Thats one nimble little bull

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

So coming back to the OP' date=' it is slightly surprising that there was not a rethink from the ground up of the showcase characters. Conversion is not a problem: there are only a couple of differences you really need worry about at all - but we could have explored a new paradigm.[/quote']

 

A little bit, but like I said at the start - it's only a serious issue if the enemies books start to come out and we don't see a rethinking of how it works.

 

As Archermoo said, the CU is still the CU and the sample characters may still be conforming to that.

 

None of the sample characters are new - they're all 5th Ed Conversions. Given that it's just as likely they were left as straight as possible to show how easy it is to take a 5E character and make them a 6E character.

 

In my mind the best thing would actually have been to include some completely new NPCs from the ground up. And that would be the only unfortunate thing in my mind - that there weren't any.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

A little bit, but like I said at the start - it's only a serious issue if the enemies books start to come out and we don't see a rethinking of how it works.

 

As Archermoo said, the CU is still the CU and the sample characters may still be conforming to that.

 

None of the sample characters are new - they're all 5th Ed Conversions. Given that it's just as likely they were left as straight as possible to show how easy it is to take a 5E character and make them a 6E character.

 

In my mind the best thing would actually have been to include some completely new NPCs from the ground up. And that would be the only unfortunate thing in my mind - that there weren't any.

 

I think it is unfortunate that the sample characters were not rethought for 6e, ideally as brand new characters from the ground up. I suspect it was not a high priority - there are sample characters already, so updating those is easier than building brand-new characters. With the first sample characters now published, it seems unlikely they will not be compared to the characters that show up in the Enemies books. A villain described as a gymnast, for example, and having only an 18 DEX, will likely get referred to on the boards as "the gymnast who's less agile than the cow man". Rethinking the typical DEX of a Super for the 6e sample character and dropping Taurus to, say, an 11 or 13 would have avoided either maintaining the prior "virtually all Supers have amazing to Superhuman DEX" paradigm or having to explain the cow man being among the most agile published characters.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I'm not sure it's even remotely that big of a deal. Given that the System itself is to create your own game... in some games 18DEX Superhuman could be low. Could be high. Could be in the middle.

[Vondy]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Its entirely a question of preference. The system itself allows you follow your heart in terms of character design. You can set whatever metrics/benchmarks you want for your campaigns/worlds/whatever. And your design philosophy will be right for your game.

 

Published characters just reflect Steve's design preferences expressed in the books/settings DOJ sees fit to publish. Those aren't native to the system. They don't make design philosophies and settings that use different metrics suddenly wrong. They're only right for that game.

 

Its only a problem when your game follows one design philosophy with a designated set of metrics and you end up with someone telling you "you're doing it wrong" because it doesn't match a published products benchmarks. Also, part of this is holdover.

 

It looks like the characters were just converted to 6E instead of being rebuilt, which means there wasn't a shift in design philosophy attached to them. I'm not sure Steve doing that is here or there. People who want published settings will use those settings' benchmarks, and newbies just want an example or two.

 

They won't be doing it wrong, per se, if they follow the examples. They'll just be adhering to steve's design preferences. Since they haven't been with the system long enough to develop their own preferences they need to start somewhere. Once they've been at it a while they'll decide if its right for them.

 

Overall, I'll go with lower dexes and higher combat values for a lot of characters now for a lot of my games.

 

Hero: Have It Your Way.

[Peregrine]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Don't bet on it. Such a paradigm shift would require fundamental changes in the base assumptions that have not only been inherited from 5e and previous, but have been clearly stated in 6e.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Exactly what Vondy said!

 

I had a discussion with a friend, and it kind of caught me off guard as to his expectations for the system, and others.

 

He said that with a proper Universal System you should be able to open the book, make a character and be able to insert them mechanically into any game and they would fit easily with no fuss.

 

I kind of balked at that... For me, you can't open the book and make a Character. You need to know what the parameters and expectations are. And you can't (or can't always) take a character from one game, or even multiple genres from the same GM, and make them fit together. Expectations could be different in every campaign.

 

Which makes sample characters in the generic rules mildly useless - because they don't have the full setting around them to give context. On the other hand they are useful in that you can see how a full character is put together - otherwise you get Scott Heine's very first character who can project darkness globe and fly... and that's all - not even defenses! While it was a funny story he told, it illustrated the point that an example character is just as much what needs to be put in to a character as it is what the actual numbers are. More so.

[Alibear]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Overall, I'll go with lower dexes and higher combat values for a lot of characters now for a lot of my games.

 

Hero: Have It Your Way.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[tesuji]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Exactly what Vondy said!

 

I had a discussion with a friend, and it kind of caught me off guard as to his expectations for the system, and others.

 

He said that with a proper Universal System you should be able to open the book, make a character and be able to insert them mechanically into any game and they would fit easily with no fuss.

 

I kind of balked at that... For me, you can't open the book and make a Character. You need to know what the parameters and expectations are. And you can't (or can't always) take a character from one game, or even multiple genres from the same GM, and make them fit together. Expectations could be different in every campaign.

 

Which makes sample characters in the generic rules mildly useless - because they don't have the full setting around them to give context. On the other hand they are useful in that you can see how a full character is put together - otherwise you get Scott Heine's very first character who can project darkness globe and fly... and that's all - not even defenses! While it was a funny story he told, it illustrated the point that an example character is just as much what needs to be put in to a character as it is what the actual numbers are. More so.

 

 

Well and true except that - in this case - the sample characters are not actually in the generic brules but in the specific sections on genre by genre examples.

 

It is common for non- or less frequent hero users, those most likely playing as opposed to gming, to make the mistake of thinking HERO IS A GAME as opposed to HERO IS A GAME BUILDING TOOLKIT, IMX.

 

But regardless, i would expect sample characters in the genre specific sections to be good ones, exempletive of the system's handling of the genre.

 

and i too hope they do wind up doing the followup characters from the ground up and if i were them i would simply erratta taurus and the others once the new "how we try and represent these in hero" work is actually done.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Depends on how you see the genre as well...

 

Champions is a wide range. If Taurus is intended for a Silver or Bronze age style where Superheroes are pretty much Super across the board, 18 DEX might be on the low side, or spot on.

 

A gritty street-level Iron Age game? 18 DEX could be high.

 

Early Golden Age where the Supers are basically powered up Pulp Heroes? 18 could be a high DEX, or expected Average for a Superhero.

 

Generic-Superhero Campaign? who knows where 18DEX sits on the scale. . . .

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I agree. But' date=' to me, whether one is Superhuman is about the SFX, not the OCV. There are some abilities where the effects make one clearly superhuman (Strength is one of them - humans can't bench press a battleship), but many others where it does not. I don't see having an 11 OCV or DCV as making one "superhuman" by definition. If I did, it would not matter whether he got that 11 OCV with a characteristic entirely, or partially with skill levels - he would still be superhumanly accurate.[/quote']

 

In the CU as written by the nice people at Hero you cannot have an OCV stat of greater than 10 without being super powered at some level. But there is no requirement even if you are using the CU that you run it exactly as it is written. Outside the strict CU, the Characteristic Comparison Table doesn't even rise to the level of an optional rule. It is just a sample way to compare characteristics.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I think it is unfortunate that the sample characters were not rethought for 6e' date=' ideally as brand new characters from the ground up. I suspect it was not a high priority - there are sample characters already, so updating those is easier than building brand-new characters. With the first sample characters now published, it seems unlikely they will not be compared to the characters that show up in the Enemies books. A villain described as a gymnast, for example, and having only an 18 DEX, will likely get referred to on the boards as "the gymnast who's less agile than the cow man". Rethinking the typical DEX of a Super for the 6e sample character and dropping Taurus to, say, an 11 or 13 would have avoided either maintaining the prior "virtually all Supers have amazing to Superhuman DEX" paradigm or having to explain the cow man being among the most agile published characters.[/quote']

 

I certainly agree that there is a place within the rules for worlds that have supers who are basically normal people outside of their specific super ability(ies). And I even agree that 6e has made creating those worlds easier. I just don't agree that because of that there is any requirement for Hero to change the CU into one of those worlds. Just because it is easier to build "Heroes are normals with powers" worlds doesn't mean that "Heroes are Superhumans that also have extraordinary powers" worlds are now invalid.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Exactly what Vondy said!

 

I had a discussion with a friend, and it kind of caught me off guard as to his expectations for the system, and others.

 

He said that with a proper Universal System you should be able to open the book, make a character and be able to insert them mechanically into any game and they would fit easily with no fuss.

 

I kind of balked at that... For me, you can't open the book and make a Character. You need to know what the parameters and expectations are. And you can't (or can't always) take a character from one game, or even multiple genres from the same GM, and make them fit together. Expectations could be different in every campaign.

 

However, I'd argue that with HERO you can drop characters from one setting into another with a minimum of effort (as opposed to D20, Chaosium, BESM, or even GURPS).

 

Which makes sample characters in the generic rules mildly useless - because they don't have the full setting around them to give context. On the other hand they are useful in that you can see how a full character is put together - otherwise you get Scott Heine's very first character who can project darkness globe and fly... and that's all - not even defenses! While it was a funny story he told, it illustrated the point that an example character is just as much what needs to be put in to a character as it is what the actual numbers are. More so.

 

Or my friend Steve's first PC, which has a PD of 6, because "that's 3 times as tough as a normal, right?"

 

For the record, I ported everything for Kazei 5 right over from 5E to 6E. While I realized that I could have made major changes in cybernetics and the various NPCs, I honestly didn't want to expend the energy. I felt what I'd done in 4E (and 5E) for the setting was sufficent, and didn't want to go back and redo everything for 6E. It was simpler to do straight migrations of the numbers and leave it at that. While it did result in some serious point creep (Marta Nys went from around 425 to 550, her sister Shion went from 920 to 1,000+), it also kept what I felt were the proper values for the characters. In addition, I felt I needed to keep certain assumptiions (such as Reflex Augmentation increasing DEX, which increases CV) meaning I had to buy some things twice (i.e. buying both DEX and OCV/DCV). However, I'm certanly not going to accusing of playing K5 wrong if you cut back some of these values. Once you buy the book it's your setting.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Well and true except that - in this case - the sample characters are not actually in the generic brules but in the specific sections on genre by genre examples.

 

It is common for non- or less frequent hero users, those most likely playing as opposed to gming, to make the mistake of thinking HERO IS A GAME as opposed to HERO IS A GAME BUILDING TOOLKIT, IMX.

 

But regardless, i would expect sample characters in the genre specific sections to be good ones, exempletive of the system's handling of the genre.

 

and i too hope they do wind up doing the followup characters from the ground up and if i were them i would simply erratta taurus and the others once the new "how we try and represent these in hero" work is actually done.

 

Yes, well, the sample characters are just that, samples. Heck, IMO, they're fairly basic and in some cases, seriously under-represent the genre they are a sample for. For example, the Ninja Hero sample character is nothing like what I'd imagine for the genre ( I mean, he's only 175 points!) The same goes for the Cyber Hero sample character (who's also way too low for my tastes at 175.) Both also lack a lot of the flavor I'd want to build into them. But then they're just meant to be examples, showing how to build a character, nothing else.

 

And in case you're wondering, I'd create a NH character to look like he walked out of a Hong Kong martial arts film, complete with STR, DEX, and CON of 20+, lots of Accurate Leaping, 20+ points of Martial Arts, possibly a weapon, and several special techniques (invisible chi blast/punch, pressure point strikes, sword energy, and so on). The Cyber Hero guy would have a lot more cybernetics, or similar cyber, but with a lot more Advantages/Limitations to better define how they are meant to work. But in either case, I'm also thinking of a lot more specific setting then the highly generic ones the sample NPCs are written for.

 

Finally, I agree with Oddhat's assessment, that despite the standard 175 points for normal heroes that DOJ uses for things like Fantasy Hero, Pulp Hero, and so on, it's too low. Depending on the genre, PCs should be starting with 225-275 points. Of course, on the other hand, Star Hero and PA Hero work just fine at 175 points. It's all a matter of taste.

[tesuji]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Yes' date=' well, the sample characters are just that, samples. Heck, IMO, they're fairly basic and in some cases, seriously under-represent the genre they are a sample for. For example, the Ninja Hero sample character is nothing like what I'd imagine for the genre ( I mean, he's [u']only[/u] 175 points!) The same goes for the Cyber Hero sample character (who's also way too low for my tastes at 175.) Both also lack a lot of the flavor I'd want to build into them. But then they're just meant to be examples, showing how to build a character, nothing else.

 

And in case you're wondering, I'd create a NH character to look like he walked out of a Hong Kong martial arts film, complete with STR, DEX, and CON of 20+, lots of Accurate Leaping, 20+ points of Martial Arts, possibly a weapon, and several special techniques (invisible chi blast/punch, pressure point strikes, sword energy, and so on). The Cyber Hero guy would have a lot more cybernetics, or similar cyber, but with a lot more Advantages/Limitations to better define how they are meant to work. But in either case, I'm also thinking of a lot more specific setting then the highly generic ones the sample NPCs are written for.

 

Finally, I agree with Oddhat's assessment, that despite the standard 175 points for normal heroes that DOJ uses for things like Fantasy Hero, Pulp Hero, and so on, it's too low. Depending on the genre, PCs should be starting with 225-275 points. Of course, on the other hand, Star Hero and PA Hero work just fine at 175 points. It's all a matter of taste.

 

i fully understand that any given campaign can and will have whatever limits and standards its users wish.

 

But in this case, we are dealing with genre specific examples in a case where they do have defined standards for the various levels.

 

175 may seem low to you for Ninja hero and thats fine but the characters they presented matched points wise with the campaign standards they put forth.

 

What seems askew in those examples to me is the sense of "the points mean something." A 23 dex isn't just a good rounding but a measure of "really high dex" based on the norms.

 

Now sure, if they define the other characters in the cu so that your typical hulking brute is supposed to be more agile than an olympic gymnast thats fine, but so far nothing EXCEPT THE NUMBERS seems to indicate this as a design parameter.

 

It looks to me like they just kept to old 5e design parameters where high dex was the norm since thats how you get cv. That status quo to me runs contrary to one of the better changes in 6e and is a missed opportunity to highlight the improvement.

 

another generation of olympic gymnast bricks is fine of course, if thats what you are into, but for me i am glad to have the opportunity to see more diversity and more "the numbers mean something" concepts not punished by the point buy.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Yeah, count me in the, "Example characters are just that, not a ruling on how you can use the system yourself," crowd. I tend to build most things from the ground up and tinker with the rest rather than using it as-is anyway. **shrug**

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

It looks to me like they just kept to old 5e design parameters where high dex was the norm since thats how you get cv. That status quo to me runs contrary to one of the better changes in 6e and is a missed opportunity to highlight the improvement.

 

Or.. as Archermoo has pointed out at least twice now...

 

They did not change the Champions Universe parameters, which is the sample universe Taurus nominally comes from. So he has to comform to those now long establish thresholds.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I certainly agree that there is a place within the rules for worlds that have supers who are basically normal people outside of their specific super ability(ies). And I even agree that 6e has made creating those worlds easier. I just don't agree that because of that there is any requirement for Hero to change the CU into one of those worlds. Just because it is easier to build "Heroes are normals with powers" worlds doesn't mean that "Heroes are Superhumans that also have extraordinary powers" worlds are now invalid.

 

I will admit to not reading the CU materials in detail. Does it actually, explicitly SAY somewhere in those materials that, in the CU, "Heroes are Superhumans that also have extraordinary powers", clarifying that most/all Superheroes have Dexterity, SPD and CON well beyond the norm for human beings? Or does it just sweep it under the rug due to the history of DEX and SPD in Champions since 1e? The former is a true design decision.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Hmmm...would changing the typical characteristics of Supers have impacted the MMO, I wonder? That would certainly be a motivation to keep typical Supers at a DEX level far beyond that of ordinary earth men.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

What happens if a player ignores the sample character (or assumes Taurus is supposed to be highly dextrous) and builds a character based on the benchmarks set in the text? I can see a new player being turned off if he builds a character to the concept that he is "at the peak of human potential", and every other character on the team has similar or higher stats.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

There is another side to this - Taurus has a high DEX not because he needed the CV (a 5E mentality) but because the player wanted a nimble minotaur with good reflexes.

 

Someone new to the system has no history to compare this version to and doesn't see a "design" issue.

 

To answer Hugh's last question - they need to talk too the gm of the game so their expectations aren't lost to a series of extremely arbitrary numbers. The same way you'd get a shock nakng a bulletproof Hero based on the book only to find the GM has eaised all the DCs from the book by 50%.... It's a matter of expectations rather than rules.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I will admit to not reading the CU materials in detail. Does it actually' date=' explicitly SAY somewhere in those materials that, in the CU, "Heroes are Superhumans that also have extraordinary powers", clarifying that most/all Superheroes have Dexterity, SPD and CON well beyond the norm for human beings? Or does it just sweep it under the rug due to the history of DEX and SPD in Champions since 1e? The former is a true design decision.[/quote']

 

Does it explicitly SAY somewhere in the CU materials "We would've preferred to build our Heroes as normals who are only superior in certain limited ways, but found that our system restricted that too much"?

 

My impression of the CU has come from reading the materials. Not just the character sheets, but the material behind them. And from conversations I've had with Steve and Darren. But I'll quite openly admit (and have all along) that it is simply my opinion. We'll see if things change.

 

My main point is that just because the system now allows for different type of world to be more easily modeled doesn't necessarily mean that the the CU should be changed.

 

Hmmm...would changing the typical characteristics of Supers have impacted the MMO' date=' I wonder? That would certainly be a motivation to keep typical Supers at a DEX level far beyond that of ordinary earth men.[/quote']

 

I can't imagine how. While the characteristics have most of the same names in the MMO, they don't do the same things.

 

What happens if a player ignores the sample character (or assumes Taurus is supposed to be highly dextrous) and builds a character based on the benchmarks set in the text? I can see a new player being turned off if he builds a character to the concept that he is "at the peak of human potential"' date=' and every other character on the team has similar or higher stats.[/quote']

 

I don't know. Maybe he'll think "huh, my character is at the peak of human potential, but the other characters are super powered". Maybe he'll think "cool, they spent even more points on Characteristics than I did, leaving me with comparatively more points in Skill, Talents, Perks, and Powers". Who knows.

 

In a supers campaign, if someone sets their Con equal to Rasputin's and then expects to have the highest Con in the game I think they're setting themselves up for disappointment. Heck, if someone want to have their character have the highest in anything and doesn't talk to at least the Ref if not the others players they're setting themselves up for disappointment.

[Susano]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I think the CU is similar to the Marvel and DC universes, in which putting on a costume gets you certain physical benefits across the board, no matter who you are. One of these is being quicker than the bulk of "regular" humanity. Obviously, other super hero universes, such as Heroes and Wild Cards work differently.

 

Now, considering the CU's roughly 28 year history, characters have gotten faster and tougher as time has gone by. But it's been fairly consistent and most of us have a fairly good idea what the CU benchmarks are. So it'd be pointless to change them, not to mention, changing them would serve no purpose other than to make older products even harder to use with 6E.

[archermoo]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

I think the CU is similar to the Marvel and DC universes' date=' in which putting on a costume gets you certain physical benefits across the board, no matter who you are. One of these is being quicker than the bulk of "regular" humanity. Obviously, other super hero universes, such as [i']Heroes[/i] and Wild Cards work differently.

 

Now, considering the CU's roughly 28 year history, characters have gotten faster and tougher as time has gone by. But it's been fairly consistent and most of us have a fairly good idea what the CU benchmarks are. So it'd be pointless to change them, not to mention, changing them would serve no purpose other than to make older products even harder to use with 6E.

 

The only quibble I would have with this is the change over time. I haven't done the studies (as while I've been playing Champions/Hero since 1981 until 5e I never really bought anything but the core rules) but my understanding from people who actually have is that at least published characters haven't really gotten faster and tougher as time has gone by.

[Peregrine]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

What happens if a player ignores the sample character (or assumes Taurus is supposed to be highly dextrous) and builds a character based on the benchmarks set in the text? I can see a new player being turned off if he builds a character to the concept that he is "at the peak of human potential"' date=' and every other character on the team has similar or higher stats.[/quote']

 

Except that "the peak of human potential" is explicitly stated in 6e to be at the top of the Legendary characteristic range, however the GM defines that range; there is a suggested set of ranges given in the text that remain the standard for the CU. A character who is at "the peak of human potential" as given in that set of ranges will be a very capable character indeed...

[James Gillen]

Re: Thats one nimble little bull

 

Don't bet on it. Such a paradigm shift would require fundamental changes in the base assumptions that have not only been inherited from 5e and previous' date=' but have been clearly stated in 6e.[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but what would those be? Because if the premises have been clearly stated in 6E, then the conversion characters wouldn't have their CV stats attempt to match where they would have been with 5th Edition DEX. It seems to me that if you want to make CV expensive - real expensive - and de-emphasize the role of DEX in it, then DEX becomes less of a "god stat" (a good thing, IMO) but you want either (or both) DEX and CV stats to be less than what they were in other editions.

 

You do indeed have to make a paradigm shift in thinking to use the new edition of the game, but the example characters don't reflect that.

 

JG