Selling off MCVs

[Ninja-Bear]

On a side note, I helping my brother set up a fantasy game. I explained that the rule is that if you don't use the characteristic you can't sell it back. He has no problem with it.

[Shiva13]

The presence of those who optimize their characters to a high degree forces the GM and the rest of the group, against their will, to adapt to the player who is engaging in the extreme optimization.

 

This adaptation is worse for the GM. Who invariably has to go through and tweak each and every NPC they can stand up to the extremely optimized player character. It opens up an arms race within the game group that rocks the group to its very foundations.

 

So no. I don't see this as a minor issue. I see it for what it is. Active disruptive behavior.being forced upon the game group as a whole.

 

Other players whose characters who aren't so extremely optimized face a direct impact on the performance of their characters in play. They invariably faced with their characters having "lesser" role in actual play. While the extremely optimized character grabs and hogs the spotlight. Forcing them to also engage in extreme optimization. Just so their characters can keep up. It forces a change of dynamics within the game group as a whole.

 

It forcibly introduces a level of competition into the game that is nothing but disruptive.

 

This is not minor. It damages the whole game group. And causes a whole lot more work for the GM.

 

A GM only has a limited amount of time and energy to commit to the game itself. That time and energy is a precious thing. It can be used for creating storylines in support of the campaign. Or it can be wasted on the actions of players who abuse the character generation system.

 

I'm making no bones as to which I prefer to commit my limited energy to as a GM. Story development trumps everything else.

[ghost-angel]

round and round the conversation goes... anyone else getting dizzy?

 

Why something is done is as important as What is done.

 

Shiva just seems to assume any level of efficiency or optimization is done to be abusive, or is inherently disruptive.

 

That's as bad as pure, point grabbing, out-to-get-everyone, player-vs-gm, gaming out there.

 

Some players just tweak until they get their vision just right, and sometimes that means a bit of manipulation to get the most of from their allotted point totals. They aren't out to disrupt the game, probably won't even actually disrupt the game.

 

Unless you assume that it always will, then it probably will - because you as the GM let it disrupt the game by you yourself getting more caught up in how a player used points then why a player used points. You're as bad as any munchkin at that point. Probably worse.

[Greywind]

The presence of those who optimize their characters to a high degree forces the GM and the rest of the group, against their will, to adapt to the player who is engaging in the extreme optimization.

 

This adaptation is worse for the GM. Who invariably has to go through and tweak each and every NPC they can stand up to the extremely optimized player character. It opens up an arms race within the game group that rocks the group to its very foundations.

 

So no. I don't see this as a minor issue. I see it for what it is. Active disruptive behavior.being forced upon the game group as a whole.

 

Other players whose characters who aren't so extremely optimized face a direct impact on the performance of their characters in play. They invariably faced with their characters having "lesser" role in actual play. While the extremely optimized character grabs and hogs the spotlight. Forcing them to also engage in extreme optimization. Just so their characters can keep up. It forces a change of dynamics within the game group as a whole.

 

It forcibly introduces a level of competition into the game that is nothing but disruptive.

 

This is not minor. It damages the whole game group. And causes a whole lot more work for the GM.

 

A GM only has a limited amount of time and energy to commit to the game itself. That time and energy is a precious thing. It can be used for creating storylines in support of the campaign. Or it can be wasted on the actions of players who abuse the character generation system.

 

I'm making no bones as to which I prefer to commit my limited energy to as a GM. Story development trumps everything else.

 

If it becomes a competition it is because of all the players. Not just the one. You can't compete if there is no competition to compete against.

[Ninja-Bear]

Btw in Ninja Hero, Aaron Allston warned that a player might try to spend 2 pts: posion in a heroic game and bam people dead left and right in the game.

[Shiva13]

 

Btw in Ninja Hero, Aaron Allston warned that a player might try to spend 2 pts: posion in a heroic game and bam people dead left and right in the game.

 

 

It's always something with exploitive players.

 

A GM has to make a decision early on in what they want to achieve with a game group. If you have a player intent on being disruptive. It is best to eliminate them early on to avoid stress that could lead to the whole thing being ruined.

 

The longer a GM waits to remove a disruptive player. The more damage that disruptive player does to the whole group.

 

As I said before. A GM has limited resources and energy they can commit to the game they are running. And if they are not having fun or become exhausted by the whole thing, then everything implodes. And the game goes "bye bye".

[Shiva13]

round and round the conversation goes... anyone else getting dizzy?

 

Why something is done is as important as What is done.

 

Shiva just seems to assume any level of efficiency or optimization is done to be abusive, or is inherently disruptive.

 

That's as bad as pure, point grabbing, out-to-get-everyone, player-vs-gm, gaming out there.

 

Some players just tweak until they get their vision just right, and sometimes that means a bit of manipulation to get the most of from their allotted point totals. They aren't out to disrupt the game, probably won't even actually disrupt the game.

 

Unless you assume that it always will, then it probably will - because you as the GM let it disrupt the game by you yourself getting more caught up in how a player used points then why a player used points. You're as bad as any munchkin at that point. Probably worse.

 

And the inevitable shifting of blame appears!

 

The ones being disruptive always try this pitiful tactic. They always try to place the blame on the GM or the other players for the damage they initriate and are responsible for.

 

It's childish. And the height of selfish. It shows for absolute certain they lack the maturity to be in a group activity in the first place.

 

In their mind, nothing is ever their fault! Especially when it is.

 

I'm done here. And more than a little fed up.of having to deal with the bad behavior that seems to come hand in hand with this game system. It is just plain not worth it.

 

There are plenty of other game systems out there that do not suffer these issues to this ridiculous scale. Plenty where these issues never come up at all in the first place.

 

This only goes to show me that I have been correct in looking elsewhere to satisfy my gaming needs. Because the bother that comes with the Hero System isn't worth it to me. I would rather be focusing on fun.

 

Dealing with disruptive players is not any fun. And arguing over character generation is not fun.

[Shiva13]

I come from a superhero genre perspective most of the time in my use of the Hero System. It is also where the biggest amount of complexity in character generation comes up. And the source of the biggest amount of abuse I see with the character generation system.

 

I see two possible solutions to remove the stress and the headaches. One would be premade characters. The other would be for the players to submit their character ideas to the GM. And then the GM would build all of the characters as they prepare for the game.

 

I know there are plenty of players who would whine and complain about a GM taking either of these routes. But over my excessive number of years of dealing with this game system, I have come to realize that these two methods are those that would cause the least amount of stress. As it would eliminate the subject of argument in the first place.

[Surrealone]

Im going to politely disagree with you on this analysis. The Rules Rapist is not really an appropriate player. Can players have this tendency? Yes! However the GM and players should help that type of player move from being like that.

 

The game designers included the Rules Rapist in the kinds of people who play the game whose "diversity is good for the campaign" ... so your disagreement isn't with me -- it's with them.

[Simon]

And....Shiva13 is now going to be moderated for a while. 

 

Avoid personal attacks, people -- this isn't difficult.

[Ninja-Bear]

The game designers included the Rules Rapist in the kinds of people who play the game whose "diversity is good for the campaign" ... so your disagreement isn't with me -- it's with them.

No. I think you came to the wrong conclusion. They are there to watch out for and hopefully get players to move away.

[Tasha]

To me, that brings us full circle to the problem de-linking OCV and DCV fixed. To have an efficient build, characters were required to have offensive and defensive combat ability move in lockstep (your approach would remove that aspect), and linked skills to combat effectiveness (so all lockpicks and Olympic gymnasts must be highly skilled in combat, and all highly skilled combatants must also be good at picking locks and gymnastics). A skilled lockpick who can't fire a gun, and an Olympic gymnast who is not effective in combat, should also be practical builds. Now they are. Re-link CV to DEX and they aren't.

 

Yeah those are decent points. Though the biggest thing fixed with CV being unlinked from Dex was the huge point savings for SPD. Which IMHO is what lead to more Dex wars than high rolls on some skills. I think you could make a point that hand eye co ordination is something that helps someone target, same hand eye Coordination that gives folk natural talent with all skills that require Hand Eye Coordination. What makes high dex combat monster be not good with Lockpicking is that their player never purchased Lockpicking.

 

YMMV, I am just throwing ideas that I have that might be a positive change. I do like that you are putting some thought into why it might not work out besides "it's not the hero way". I appreciate that.

[Tasha]

The game designers included the Rules Rapist in the kinds of people who play the game whose "diversity is good for the campaign" ... so your disagreement isn't with me -- it's with them.

 

I find that the Rules Bender/Breaker (Don't like using the R word for this, it kind of devalues the crime IMHO), they usually come from an adversarial RP background. Where the Players had to know every rule and how to squeeze every bit of ability out of a character. Either that or have your character die and have the GM fault you for the character doing so. This leads to rules lawyering and Rules Bending/Breaking characters. Sometimes you just have a young/new player who wants to make the best character possible, and they take it to extremes at first.

 

This player type can usually be rehabilitated. It just takes some time, and you have to show that player that your games are different from the other ones they had bad experiences in. 

[Surrealone]

Tasha, I tend to agree with you and Ninja-Bear, but the literal verbiage from 4th Edition is pretty clear, hence why I cited it in full -- so it could stand on its own (in addition to my commentary).  I won't requite or rehash it again, as those who would argue against the literal meaning would again likely aim their debate at me when, in fact, it should be with the author(s) of the verbiage I quoted.

 

Surreal

 

P.S. The 'R' word was part of the original verbiage.  No offense or devaluation intended; that was a direct quote, too.

[Tasha]

Tasha, I tend to agree with you and Ninja-Bear, but the literal verbiage from 4th Edition is pretty clear, hence why I cited it in full -- so it could stand on its own (in addition to my commentary).  I won't requite or rehash it again, as those who would argue against the literal meaning would again likely aim their debate at me when, in fact, it should be with the author(s) of the verbiage I quoted.

 

Surreal

 

P.S. The 'R' word was part of the original verbiage.  No offense or devaluation intended; that was a direct quote, too.

 

Not meant as a dig or a rebuke. I am very aware of what Aaron originally wrote. It appeared first in Strike Force, then was included in 4e Champions. That was a long time ago and we looked at some things differently then.

[massey]

i disagree with a lot of the things that have been posted, but I'm not going to hunt through and respond point-by-point. I'm on the iPhone and that's too much work on a small screen.

 

The game is point-based, and theoretically those points are supposed to be reflective of something -- character effectiveness. People have talked about how "character concept" is some sort of holy thing, and we godless munchkins are destroying the game because we want value for our points. Well I don't know anyone whose character concept is "I wasted my points". I don't know anyone whose concept is "my guy is smart, specifically 17 Int smart. Not 18, not 15, but 17 Int.". Like you are violating the sacred vision of the character if you give him an 18.

 

I have character concepts like "he's like Green Lantern, but his power comes from a gemstone on his forehead and his powers short out when exposed to graviton waves". Nowhere in there is "inefficient game design" part of my character concept. And it shouldn't be part of anyone else's either.

 

No one is forced into bad design by virtue of their concept. You are paying points for your abilities. You should at least get what you pay for. That's why we have points in the first place.

 

I understand that some GMs are threatened by good character design. If you compare one of my characters to one created by a new player, they're way different in power level. Mine will be significantly tougher. That's the difference between an experienced player and a newbie. But I'm not doing anything wrong by not building a guy who sucks.

[Ninja-Bear]

Massey I hear what you are saying and to an extent I agree. I've built several sucky characters because of being very strict with description. However I think though with concept the point is to build a character resembling what you claim he is. For example buying someone with acrobatics 20- and saying he is joe normal. Its a balancing act. Btw many classic Battlemechs are fondly remembered because they weren't efficent builds and have character. Urbanmech Im looking at you.

[Vondy]

The game designers included the Rules Rapist in the kinds of people who play the game whose "diversity is good for the campaign" ... so your disagreement isn't with me -- it's with them.

That they included them in a section dealing with common problem player types and described them using such unflattering terms was not intended as a compliment or even tacit approval of their behavior. I'm sure Aaron didn't think an anvil was necessary when he first wrote it. I'm sure the 4e authors didn't think one was necessaty, either.

[Vondy]

i disagree with a lot of the things that have been posted, but I'm not going to hunt through and respond point-by-point. I'm on the iPhone and that's too much work on a small screen.

 

The game is point-based, and theoretically those points are supposed to be reflective of something -- character effectiveness. People have talked about how "character concept" is some sort of holy thing, and we godless munchkins are destroying the game because we want value for our points. Well I don't know anyone whose character concept is "I wasted my points". I don't know anyone whose concept is "my guy is smart, specifically 17 Int smart. Not 18, not 15, but 17 Int.". Like you are violating the sacred vision of the character if you give him an 18.

 

I have character concepts like "he's like Green Lantern, but his power comes from a gemstone on his forehead and his powers short out when exposed to graviton waves". Nowhere in there is "inefficient game design" part of my character concept. And it shouldn't be part of anyone else's either.

 

No one is forced into bad design by virtue of their concept. You are paying points for your abilities. You should at least get what you pay for. That's why we have points in the first place.

 

I understand that some GMs are threatened by good character design. If you compare one of my characters to one created by a new player, they're way different in power level. Mine will be significantly tougher. That's the difference between an experienced player and a newbie. But I'm not doing anything wrong by not building a guy who sucks.

Building and efficient and effective character, and being a rules-bending douche who ignores the spirit of the rules, are two different things. Recognizing the difference is the mark of an experienced GM as opposed to a beginning GM.

[bigdamnhero]

That they included them in a section dealing with common problem player types and described them using such unflattering terms was not intended as a compliment or even tacit approval of their behavior.

I don't think anyone is saying Aaron or anyone else was condoning rape. The point is that comparing someone who stretches the rules of an RPG for a few extra points to someone who rapes people kinda trivializes the latter. Not to go all socio-poltical outside of NGD, but there's a lot of evidence that men in general tend to regard rape as a much more trivial offense than women do, and that that attitude can be fed by seemingly-innocuous comparisons that make rape sound like an inconvenience. Not to mention how insulting it is to a rape survivor to have their ordeal compared to selling off 6 points of MCV.

 

Building and efficient and effective character, and being a rules-bending douche who ignores the spirit of the rules, are two different things. Recognizing the difference is the mark of an experienced GM as opposed to a beginning GM.

Agreed, but in a brief forum post it's sometimes hard to tell the difference. I suspect that in person most of us are actually in more agreement than a casual reader of this thread might suspect.

[massey]

Building and efficient and effective character, and being a rules-bending douche who ignores the spirit of the rules, are two different things. Recognizing the difference is the mark of an experienced GM as opposed to a beginning GM.

 

Who here is championing being a rules-bending douche?  We were talking about someone who might get an extra 6 points out of 400.  He's now got an extra 1.5% points to spend.  He can now buy AK: Campaign City and a KS.

 

We're not talking about that trick that Gary came up with where you buy all your powers Costs x10 End for a -4 limitation, and then you buy an Endurance Reserve with infinite charges.

[Surrealone]

Someone who is on administrative timeout in this thread brought it up by referencing 4th Edition.  It's probably my fault that it went where it did -- specifically because I quoted the Entire 4th Edition section that basically lumped the 'Rules Rapist' (as it was written in 4th Edition) in with other player types whose 'diversity is good for the campaign' (per the exact 4th Edition verbiage).  Some folks seem to take issue with that particular lumping/grouping -- hence the left turn.  Others seem to have taken offense to the quoted name of that player type -- hence a different left turn.  My apologies for both distractions.

 

Everyone has to remember that rules can only be bent/broken with GM approval -- in which case, the GM approved it so it was neither bent nor broken to begin with...

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah those are decent points. Though the biggest thing fixed with CV being unlinked from Dex was the huge point savings for SPD.

As I view it, DEX cost 2 points. You were buying the SPD up anyway.

 

Which IMHO is what lead to more Dex wars than high rolls on some skills. I think you could make a point that hand eye co ordination is something that helps someone target, same hand eye Coordination that gives folk natural talent with all skills that require Hand Eye Coordination. What makes high dex combat monster be not good with Lockpicking is that their player never purchased Lockpicking.

No one cared about the skill rolls as much, just the link. But that base 8+DEX/5 roll meant Dex Monster is automatically one of the best in the world with a 3 point skill investment. Part of the cost of playability, though.

 

YMMV, I am just throwing ideas that I have that might be a positive change. I do like that you are putting some thought into why it might not work out besides "it's not the hero way". I appreciate that.

It's tough to assert that linking DEX to CV is not the Hero way - de-linking Figured's was one of the most controversial 6e changes, in large part because linking them had long been the Hero Way.

 

I'd say "I want a grim, gritty, realistic game" is not the Hero way, as it aims to present a cinematic reality, but even that has workarounds.

[Tasha]

Honestly I just like that OCV and DCV aren't linked to dex. Having them be separate things that can be bought up to a player's vision is good enough for me. There were just times that having them linked together where they were always bought to the same level is what was a PITA.

[Surrealone]

Honestly I just like that OCV and DCV aren't linked to dex. Having them be separate things that can be bought up to a player's vision is good enough for me. There were just times that having them linked together where they were always bought to the same level is what was a PITA.

 

We always solved that with 10pt skill levels with a [-1] limitation (only for OCV or only for DCV).  Not a PITA, at all ... and interestingly it works out to the same cost as the 6th Edition OCV/DCV costs.  Likewise, DEX could be purchased with a limitation that it didn't affect figured characteristics or CV (i.e. only for determining initiative [-1]).

 

Was that really so difficult that it warranted adding new characteristics and inflating character costs?  I don't think so... but I can see new players getting value out of it since it's more intuitive.

 

Oh, wait, new players can't buy new, hardbound copies of 6th Edition... they have to struggle to find this place and buy a PDF -- and hope it's the right one (god forbid they buy a 'Complete' version that isn't cross-referenced, here, when rules questions are asked). So I guess DEX/OCV/DCV/SPD decoupling changes weren't done with making things easy for new for players... since, you know, getting the 6th Edition 2-volume set of rules that might make things easier for them ... is hard (if not outright impossible in the case of hardcopy) for newcomers.