Selling off MCVs

[Surrealone]

I don't think it's THAT far gone, Cpt.  Besides, the Palindromedary is cracking me up...

[CptPatriot]

I rather not prolong an argument.

[bigdamnhero]

"We now join our correspondent reporting live from the front lines of the War on Straw."

Lucius, it was worth all 123 posts just to get to this one - thank you Sir!

[bigdamnhero]

I assume that because the Hero System has displayed it as the basic assumption for all levels of protagonists since the 1st edition. So I think I have a pretty good basis.

 

I also have to point out the Evil Dead movies. Ash was in no way a "normal" when he entered the fray.

Let me try this one last time. I can name dozens of movies just from last year where the main characters were either normals, or normals-with-one-above-average ability. And that's not even getting into TV, comics, books, etc. If I say I want to run a Hero game based on, say, Paranormal Activity, or Ex Machina, or frickin' Spotlight for that matter, is your response:

 

1. Such stories don't exist?

A: You are demonstrably wrong.

 

2. You wouldn't want to play that game?

A: Fine. No one's telling you that you have to.

 

3. Hero doesn't work for playing that game?

A: Several of us have direct experience that it works just fine.

 

4. I'm "wrong" for wanting to play that kind of game? (Which is kind of how you're coming across.)

A: Umm...I don't need your approval? (Stronger language redacted)

 

 

Edit: I thought of one other possible response:

 

5. Such games are not the Hero baseline.

A: Yes, we already acknowledged that. But a core concept of Hero is "Change whatever works best for your game" which is what we're doing. And which brings us back to the previous 4 responses...

Edited March 12, 2016 by bigdamnhero

[Ninja-Bear]

Reading Shiva 13 response about munchkin I thought of a horrible conspiracy. All the players conspire to make munchkin characters to see if they can make a GM crack. That woukd be EVIL! And very rude.

[Grailknight]

I've seen that done, but they had alternates pre-made.

[Ninja-Bear]

I just came into an interesting situation. Im writting up a character with shrinking. Now if I want it to be old school shrinking whereas he loses running based on shrinking its worth -1/4 limitation which you can put on powers. Therefore I can by RAW put the limitation on his base running and get points back.

[bigbywolfe]

I would think the Side Effect Limitation would go on Shrinking, not Running.

[bigdamnhero]

Hmm...yeah, Side Effect might be the "best" way to model that. But assuming he's going to be shrunken down much of the time, getting a couple of points back from Running seems pretty reasonable.

[Ninja-Bear]

The reason I brought it up on this thread is that it shows how you can sellback* to get points for a concept and not be munchiny.

 

* Technically it aint a sellback but limitation but I think it fits with this part of the thread discussion.

[Ninja-Bear]

Again, if 6 points is an issue for you, well then I really don't know what to say. Your players have been very kind to you.

Its not the cost but the principle of it.

[Tasha]

You know, I used to get stressed out by munchkins. I would stress over every power looking for the power they were going to use to screw the campaign.

 

I have been working with Elsa the Snow Queen and I really love her philosophy. "Let it Go!". Now I look at character sheets for large problems, If an ability becomes an issue I ask them to change it. If someone wants to save 6 points by buying their OMCV down to 1. Cool, perhaps they will use the points for another background skill or perhaps a cool ability that will be fun to see in game. We play this game to have FUN! I don't see how stressing over how a player spends every point contributes to that fun.

 

YMMV, but your stress levels may drop. It's really your choice.

 

Tasha

[Markdoc]

You know, I used to get stressed out by munchkins. I would stress over every power looking for the power they were going to use to screw the campaign.

 

I have been working with Elsa the Snow Queen and I really love her philosophy. "Let it Go!". Now I look at character sheets for large problems, If an ability becomes an issue I ask them to change it. If someone wants to save 6 points by buying their OMCV down to 1. Cool, perhaps they will use the points for another background skill or perhaps a cool ability that will be fun to see in game. We play this game to have FUN! I don't see how stressing over how a player spends every point contributes to that fun.

 

 

This is exactly my attitude. I don't stress at all, at all, over whether PC X has squeezed out 6 points or 9 points more than PC Y. I care about "Is it a fun, interesting character?", "Does it add something to the group?" "Is it - both character and player - going to fit into the game?" It is entirely possible to play games where the PCs are widely divergent in point totals, that work well. I did a whole campaign like this, where some PCs started on 250 points and others on 200, based on their concepts. It was as popular as heck with the players.

 

I'm also comfortable with the idea that 'munchkinism' is a pretty loose description and what is "munchkin behaviour" at one table is "effective character design" at another. I've played with enough people to know that the desire to squeeze the maximum points out of your character is actually not a good indicator of how someone will play. I've seen people who do it just to try and build game-breaking "god" characters and I have seen people who do it because they love Hero system, who are just really engaged in their character design - but who are kick-ass, helpful players at the table.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher R Taylor]

"Is everyone having fun" is the most important key to any game, role playing or not.  Play balance is only significant when it impacts peoples' enjoyment: this isn't PVP, so how well people match up is really not that significant.

[Shiva13]

Sure but all that is a problem with munchkins, not selling off MCV

 

They are one and the same thing. Selling off MCV 99.99% of the time is done as an exploit. And is not done in represent any reason justified by the character's concept.

[Shiva13]

Reading Shiva 13 response about munchkin I thought of a horrible conspiracy. All the players conspire to make munchkin characters to see if they can make a GM crack. That woukd be EVIL! And very rude.

 

I've had some rotten luck with game groups over my history with the Hero System. Munchkinism being only one of the things I faced as a GM that made me feel utterly miserable.

 

At default, I have been a very trusting person.in gaming. As I believe trust is something that is essential to making a game group work. So I had a habit of putting myself completely on the line to do the GM role. Generally expecting players to approach the system and the campaigns with the same sort of honesty and I would give as a basic assumption.

 

So when a player violates that trust. I admit. I take it pretty personally.

[Shiva13]

Its not the cost but the principle of it.

 

Exactly! Munchkinism is a violation of the very environment of trust that's necessary for the game group to properly operate. It's nothing but disruptive.

[Nolgroth]

One thing about it, these sorts of threads show me who I might be compatible to game with and who I would most assuredly not be compatible to game with. I also think that it is humorous to see how many different definitions of munchkin and munchkinism there are. Every play group should have an established set of expectations when it comes to character creation. That's all I'll say about that.

[massey]

I have played very powerful characters, well outside of most people's campaign norms.  And I've played very weak characters, guys who were several DCs less than the other characters in the group.  Several times I've purposefully spent less points than other players because I just felt like it (and not just a few points either -- I've played games where I took a 250 pt character into a 350 pt game, just because).

 

It's the quality of the player that is important, not whether he sold off a stat.

[Surrealone]

So when a player violates that trust. I admit. I take it pretty personally.

 

Sounds like you retaliate in kind (i.e. personally), too given that you're pretty absolute about sellbacks being equivalent to exploits.  It also sounds like you now view every (or nearly so) player who might want to do a sellback as a munchkin when, Occam's Razor suggests that it is much more likely that you've simply got trust issues.

 

That said, if 6 pts of sellback makes you stir crazy, then don't allow it.  It's your game.  I can't say I'd want to join a game where someone making a Professor Xavier type (i.e. gifted and crippled at the same time) or an average joe type (i.e. straight 8's because, well, that's average) that has some extraordinary abilities ... was instantly viewed as undermining, untrustworthy, and/or munchkin.  Prejudice (which is what that is) just isn't my thing.  But hey, I'm sure you've got players who are down with your style.

 

And you know what?  That's what's great about the world.  Differences make things interesting!  It'd be an awfully boring place if we all held the same view.

 

Salud.

[Greywind]

They are one and the same thing. Selling off MCV 99.99% of the time is done as an exploit. And is not done in represent any reason justified by the character's concept.

 

This is certainly one opinion.

[Vondy]

Possibly, but as munchkin goes, 9 points isn't exactly breaking anything.

Except for my presumption of good faith. It's not always munchkinism, and I discuss builds with players to determine their rationales before drawing any conclusions, but when it is... "It's a trick! Get an ax!" Fortunately, I've been blessed with an abundance of forthright, mature, talented players over the years. Min-max munckinizers have been the exception.

[Shiva13]

Possibly, but as munchkin goes, 9 points isn't exactly breaking anything.

 

That depends entirely on how those 9 points are spent.

 

If a player has molested a Multipower enough so that their slots cost 1 point each. Those 9 points represent a potential 9 more slots the player can add.

 

I've had players in the past that literally made me dread every experience point to be given to them.

[Ninja-Bear]

Again, if 6 points is an issue for you, well then I really don't know what to say. Your players have been very kind to you.

And the other side of the coin is, if its only 6 pts, why is the player insisting of selling something back for the points?

[Surrealone]

And the other side of the coin is, if its only 6 pts, why is the player insisting of selling something back for the points?

 

Hopefully because it makes sense for the character concept.  If not, then Houston, you have a problem.