Long time Hero players not liking 6e non-figured characteristics

[Killer Shrike]

Figureds survived five iterations of the rules.

That's like saying a bad employe that survived five layoffs shouldn't be laid off on the sixth go around, or that a tumor that survived five visits to the doctor shouldn't be detected and removed on the sixth, or that a engineering flaw that survived five production runs shouldn't be designed out for a sixth run. Etc. Sounds like the "because its always been that way" argument...

 

 

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

 

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
  
  • In actuality this may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
    

  [*]The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

  • In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.
    

 

 

 

 

The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.

 

 

 

The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries' date=' regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system. [/quote']

 

How do you figure they were a "major part of the system"? How do you measure "major". The lack of importance is even in the name "secondary", as in "of less importance".

 

I find your position that the "inherent relationship" itself was "a major part" of the system odd; to my perception the features of the HERO System that are of major importance are related to the meta-system rules, being a point based system wherein good things debit and bad things credit back, build abilities by reasoning from effect towards a common mechanic, the bell curve, and things of that nature.

 

 

Whether or not some people didn't like the accounting discrepancy has no bearing.

If you liking the accounting discrepancy has no bearing, and me not liking the accounting discrepancy has no bearing, then why are we arguing about it?

 

You might as well say "the logical inconsistency of point recursions in a game supposedly balanced by point equality has no bearing"; that would be the obverse of that argument.

 

Of course, if you go that route you may as well say no basis of any argument has bearing...

[Killer Shrike]

The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries' date=' regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system.[/quote'] And if you like the relationship, you're still free to use it. It's just not inherent anymore, so you're not required to use it. I still haven't seen anyone give a reason why removing that requirement is a bad thing...

 

Maybe because it's more fun to sit on the porch and yell at all them kids on your lawn.

[Killer Shrike]

The differences between 5e and 6e hardly qualify as "massive redesign". The majority of the differences are superficial at best, and the decoupling of stats is basically just an accounting change.

 

If I were the GM (I am), and my players were resistant to non-figured characteristics (they haven't been), I would simply take pity on their apparent lack of mathematical ability and point out that if they really want to they have the option on an individual character by character basis to enforce that particular limitation on themselves. They wont benefit from the broken free points recursions of course, but y'know...if it makes them feel better and all to "figure" their "secondaries" they can go right on ahead and do so.

 

The way I see it removing the recursive point factories that figureds made possible from the game was a bug fix. Some may have gotten used to exploiting the bug and cried about having it removed, but it was a correction that was a long time coming.

 

I just wish that Steve had been consistent and made DEX cost 1:1, using the side bar option to divorce DEX from initiative.

 

I also think all the CV's (OCV / DCV / OMCV / DMCV) should have been defaulted to 0 starting. They all resist each other across a base 11- roll anyway; nothing would have changed mechanically and it would have avoided the weirdness of characters with no mental powers having points sunk in OMCV, and would have undercut the current problem with the pricing of CSL's now that OCV and DCV are 5 points each.

This comment feature is weird...didn't notices this at first.

 

RE: your comment on "massive redesign"....ok, gotcha.

[Tasha]

Figureds were part of the system's flavor.

You are of course welcome to your opinion.

Figureds survived five iterations of the rules. The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries, regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system. Whether or not some people didn't like the accounting discrepancy has no bearing.

The HUGE game balance issues centered around Figureds, burned a ton of bandwith since 3rd edition (which was around the time of AOL's Hero boards). People have been asking for a way to balance figureds since way before then. Now Steve has done just that in 6e and in doing so has removed some of the shorthand in character gen. Now you actually have to understand the system a bit to properly choose your Secondary Chars. (Though you could use the old formulas as guidelines for minimums)

BTW inertia is no argument for keeping something around. Figured Characteristics were kept due to designers not wanting to refigure out that part of the game. Heck they imported Figured Characteristics into Champions New Millenium's Fuzion. That would have been a great place to experiment in decoupling the stats. I guess it was so unthinkable for so long no one even thought to try it.

[dmjalund]

attributes are secondary, not because they are less important, but because they are dependant on the primary characteristics

 

[Greywind]

Figureds survived five iterations of the rules.

That's like saying a bad employe that survived five layoffs shouldn't be laid off on the sixth go around' date=' or that a tumor that survived five visits to the doctor shouldn't be detected and removed on the sixth, or that a engineering flaw that survived five production runs shouldn't be designed out for a sixth run. Etc. Sounds like the "because its always been that way" argument... [i']Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[/i] An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
  
  • In actuality this may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
    

  [*]The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

  • In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.
    

The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.

The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries' date=' regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system. [/quote'] How do you figure they were a "major part of the system"? How do you measure "major". The lack of importance is even in the name "secondary", as in "of less importance". I find your position that the "inherent relationship" itself was "a major part" of the system odd; to my perception the features of the HERO System that are of major importance are related to the meta-system rules, being a point based system wherein good things debit and bad things credit back, build abilities by reasoning from effect towards a common mechanic, the bell curve, and things of that nature.

Whether or not some people didn't like the accounting discrepancy has no bearing.

If you liking the accounting discrepancy has no bearing' date=' and me not liking the accounting discrepancy has no bearing, then why are we arguing about it? You might as well say "the logical inconsistency of point recursions in a game supposedly balanced by point equality has no bearing"; that would be the obverse of that argument. Of course, if you go that route you may as well say no basis of any argument has bearing...[/quote']

 

You're arguing because you have to be right? In all your arguments you overlook one very simple human failing: people don't like change. Because I can see where the argument comes from and understand it, doesn't necessarily mean that I agree or disagree with it. Yes, there are highly intelligent people HERE that can argue and debate and point out why it should or should not be the way it was/is. But within that there are also many casual gamers that don't visit the board and play because "that's what the group is going with" and don't want to have explained why things are different and what changes they have to make to accommodate the next edition. They want things to continue the way they were comfortable with.

 

Tasha, I'm aware of those discussions. I never took part in them. Wasn't there to do so.

[Greywind]

attributes are secondary' date=' not because they are less important, but because they are dependant on the primary characteristics [/quote']

 

 

Very much the case.

[Killer Shrike]

Figureds survived five iterations of the rules.

That's like saying a bad employe that survived five layoffs shouldn't be laid off on the sixth go around' date=' or that a tumor that survived five visits to the doctor shouldn't be detected and removed on the sixth, or that a engineering flaw that survived five production runs shouldn't be designed out for a sixth run. Etc. Sounds like the "because its always been that way" argument... [i']Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[/i] An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
  
  • In actuality this may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
    

  [*]The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

  • In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.
    

The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.

The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries' date=' regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system. [/quote'] How do you figure they were a "major part of the system"? How do you measure "major". The lack of importance is even in the name "secondary", as in "of less importance". I find your position that the "inherent relationship" itself was "a major part" of the system odd; to my perception the features of the HERO System that are of major importance are related to the meta-system rules, being a point based system wherein good things debit and bad things credit back, build abilities by reasoning from effect towards a common mechanic, the bell curve, and things of that nature.

Whether or not some people didn't like the accounting discrepancy has no bearing.

If you liking the accounting discrepancy has no bearing' date=' and me not liking the accounting discrepancy has no bearing, then why are we arguing about it? You might as well say "the logical inconsistency of point recursions in a game supposedly balanced by point equality has no bearing"; that would be the obverse of that argument. Of course, if you go that route you may as well say no basis of any argument has bearing...[/quote'] You're arguing because you have to be right? In all your arguments you overlook one very simple human failing: people don't like change. Because I can see where the argument comes from and understand it, doesn't necessarily mean that I agree or disagree with it. Yes, there are highly intelligent people HERE that can argue and debate and point out why it should or should not be the way it was/is. But within that there are also many casual gamers that don't visit the board and play because "that's what the group is going with" and don't want to have explained why things are different and what changes they have to make to accommodate the next edition. They want things to continue the way they were comfortable with. Tasha, I'm aware of those discussions. I never took part in them. Wasn't there to do so.

 

I don't have to be "right"; but I find it works out better than being wrong.

 

As to change...if a person doesn't like change and edition shift in the first place, they probably have a bigger problem playing a game in its 6th edition.

 

Someone who likes 5th edition better than 6e are free to continue playing 5e. This seems like an imminently more sensible approach to me than continuing to bemoan the lack of figureds several years after the fact. But that's just me I guess.

[Killer Shrike]

attributes are secondary' date=' not because they are less important, but because they are dependant on the primary characteristics [/quote']

 

I think its amusing that this was the take away you felt compelled to comment on.

 

The comment was re: "The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries, regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system."

 

The point being I do not agree with this statement, that the mathematical relationship itself was a "major part" of the HERO System, nor do I think that decoupling them was a major change.

 

If things like SPEED, REC, STUN, END were removed from the system that would be a major change. Just changing how much of it a character gets for free is not.

 

As to semantics....

 

 

[h=3]sec·ond·ar·y[/h]

 

/ˈsekənˌderē/

 

[TABLE=class: vk_txt ts]

 

 

[TR]

 

[TD]

 

Adjective

 

 

[TABLE=class: ts]

 

 

[TR]

 

[TD]

Coming after, less important than, or resulting from someone or something else that is primary.[/TD]

 

[/TR]

 

 

[/TABLE]

 

 

 

[/TD]

 

[/TR]

 

[TR]

 

[TD]

[/TD]

 

[/TR]

 

 

[/TABLE]

 

[Greywind]

And you're focusing on the "less important than" rather than the "coming after" or "or resulting from" in your comment.

 

You're arguing statistics and numbers. I'm referring to people. People generally are lazy, don't want to have to change from comfortable ways of doing, or deal with change.

 

I still work with 5th. It isn't a matter of the changes. I haven't seen a copy of 6th to peruse to make reference to full on changes. Since I don't have access to those rules I have refused to look at lists of what exactly was changed. The reason I haven't looked at 6th is purely financial.

[Lucius]

 

Killer Shrike: First, let me agree with you that the way Figured Characteristics were done was broken and needed to be fixed. You are right in characterizing that as an objective, mathematical fact.

 

It DOES NOT FOLLOW however that the only possible solution was decoupling. Another solution would have been to devise a non-broken way to implement Figured Characteristics.

 

Being in favor of Figured Characteristics does not necessarily mean being opposed to change, opposed to game balance, or mathematically deficient. It can mean being in favor of reasonable or intuitive relationships among game elements that make sense.

 

I may have my doubts that the solution Steve Long chose was the best, but I will readily admit that what we have is better than what we had in the past.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Figured palindromedary

[Killer Shrike]

And you're focusing on the "less important than" rather than the "coming after" or "or resulting from" in your comment.

Why yes, yes I am. It did after all suit my argument and word play to do so.

 

You're arguing statistics and numbers.

I'm arguing game mechanics for a game based on statistical models (bell curve, effect) and numbers (point costs)...so...yeah, I am.

 

 

I'm referring to people. People generally are lazy, don't want to have to change from comfortable ways of doing, or deal with change.

 

This same argument comes up a lot in my line of work (software development). "We can't change things even if we should, because our users are stupid / lazy / set in their ways / or otherwise resistant to even positive changes".

 

It's usually self-serving bs, that is often more true of the speaker than of the general user base they cast such flaws upon.

 

But, even taking this as a given...if your point is correct and people are generally lazy, then it follows that they will do what is easiest / requires the least amount of effort on their part. Figureds require you to remember more "hidden" information in the form of additional calculations and math checking. Further, if new material is being published in a new edition and you don't want to make your own material or modify the published material, then it makes sense to use whatever the current edition is in its entirety. Finally, it takes effort to hold a strong opinion and more effort to type complaints about something into a message board and push a button...more effort than not doing so at least.

 

Therefore, if the "people are lazy" argument is valid, the same lazy people would not care that much about Figureds going a way, would not complain about it on message boards, would not spare the effort to think about making their own custom implementation of the new edition plus figureds, would not consider modifying published material to "retcon" figureds back in, and would not mind no longer having do extra calculations and point checking for figureds.

 

 

I still work with 5th. It isn't a matter of the changes. I haven't seen a copy of 6th to peruse to make reference to full on changes. Since I don't have access to those rules I have refused to look at lists of what exactly was changed. The reason I haven't looked at 6th is purely financial.

 

 

And I fully respect that. If you like 5e or it doesn't make financial system to move to 6e, then the sensible thing is to stay on 5e.

 

I did a tremendous amount of content for and ran a lot of games in 5e; its a great system, flaws included. Same for 4e. I'm not an upgrade or get out snob.

 

Bottom line, I'd far rather you and your group play some version of the HERO System than some other game entirely.

 

I'm just really, really tired of the same old figured characteristic remonstrances.

[Killer Shrike]

Killer Shrike: First' date=' let me agree with you that the way Figured Characteristics were done was broken and needed to be fixed. You are right in characterizing that as an objective, mathematical fact. It DOES NOT FOLLOW however that the only possible solution was decoupling. Another solution would have been to devise a non-broken way to implement Figured Characteristics. Being in favor of Figured Characteristics does not necessarily mean being opposed to change, opposed to game balance, or mathematically deficient. It can mean being in favor of reasonable or intuitive relationships among game elements that make sense. I may have my doubts that the solution Steve Long chose was the best, but I will readily admit that what we have is better than what we had in the past. Lucius Alexander Figured palindromedary[/quote']

 

 

Sure...a non-mathematically broken version of figureds could have been devised.

 

One could argue, that the most elegant way to solve the problem was to de-couple them entirely and allow the flexibility to "figure" or not as desired for individual characters.

 

One could present an alternative mechanism and argue its merits.

 

If a person were to explain, "no no no, what I meant by that is the general idea, but using this completely different, very awesome, and totally elegant alternate implementation I'm about to tell you about"...then that would be a different discussion altogether.

 

However, when people say they miss figured characteristics they generally would be taken to mean as they were implemented in previous editions, and not to mean some other non-existent more elegant / less broken implementation.

[Tasha]

Killer Shrike: First, let me agree with you that the way Figured Characteristics were done was broken and needed to be fixed. You are right in characterizing that as an objective, mathematical fact.

 

It DOES NOT FOLLOW however that the only possible solution was decoupling. Another solution would have been to devise a non-broken way to implement Figured Characteristics.

 

Being in favor of Figured Characteristics does not necessarily mean being opposed to change, opposed to game balance, or mathematically deficient. It can mean being in favor of reasonable or intuitive relationships among game elements that make sense.

 

I may have my doubts that the solution Steve Long chose was the best, but I will readily admit that what we have is better than what we had in the past.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Figured palindromedary

I agree that the solution might not have been the only solution, but it is one that would have ruffled less feathers and probably hurt the system less than any of the other solutions I saw. The nice thing about decoupling is that all but a few characteristics cost a point each. Which does make the math behind choosing characteristics easier.

The main problem people have with the decoupling is that it seems on the surface that the Secondaries should be attached to the Primary Characteristics in some way.

I still think that in the long run decoupling was the best in a list of suboptimal solutions (including leaving figured chars alone).

[Tasha]

Killer Shrike: First' date=' let me agree with you that the way Figured Characteristics were done was broken and needed to be fixed. You are right in characterizing that as an objective, mathematical fact. It DOES NOT FOLLOW however that the only possible solution was decoupling. Another solution would have been to devise a non-broken way to implement Figured Characteristics. Being in favor of Figured Characteristics does not necessarily mean being opposed to change, opposed to game balance, or mathematically deficient. It can mean being in favor of reasonable or intuitive relationships among game elements that make sense. I may have my doubts that the solution Steve Long chose was the best, but I will readily admit that what we have is better than what we had in the past. Lucius Alexander Figured palindromedary[/quote']

 

 

Sure...a non-mathematically broken version of figureds could have been devised.

 

One could argue, that the most elegant way to solve the problem was to de-couple them entirely and allow the flexibility to "figure" or not as desired for individual characters.

 

One could present an alternative mechanism and argue its merits.

 

If a person were to explain, "no no no, what I meant by that is the general idea, but using this completely different, very awesome, and totally elegant alternate implementation I'm about to tell you about"...then that would be a different discussion altogether.

 

However, when people say they miss figured characteristics they generally would be taken to mean as they were implemented in previous editions, and not to mean some other non-existent more elegant / less broken implementation.

If you really think about figured characteristics, I found that most Champions players (and many Heroic Players) bought up their figured characteristics. Which really means that the figured number wasn't sufficient to build a playable character is most cases. Which means that buying them up from a minimum number really isn't that much of an imposition, because FC's weren't really doing a good job of helping players build decent characters.

What they were good at was causing players to Inflate their Primaries to make their figureds cheaper (or in some cases free). Which IMHO also points out that Figured Characteristic were as a Character gen Mechanic broken.

[Greywind]

And you're focusing on the "less important than" rather than the "coming after" or "or resulting from" in your comment.

Why yes' date=' yes I am. It did after all suit my argument and word play to do so.

You're arguing statistics and numbers.

I'm arguing game mechanics for a game based on statistical models (bell curve, effect) and numbers (point costs)...so...yeah, I am.

I'm referring to people. People generally are lazy' date=' don't want to have to change from comfortable ways of doing, or deal with change. [/quote'] This same argument comes up a lot in my line of work (software development). "We can't change things even if we should, because our users are stupid / lazy / set in their ways / or otherwise resistant to even positive changes". It's usually self-serving bs, that is often more true of the speaker than of the general user base they cast such flaws upon. But, even taking this as a given...if your point is correct and people are generally lazy, then it follows that they will do what is easiest / requires the least amount of effort on their part. Figureds require you to remember more "hidden" information in the form of additional calculations and math checking. Further, if new material is being published in a new edition and you don't want to make your own material or modify the published material, then it makes sense to use whatever the current edition is in its entirety. Finally, it takes effort to hold a strong opinion and more effort to type complaints about something into a message board and push a button...more effort than not doing so at least. Therefore, if the "people are lazy" argument is valid, the same lazy people would not care that much about Figureds going a way, would not complain about it on message boards, would not spare the effort to think about making their own custom implementation of the new edition plus figureds, would not consider modifying published material to "retcon" figureds back in, and would not mind no longer having do extra calculations and point checking for figureds.

I still work with 5th. It isn't a matter of the changes. I haven't seen a copy of 6th to peruse to make reference to full on changes. Since I don't have access to those rules I have refused to look at lists of what exactly was changed. The reason I haven't looked at 6th is purely financial.

And I fully respect that. If you like 5e or it doesn't make financial system to move to 6e' date=' then the sensible thing is to stay on 5e. I did a tremendous amount of content for and ran a lot of games in 5e; its a great system, flaws included. Same for 4e. I'm not an upgrade or get out snob. Bottom line, I'd far rather you and your group play some version of the HERO System than some other game entirely. I'm just really, really tired of the same old figured characteristic remonstrances.[/quote']

 

I've studied under developers/implementers and all of them had the same horror stories. "I don't have time to learn this. I have to get back to working." Even though what they were being taught was how the job was going to go.

 

As for gamers being lazy, why do you think so many of them play D&D and nothing else? I've played Hero since '83. And several other systems. This in the one I prefer for supers. For Fantasy I prefer SPI's old DragonQuest. Right now I'm lucky if I get a game in at all, which is why I'm writing.

 

And if you're tired of the discussion, why participate in it?

[Killer Shrike]

I've studied under developers/implementers and all of them had the same horror stories. "I don't have time to learn this. I have to get back to working." Even though what they were being taught was how the job was going to go.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

As for gamers being lazy, why do you think so many of them play D&D and nothing else? I've played Hero since '83. And several other systems. This in the one I prefer for supers. For Fantasy I prefer SPI's old DragonQuest. Right now I'm lucky if I get a game in at all, which is why I'm writing.

I don't share your low opinion of gamers in this regard. While some may be lazy, I don't think that its fair to make a sweeping statement. And it certainly does not make your point, so I'm not sure why you are stuck on it.

 

And if you're tired of the discussion' date=' why participate in it?[/quote']

Good question. I had stopped participating on these forums for quite a while in fact for lack of useful interactions. Perhaps I should go back to not doing so.

[Old Man]

That would be quite a loss, but this particular discussion does seem to be making you unusually cranky.

 

To veer back on topic, my suggestions for the issue of veteran Hero gamers not liking the elimination of figureds: seriously, have they tried a couple of games under the new system? I admit I liked that stats were interrelated too, and it doesn't help that stats are Step One in character creation, so it's the first thing you trip over in 6e. But as Shrike has pointed out, there has always been violence imbalance inherent in the figureds system, and Hero had to bite the bullet on that eventually. And once you're past character creation and actually playing, figureds are irrelevant.

[Greywind]

Yes, it would be a loss.

[GhostDancer]

Someone who likes 5th edition better than 6e are free to continue playing 5e. This seems like an imminently more sensible approach to me than continuing to bemoan the lack of figureds several years after the fact. But that's just me I guess.

-Killer Shrike, post #29

 

And, of course, some of us do just that, sans moaning. I suspect a majority of current 5e GMs and players do so without complaining about 6e on this forum.

 

[Greywind]

And conversation automatically means "complaining" to you?

[Simon]

Killer Shrike: First' date=' let me agree with you that the way Figured Characteristics were done was broken and needed to be fixed. You are right in characterizing that as an objective, mathematical fact. It DOES NOT FOLLOW however that the only possible solution was decoupling. Another solution would have been to devise a non-broken way to implement Figured Characteristics. Being in favor of Figured Characteristics does not necessarily mean being opposed to change, opposed to game balance, or mathematically deficient. It can mean being in favor of reasonable or intuitive relationships among game elements that make sense. I may have my doubts that the solution Steve Long chose was the best, but I will readily admit that what we have is better than what we had in the past. Lucius Alexander Figured palindromedary[/quote']

 

 

Sure...a non-mathematically broken version of figureds could have been devised.

 

One could argue, that the most elegant way to solve the problem was to de-couple them entirely and allow the flexibility to "figure" or not as desired for individual characters.

 

One could present an alternative mechanism and argue its merits.

 

If a person were to explain, "no no no, what I meant by that is the general idea, but using this completely different, very awesome, and totally elegant alternate implementation I'm about to tell you about"...then that would be a different discussion altogether.

 

However, when people say they miss figured characteristics they generally would be taken to mean as they were implemented in previous editions, and not to mean some other non-existent more elegant / less broken implementation.

vB really needs to work in the option to like a comment...

[bigbywolfe]

And conversation automatically means "complaining" to you?

Nope. There is a pretty big difference. Granted, it's on a sliding scale, and some people tolerate more than others, but there is definitely a difference.

[Tasha]

Killer Shrike: First' date=' let me agree with you that the way Figured Characteristics were done was broken and needed to be fixed. You are right in characterizing that as an objective, mathematical fact. It DOES NOT FOLLOW however that the only possible solution was decoupling. Another solution would have been to devise a non-broken way to implement Figured Characteristics. Being in favor of Figured Characteristics does not necessarily mean being opposed to change, opposed to game balance, or mathematically deficient. It can mean being in favor of reasonable or intuitive relationships among game elements that make sense. I may have my doubts that the solution Steve Long chose was the best, but I will readily admit that what we have is better than what we had in the past. Lucius Alexander Figured palindromedary[/quote']

 

 

Sure...a non-mathematically broken version of figureds could have been devised.

 

One could argue, that the most elegant way to solve the problem was to de-couple them entirely and allow the flexibility to "figure" or not as desired for individual characters.

 

One could present an alternative mechanism and argue its merits.

 

If a person were to explain, "no no no, what I meant by that is the general idea, but using this completely different, very awesome, and totally elegant alternate implementation I'm about to tell you about"...then that would be a different discussion altogether.

 

However, when people say they miss figured characteristics they generally would be taken to mean as they were implemented in previous editions, and not to mean some other non-existent more elegant / less broken implementation.

Perhaps they eventually will, as I find that I like the Like button and would love to "Like" comments too.

[Lucius]

Even my players who are used to D&D and not Hero trip up on the lack of Figured Characteristics. They buy up DEX for instance and expect to improve their "to hit" roll.

 

It's not just that Figureds have been part of Hero from the beginning. "Figured

Characteristics" of some sort go back to 1st edition AD&D (DEX helps Armor Class

and CON helps Hit Points etc.) And there's a reason they've always been part of

so many role playing games. It's because fundamentally they make sense.

 

Let me take the starkest possible example. Assume two people are fighting who

differ mainly in the qualities we associate with "Dexterity," that is, one has a faster

reaction time and better hand eye coordination and sense of balance, etc. All other

things being equal (familiarity with any weapons used, training, experience etc.)

the one with the higher "DEX" is less likely to be hit, and more likely to hit, than their

opponent. There's another objective fact for you, Killer Shrike.

 

Hero gained something, in fact two things of considerable value, by decoupling Characteristics. But it also lost something of value. The game now fundamentally

does not make sense in a way that before it did make sense. As for what was gained,

it is better balanced, traits like STR are less likely to be wildly inflated, etc. Also, and

this could ONLY be achieved by decoupling, it is simpler; I think this is what Tasha

means by saying the solution was elegant. Instead of a set of disparate formulas for

determining starting values there are simple numbers that can be bought up or down

independently. This is one good reason for preferring decoupling even over the hypothetical solution of creating a balanced scheme for Figured Characteristics.

 

So when people say they dislike decoupling or prefer the old way, I tend to be charitable and assume they mean they like the game to make sense, rather than that they can't understand math (Hero players can't do math?) or are munchkins who like to exploit imbalance (although that's probably true sometimes) or grognards who just don't like change (although again that's surely true sometimes.)

 

As for setting Combat Value at 3 not 0, I see two reasons. One is that all the previously published characters can still be used without subtracting 3 from their CV. And the other is that at the low end there is room for individuals to be less capable than the average normal.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks why I had to type this all over a second time rather than being able to paste and we both hope whatever is preventing the paste function is fixed soon.