Adversarial Answers

Tasha · December 4, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

Sorry, I didn't mean to make you a target and I did not explain he discussion well. Yours was just he most recent example I had of someone banning a build out of hand with no further discussion that was obviously not about game balance.

Back on topic, even when "game balance" is the reason given for changing something I am baffled at how often the individual in question admits to not actually having tried the RAW first, they just assume there will be an issue. I see this pretty often, especially with certain new players.

I have seen it was experienced Veterans of the system too. They looked at the rule and had a knee jerk reaction of "no that isn't right" and then ban the rule. They do this without trying out the new rule.

Epic Legand · December 5, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I hate it when a build gets nerfed without being given a chance to try it out. On the other hand, I have built VVP that have made myself SOOO useful, that I shined at every scene. Had to retire that build I feel that anything that slows up gameplay A LOT is a no go, witch can include summon,duplication or anything that take too long to rule on...if its only once, no problem. Everybody at the table should have a chance to play. I do like VVP's, and with the right limits, they can be fun and balanced.

BTW, I like and use "Unified" lots, I always had a hard time understanding how you could only drain "Part" of my mutant powers. Also it is the replacement for EC, or a reward for having a thematic powerset...Fire powers instead of fire blast plus mindcontrol.

Tasha · December 5, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

BTW' date=' I like and use "Unified" lots, I always had a hard time understanding how you could only drain "Part" of my mutant powers. Also it is the replacement for EC, or a reward for having a thematic powerset...Fire powers instead of fire blast plus mindcontrol.[/quote']

The answer to both of those is Yes. It's a replacement for Elemental Controls, which was also both a reward for having a Strongly themed Power set. One so strongly themed that if one power is drained all powers are drained.

bigbywolfe · December 5, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

The answer to both of those is Yes. It's a replacement for Elemental Controls' date=' which was also both a reward for having a Strongly themed Power set. One so strongly themed that if one power is drained all powers are drained.[/quote']
I'm pretty sure that wasn't a question...

Greywind · December 5, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

That's alright. I lost on Jeopardy.

Ice9 · December 5, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

Right after that is "nonsensical or incomprehensible" (and I include KS: internet access in that category).

I would stat it a bit differently (as a Data Search everyman skill, either a PS or a full skill, depending on the campaign), plus Network Connection IAF if you want a smartphone that reliably survives action scenes.

However, I don't see anything "nonsensical" about the fact that in the modern day, most people can look up information without needing to be an expert on the subject. Sure, you could say it devalues some knowledge skills. But airlines, or even "being able to take a taxi" devalue some movement skills, supermarkets devalue wilderness foraging skills, and so forth. Or conversely, technopathy is lot less useful in a bronze-age campaign. What powers are useful is always going to depend on the campaign.

Heck, I often find the counterarguments against it to invoke some pretty nonsensical examples; in a thread recently somebody mentioned a particular piece of information as "not something you could just easily Google without a knowledge skill". I found it on the first page of results, in a few seconds (and it was not a subject I'm knowledgeable about).

Tasha · December 6, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I'm pretty sure that wasn't a question...

sorry I was tired when I read that originally. He said "it is a". and I read "is it a"

Sorry for the unneeded explanation.

Sean Waters · December 6, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

As someone who often plays as a GM, I think it is worth saying that sometimes there are good reasons for not allowing certain powers or builds that you don't want to explain to the other players because it would ruin the story.

For example, as a GM I'm often not keen on anything that involves time travel/retrocognition as it tends to make a lot of plots difficult to manage.

Bear in mind that the GM is playing the game too, and, usually, having to put in more homework than anyone else at the table. If they don't want you to have a VPP, well, why should your concept of how the game should go be more important than theirs?

I would expect a GM to have good reasons for decisions, but then I'd expect anyone to have good reasons for decisions. I would not necessarily expect the GM to have to explain his reasons to the players.

Good gaming is often about trust. Trust your GM, and GMs, trust your players. Good gaming is also about having a collective goal - to make the game enjoyable. Hero gives you immense choice over character build, so if certain avenues are closed to you, there will still be a functionally infinite number of other options. Sometimes I get the impression that because you can build almost anything in Hero, some people get a sense of entitlement that they should be able to, or their creativity is being stifled. I disagree: at worst their choices are being limited, but limiting what is allowed or possible is actually a stimulant to creativity. You only really need creativity when you can't do whatever you like.

I'm going to step into the realm of heresy now. A number of the people I regularly play with are not that bothered about the rules for character creation. Several of them are there because it is an enjoyable excuse to spend time together. When I am running a game I will often create characters for them, in fact that is the norm. If someone wants to create their own character, fine, subject to oversight, but when I create characters it is with an eye to the overall team effect, synergies and conflicts. I genuinely believe that you can have more fun that way. It is not a mad control thing: I'm usually surprised by HOW the characters I built are used, and how different they wind up being from what I had imagined, but that is because the players have used what they have creatively.

I expect the same in return too: when I am playing and someone else is running the game, I'm perfectly happy to be given a pre-generated character. I know it won't take long to make it mine: an accent or mannerism, a turn of phrase or even a particular approach to combat all provide character and depth that numbers on a page can not.

So: should a GM be able to say 'No'?

Yes.

Clonus · December 6, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I would stat it a bit differently (as a Data Search everyman skill, either a PS or a full skill, depending on the campaign), plus Network Connection IAF if you want a smartphone that reliably survives action scenes.

However, I don't see anything "nonsensical" about the fact that in the modern day, most people can look up information without needing to be an expert on the subject.

Yes, but "internet access" is not in fact a knowledge skill.

Sean Waters · December 6, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I think that if you do build a skill that allows you to look up stuff online, or the equivalent, I would like to see some sort of side effects: most people can look up stuff without being an expert, but there is a world of difference between seeing it written down and understanding it, and, Wikipedia is not always 100% accurate...

Something like the date of the Battle of Hastings - no problemo. Want to know what a Neapolitan Mastiff looks like? Easy! If you want to look up the formulas Newton's Laws of Motion, well, probably more of a problem to be honest, but easy enough. You want to apply that knowledge? Hmm...I'm going to want you to show me where you have 'Maths' or 'Physics' on your character sheet.

Equally, if you want to identify the type of dog that nearly ate your jeep - also difficult. The internet is pretty good at SOME searches - not so good at others, and identifying something from a description or an image is one area where it can be difficult.

You also have to know what you are looking for. A great example of that is online illness diagnosis. A lot of people are capable of looking up their symptoms, but only a much smaller subset are going to get a diagnosis right - and without expert knowledge, that chance of getting it right is highly random. Diagnose the wrong illness, take the wrong medicine - bad things happen. Side effects.

I would certainly allow something like this to be used to improve your chances with another skill you had, or act as complementary skill. Even spelling is important: complementary and complimentary mean different things. I certainly concede that internet access, or the equivalent database access, is a powerful tool used right, but it can be easy to use wrong...

Actually, there is a Perk called Computer Link, isn't there? You might allow a 1 point Computer Link as an Everyman perk, giving you access to and knowledge of how to use the Internet.

Vanguard · December 6, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

As someone who often plays as a GM, I think it is worth saying that sometimes there are good reasons for not allowing certain powers or builds that you don't want to explain to the other players because it would ruin the story.

For example, as a GM I'm often not keen on anything that involves time travel/retrocognition as it tends to make a lot of plots difficult to manage.

Bear in mind that the GM is playing the game too, and, usually, having to put in more homework than anyone else at the table. If they don't want you to have a VPP, well, why should your concept of how the game should go be more important than theirs?

I would expect a GM to have good reasons for decisions, but then I'd expect anyone to have good reasons for decisions. I would not necessarily expect the GM to have to explain his reasons to the players.

Good gaming is often about trust. Trust your GM, and GMs, trust your players. Good gaming is also about having a collective goal - to make the game enjoyable. Hero gives you immense choice over character build, so if certain avenues are closed to you, there will still be a functionally infinite number of other options. Sometimes I get the impression that because you can build almost anything in Hero, some people get a sense of entitlement that they should be able to, or their creativity is being stifled. I disagree: at worst their choices are being limited, but limiting what is allowed or possible is actually a stimulant to creativity. You only really need creativity when you can't do whatever you like.

I'm going to step into the realm of heresy now. A number of the people I regularly play with are not that bothered about the rules for character creation. Several of them are there because it is an enjoyable excuse to spend time together. When I am running a game I will often create characters for them, in fact that is the norm. If someone wants to create their own character, fine, subject to oversight, but when I create characters it is with an eye to the overall team effect, synergies and conflicts. I genuinely believe that you can have more fun that way. It is not a mad control thing: I'm usually surprised by HOW the characters I built are used, and how different they wind up being from what I had imagined, but that is because the players have used what they have creatively.

I expect the same in return too: when I am playing and someone else is running the game, I'm perfectly happy to be given a pre-generated character. I know it won't take long to make it mine: an accent or mannerism, a turn of phrase or even a particular approach to combat all provide character and depth that numbers on a page can not.

So: should a GM be able to say 'No'?

Yes.

Bah . . .

"You must spread reputation around before adding to Sean Water's again" . .

Consider yourself +1ed.

Ndreare · December 7, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

Yes' date=' but "internet access" is not in fact a knowledge skill.[/quote']

The way I figure it Research is the skill.

Cell phones and computers are tools we use that give huge bonuses.

Greywind · December 7, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

Sucks when you don't have signal.

Ndreare · December 7, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

Sucks when you don't have signal.

You must use sprint. Go with verizon, always a signal.

Greywind · December 7, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I don't use cell phones. It's like having the Devil in your pocket.

Sean Waters · December 7, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

You must use sprint. Go with verizon' date=' always a signal.[/quote']

That must be who Mulder and Scully used then...

Sean Waters · December 7, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I don't use cell phones. It's like having the Devil in your pocket.

Hmm. The Devil in my pocket is not a cell phone...he's probably looking for idle hands.

Too much information?

Egyptoid · December 11, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I can't tell if this is on topic or not, but here's a snippet of a conversation.

I was hoping to "turn" this guy's gaming group from M&M to Champions.

His retort was "we don't like math". :nonp: They are using M&M 3, which is just as tweaky as you could accuse Hero.

phoenix240 · December 11, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

I think much of Hero's rep as "complicated" is perception created from it being repeated (and blown out of proportion) so much its become hopelessly embedded in popular gaming consciousness. Hero System is considered by some to be more complicated than GURPS an utterly sprawling system that's spread out across several rule and setting books.

Merrick · December 12, 2012

Re: Adversarial Answers

As I am only running my first true HERO campaign (was having trouble getting the players on board for many of the reasons that Egyptoid and phoenix240 mentioned), I also make my players' characters for them. They're slowly learning the system, but I'm still doing the lion's share of the building and math.

I've really only had problems with one player in particular who is a pretty serious munchkin and doesn't seem to get the whole "theme" idea very well. He'll often state ideas for powers and things that he wants me to build and I often find myself talking him out of them, simply because they do not make sense. His character is a badly scarred, former adopted native American tribesman who became touched by the ancient Spirits and gained an ability to channel their power and see/communicate with them.

He walks up to me last week and says "I want to be able to travel between dimensions."

Me: "..... wut?"

Cue a 15 minute circular conversation of me telling him that it doesn't make sense for his character and him saying he still wanted it. Ultimately I just had to say 'no.' Because if I didn't, the game would never have gotten started.

I consider myself a fair person, and I want my players to have fun, so if they have a great idea for a power that makes sense, I'll try to make it work. But not everything makes sense or works with the game/setting. A lot of times, the flexibility of Champions is it's strength AND weakness. Especially when you're in certain settings.

e.g. There likely wouldn't be any futuristic space blasters in a Fantasy HERO campaign.

Not saying it's impossible, but it's very, very unlikely in about 90% of such campaigns I've ever read.

With VPPs, though, I saw the argument that a power should at least be tested before it is outright vetoed, and I agree with that. However, if I remember that section of the Vol 1. right, VPPs have that little stop sign next to their listing for a reason. They're difficult to use and potentially game breaking, and that's from the developers who built the game. A GM would not be out of bounds to be extra cautious when dealing with any VPP.

For the power in question... Eh, I wouldn't charge for it based on setting. Modern day, no way. Anyone can use the internet to learn basic information. Now trying to apply complicated concepts learned from the internet is going to require time and some roles. Just because you can look up how to build a rocket on the internet doesn't mean you can actually build one.

Now there are cases when this may not apply. For example, there are detailed videos online (not saying I watched them, but I have seen certain episodes of CSI: Las Vegas) which give detailed instructions on building a pipe bomb from normal, everyday substances.

Ultimately, my case for the internet power is that defining it is trying to make something reliable out of something that really isn't in many situations. I would just adjudicate internet use and use it as a plot device. Why have characters spend points on something modern day children can do? If what the character is looking for can actually be found on the internet, I'll let them have it. Adding mechanics and rolls when not really serving a dramatic purpose just bogs the game down, in my opinion.

... I rambled a bit, apologies.