can get a bonus for carefully choosing his words, Igor should be entitled to the same bonus. Now, most of the people I game with will look at the dice and say "A FOUR - wow, Igor really rose above himself and gave an impassioned speech!" But Edgar can also roll a four. PLUS, he can get the added GM largesse of a bonus for PLAYER eloquence. Should the players assess bonuses fore GM eloquence in assessing an NPC's success chances?

 

The simple fact is, by constantly orating in an effort to get those bonuses, the player is not playing his 5 PRE. As Zornwil has said, extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. For Edgar to reach inside and overcome his shyness - this once - because the chips are down and he'll overcome his fears to help his friends, so be it. If Edgar is able to overcome his shyness every time, it's about time Edgar bought off his disadvantage by putting some xp into presence. Only being limited when it isn't a limitation doesn't strike me as being a limitation at all. [No points for selling back your presence and buying it back "only when alone" either, to use an absurd example]

[Polaris1]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Guys,

 

I am new here so I am jumping in after reading this thread with some trepidation. I am unconvinced that HERO would work very well with fewer stats (although I do think that COM should be canned and replaced with an appropriate Talent and/or Perk and/or Disadvantage(s)).

 

That said, part of the problem seems to be that a lot of you have completely lost sight of the fact that Intelligence in HERO has nothing to do with your real world intelligence. Because of that, I would strongly object if the DM tried to penalize me for "poor roleplaying" because my Int 8 scientist (a character type that page 23 of the HERO main book says is perfectly valid) comes up with a brilliant idea. That is because in HERO Intelligence measures how quickly you dredge up information you already have but it does not measure your cognition (your ability to learn new information or how fast you learn new information). The fact that neither Knowledge nor Science skills are Int based should be a dead giveaway.

 

However, IMHO, a lot of people (frankly including me) think that intelligence should mean cognition (because that is what intelligence means IRL) but in HERO it does not and before players are penalized, the GM should remember that.

 

AFAICT in the HERO system, the best measure of Cognition (the ability to learn new information fast and well) is your skill levels (especially Overall Skill Levels) and IMHO a "highly intelligent" character should invest in lots of Skill Levels (esp Overall Skill Levels) rather than the INT characteristic per se. Of course that brings up the issue that for it's price INT is basically worthless but that is another (tangential) topic.

 

-Polaris

[zornwil]

Re: Too many stats in Hero

 

Guys,

 

I am new here so I am jumping in after reading this thread with some trepidation. I am unconvinced that HERO would work very well with fewer stats (although I do think that COM should be canned and replaced with an appropriate Talent and/or Perk and/or Disadvantage(s)).

 

That said, part of the problem seems to be that a lot of you have completely lost sight of the fact that Intelligence in HERO has nothing to do with your real world intelligence. Because of that, I would strongly object if the DM tried to penalize me for "poor roleplaying" because my Int 8 scientist (a character type that page 23 of the HERO main book says is perfectly valid) comes up with a brilliant idea. That is because in HERO Intelligence measures how quickly you dredge up information you already have but it does not measure your cognition (your ability to learn new information or how fast you learn new information). The fact that neither Knowledge nor Science skills are Int based should be a dead giveaway.

 

However, IMHO, a lot of people (frankly including me) think that intelligence should mean cognition (because that is what intelligence means IRL) but in HERO it does not and before players are penalized, the GM should remember that.

 

AFAICT in the HERO system, the best measure of Cognition (the ability to learn new information fast and well) is your skill levels (especially Overall Skill Levels) and IMHO a "highly intelligent" character should invest in lots of Skill Levels (esp Overall Skill Levels) rather than the INT characteristic per se. Of course that brings up the issue that for it's price INT is basically worthless but that is another (tangential) topic.

 

-Polaris

 

Well, you needn't have felt so much trepidation, it's a fair point, although there is some contention still on just to what degree INT means cognition (given that cognitive skills are INT-based to find the answer at all, though you get +s for preparation/time spent). Nonetheless, I essentially agree, so long as we throw in as the book mentions (and your post did make me look it up) that it is also the "processing" of thought, how well one uses the knowledge one has, so speed, yes, but also the way in which it is processed, which is necessarily fuzzier, so that is where we get into cognitive ability and hence I imagine why we always see INT now as the basis for all such skills whereas in pre-5th there were some skills left as 11/less (no char. modifier). That does also therefore allow for some creeping in of the question of how you apply your knowledge, not just how quickly.