Group equipment MP or VPP

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

As for the points' date=' I realize I have a different outlook on the entire concept. I don't care what the point totals are. I don't even care if the points are ever added up. I only care about what the character can do. Doesn't matter to me if they are a mutant, magician, or rich guy with gadgets - what can they do today, during this scenario, is the key. If allowing a rich guy to buy gadgets makes him unbalanced compared to the other characters, give them more points, or just don't allow rich characters. If a guy off the street can rent scuba gear, but a player character cannot, I would argue it destroys some of the believability in the campaign world.[/quote']

 

I think points are an important part of the Hero system's play balance. You can achieve play balance in other ways, but ending up with Thor and the Falcon on the same team seems likely to end with one player feeling his character is useless. May as well go back to random roll. If you roll all high stats, you get a better character and tough luck for the guys whose dice weren't so hot.

 

I'd allow this type of character without a second thought. In fact' date=' I'd say you just described Batman.[/quote']

 

Let's build Superman with our 400 points, then give him all Batman's gear, and a Green Lantern ring. In the Hero context, Bats and GL bought abilities other than innate super powers. There's nothing wrong with any of the three concepts. However, if we want a balanced game (and that is an IF - some games run just fine with no balance between PC's), then we need some mechanism to keep their abilities reasonably comparable in effectiveness.

 

I'd say yes' date=' he can ask for intervention. Of course he can. The chance to get it, and how it would be implemented, would have to be worked out in the character concept beforehand. If filthy rich or divine ancestry is allowed, they should be allowed to use it to the logical ends. If you're not willing to allow it to be used logically, don't allow it in the campaign to start with. I don't like players reading minds, as I'm not good with dealing with this as a GM, and so discourage telepathy and clairvoyance type powers. I don't have a problem with them buying gear, so I allow it.[/quote']

 

The other side of this coin is that, if your character can logically have these benefits from his concept and abilities, he should pay the points for them. That's why the system has points. Why would I ever write in that back story that Zeus' grandson is anything but Grandpa's favoured grandchild and heir apparent? Now, presumably, you will restrict the character in some other way - likely not allowing the concept which can call thunderbolts from the sky in a grim & gritty sword and sorcery game where the characters are expected to be at risk in a fight with a city guardsman. But the RAW Hero balancing mechanism is character points - you pay for what you get.

 

It completely depends on how you approach roleplaying and character design. To me' date=' everything starts at the character conception and writeup. If the writeup says the power set is X, and X logically means Y and Z, then the character automatically has Y and Z. Points don't matter - he has them. If I (or the other players) are uncomfortable with the idea of Y and Z, then concept X is not allowed. Perhaps the slightly different concept W must be used, or maybe the concept has to be abandoned. To bring in a different thread, if the character is invulnerable to fire in the concept and description, then it is invulnerable to all fire. The implementation of this does not matter, and for me at least, doesn't not have to even be implemented within the rules - just write down Invuln to Fire on the character sheet and be done with it. Whether this is an unbalanced character for the campaign is a totally different issue, and is judged separately.[/quote']

 

I think that your advice, while good advice for a game balanced by judgement rather than character points, is not relevant to a gaming group which wants to use the rules, including point-based character design, as written. For a new gamer wanting balance from something other than points, a game system that does not use points, but balances in some other way, would seem more useful.

[Martin2]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

It completely depends on how you approach roleplaying and character design. To me, everything starts at the character conception and writeup. If the writeup says the power set is X, and X logically means Y and Z, then the character automatically has Y and Z. Points don't matter - he has them. If I (or the other players) are uncomfortable with the idea of Y and Z, then concept X is not allowed. Perhaps the slightly different concept W must be used, or maybe the concept has to be abandoned. To bring in a different thread, if the character is invulnerable to fire in the concept and description, then it is invulnerable to all fire. The implementation of this does not matter, and for me at least, doesn't not have to even be implemented within the rules - just write down Invuln to Fire on the character sheet and be done with it. Whether this is an unbalanced character for the campaign is a totally different issue, and is judged separately.

 

What about characters that start out with one concept and then assume several sessions into the campaign states "I earn 500,000 a year so I can buy what ever I wantin the way of equipment". So a background that is not the concept he explained to me in character development.

 

In my campaign this is the case. His background was rich inherited with social skills connected and he could Teleport. He has a multipower with every trick in the book for transporting the party 5,000km, through teleport protected walls etc (he also said he wanted to be an olympic level archer which he would do tricks with his teleports but told me nothing about the tricks so I just gave him a ranged KA and he has not used it). He is also said "I have teleport 100kg so I should be able to teleport people out of armour, tyres of vehicles and drop them on people" all for free and not paid for.

 

So he had powers X (teleport) and Y (rich) and assumed Z (Multipower gadgateer) was free.

[Orion]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

And this Thread is about helping a new GM, dealing with a player who want's the effects of a 40 Control 40 Pool Vpp for a 5 Point Money Perk.

 

While the "No Points" approach is a valid way to play, it will not help Martin to deal with his Gadgeteer Teleporter who wants a lot of Stuff for free.

 

I beg to differ - I think it is the best way for him to deal with the issue. And if he is indeed a beginning GM, maybe this advice, and trying this technique, can move him into the intermediate stage. Obviously, a lot of people dislike the idea, and it's not for everyone, but that doesn't make it a bad solution. And as I've tried to say in other posts, "get stuff for free" is a result of the mindset approach to the game. If looked at in other ways, it loses much of the bad connotations.

[Orion]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

I think points are an important part of the Hero system's play balance. You can achieve play balance in other ways' date=' but ending up with Thor and the Falcon on the same team seems likely to end with one player feeling his character is useless. May as well go back to random roll. If you roll all high stats, you get a better character and tough luck for the guys whose dice weren't so hot.[/quote']

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to play in a campaign in which the characters are unbalanced in regards to combat. While I don't have to be the best, I can't handle others being significantly better. It's a personality flaw. That said, I like to GM unbalanced campaigns. My assumption is that some characters are best at combat, others at finding clues, and yet another in dealing with the public. I don't want characters to all be equal in every situation. So, Superman and Sandman on the same team is okay with me, and I'll make sure they have the same amount of start time. If I did combat heavy campaigns (which happens more often than not), I'd want the characters to be reasonably balanced. In a campaign with lots of non-combat time, balance is not important to me.

 

The other side of this coin is that' date=' if your character can logically have these benefits from his concept and abilities, he should pay the points for them. That's why the system has points.[/quote']

 

I can completely agree with this. The difference between us, I think, is that I would not put a cap on the number of points, or disallow new abilities that logically flow from the concept, but were not thought of at character creation. I might disallow a concept because it was too powerful (or not powerful enough), but I wouldn't limit the powers because of any artificial point cap.

 

I think that your advice' date=' while good advice for a game balanced by judgement rather than character points, is not relevant to a gaming group which wants to use the rules, including point-based character design, as written. For a new gamer wanting balance from something other than points, a game system that does not use points, but balances in some other way, would seem more useful.[/quote']

 

I completely agree with the first sentence, somewhat with the second. In my experience, point-based systems offer the best character creation. But, rather than using total points as a means of balance, use stuff like DC, OCV, SPD, etc to determine combat balance. Next, look at non-combat skills - does each character have about that same number of useful skills? If not, either have them add some, or be sure they are okay with the concept and potential lack of story time.

 

A gamist system like Hero is obviously going to attract people with a gamist attitude. However, it can easily be used in other ways, even by new players and GMs. I'm not saying a narrativist viewpoint is any better, just that it can easily work with the Hero system.

[Orion]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

What about characters that start out with one concept and then assume several sessions into the campaign states "I earn 500' date='000 a year so I can buy what ever I wantin the way of equipment". So a background that is not the concept he explained to me in character development.[/quote']

 

Personally, I would expect any character with a wealth perk to use it in this way, so it would not surprise me. I would also bring this up at character creation so that it would be covered right away. But, I'm sure there are a lot of inventive uses of powers that I will never think of will be sprung on me later. How this works out depends completely on the individual situation. In some cases, you just have to say "No, this would break the campaign".

 

In my campaign this is the case. His background was rich inherited with social skills connected and he could Teleport. He has a multipower with every trick in the book for transporting the party 5,000km, through teleport protected walls etc (he also said he wanted to be an olympic level archer which he would do tricks with his teleports but told me nothing about the tricks so I just gave him a ranged KA and he has not used it). He is also said "I have teleport 100kg so I should be able to teleport people out of armour, tyres of vehicles and drop them on people" all for free and not paid for.

 

So he had powers X (teleport) and Y (rich) and assumed Z (Multipower gadgateer) was free.

 

Forgetting all the pro/con arguments about points, balance, and judgement, here's how I'd handle this situation, and in the order I'd present the options to the players.

 

1. Tell the other players that this logical development of the character means he may potentially be more powerful in some situations. If they don't have a problem, I'd just give the player the points to build a VPP. It's a freebie from the GM - he just gets a lot more XP this session. Most of the players I've played with would have no problem with this, but a few would.

 

2. If the other players do have a problem, then offer to arrange minor radiation accidents in the future for each of them, and then give the teleporter the VPP. In short, the campaign point level jumps a bit. All players I've met would be okay with this.

 

3. Require the player to rework the teleporter to include a VPP. Doesn't have to be the same amount of points, but would be close. Drop the RKA, maybe reduce teleport distance a bit, increase the time required when teleporting. Get the player to define the concept as he has it now, and build on that, not the incorrect earlier concept. As a player, this would be my preferred option.

 

Regardless of the option chosen, let the player know that suggestions in this thread about object breakage and minimum time to port back for the gear will be enforced. I'd think a phase each way, plus at least one phase to find and grab the item, would be the minimum time required, and could be much longer. Most players I've met would not want to be gone from combat that long, and so would only use this ability to redo their equipment list between combats.

 

As for a base and/or group equipment, I'd just let him buy anything on the market and declare it as group property. If he has the money, he can blow it. Since it effectively belongs to the group, I wouldn't charge any points for it. If the base and the large equipment storehouse causes too many problems....well, that's what mindless powerhouses like Grond are useful for. Seriously, those things are like villain magnets - use them to your advantage.

[casualplayer]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

What about characters that start out with one concept and then assume several sessions into the campaign states "I earn 500,000 a year so I can buy what ever I wantin the way of equipment". So a background that is not the concept he explained to me in character development.

 

In my campaign this is the case. His background was rich inherited with social skills connected and he could Teleport. He has a multipower with every trick in the book for transporting the party 5,000km, through teleport protected walls etc (he also said he wanted to be an olympic level archer which he would do tricks with his teleports but told me nothing about the tricks so I just gave him a ranged KA and he has not used it). He is also said "I have teleport 100kg so I should be able to teleport people out of armour, tyres of vehicles and drop them on people" all for free and not paid for.

 

So he had powers X (teleport) and Y (rich) and assumed Z (Multipower gadgateer) was free.

 

Your player isn't playing the character. He's playing the abilities scribbled on the sheet married to his own imagination and tactical sense. If the ability isn't yet included on the character sheet it doesn't mean the character is incapable of it but it means they haven't thought of using their power that way yet. If it is going to be an infrequent series of creative displays then the character should buy Power Stunt: Teleport, realizing that sometimes he's going to concentrate, lash out with his power, blow his skill roll and fail at his new trick. If he wants a suite of abilities Teleport-related, he should have a TP MP that he can easily add new, creative ways of using his Teleport powers to as he thinks of them. Repurpose the arrow trick you mentioned towards the points for this. Or just say no. That stopsign for Teleport Usable as Attack is there for a reason.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

3. Require the player to rework the teleporter to include a VPP. Doesn't have to be the same amount of points' date=' but would be close. Drop the RKA, maybe reduce teleport distance a bit, increase the time required when teleporting. Get the player to define the concept as he has it now, and build on that, not the incorrect earlier concept. As a player, this would be my preferred option.[/quote']

 

This would be the most viable approach in most games, at least in my experience. I see no reason not to let players redesign characters - they could drop and replace a character to get a completely different build, so minor tweaks don't seem like that big a deal. So he stops carrying the bow and arrows (even if he had used them extensively - given the comments, they may never have been there to begin with) and starts using the gadgetry.

[Martin2]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

OK thanks everyone.

 

Lots of input from a points critical and points not so critical view points.

 

I am the points critical GM and him being the points not so critical player we have our clashes.

 

The game will probably be ending next week and I will offer as mentioned the character rewrite to him and all players (but not a radiation leak option as I think that is too cheesy . They will get to refocus their powers and get a chunk of EXP to spend). So he can go for a teleport reduction for a real gadget VPP or a group low tech easy to break low cost VPP.

 

What ever they want to do if I ever run a game they can have the characters they want.

[Christopher]

Re: Group equipment MP or VPP

 

This would be the most viable approach in most games' date=' at least in my experience. I see no reason not to let players redesign characters - they could drop and replace a character to get a completely different build, so minor tweaks don't seem like that big a deal. So he stops carrying the bow and arrows (even if he had used them extensively - given the comments, they may never have been there to begin with) and starts using the gadgetry.[/quote']

Well, when he wants to be good at Competitions but not nessesary at hitting something when his live depends on it:

PS: Sport Archer. It's one thing to hit a Target when it is sitting still, another when it is Ripper running towards you. Depending on how likely you both thing he is going to get something from that, it could even be something "not to spend points on".