Selling off MCVs

[Markdoc]

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.

 

Or because have something they really want to buy and are just a few points short, but can't find anywhere else to scrounge them up. In one game I played in another player wanted "supersonic flight" (playing a flying speedster obviously) and spent a ton of points on it. That was in no way a really cost-effective or gamebreaking use of points, but I recall him scrounging points everywhere he could ... ending up with a character who could fly really fast and dodge pretty much anything while airborne, but who actually wasn't much use for anything.

 

It's why I am reluctant to cry munchkin without a little more (actually, a lot more) context.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

Yes context makes sense. If you do it because of concept, explain that to a GM and hopefully he understands. If its points needed again explain to GM perhaps he can advance you experience points to cover the cost. Be respectful and don't abuse it. However if you do it just because you can just for more points to powergame well thats just plain wrong. Again its not so much the points as its the principle.

[Ninja-Bear]

Just a thought those 6 points can buy Flying Dodge! Oh the Humanity!

[Surrealone]

Just a thought those 6 points can buy Flying Dodge! Oh the Humanity!

 

Or two levels of Striking Appearance vs. all!

[bigdamnhero]

It's why I am reluctant to cry munchkin without a little more (actually, a lot more) context.

Fair enough. But when the concept is "I don't expect mental powers to come up much"...

[Vondy]

Or two levels of Striking Appearance vs. all!

In an RP heavy and character driven game, a few levels of SA can go a long way...

[Shiva13]

Fair enough. But when the concept is "I don't expect mental powers to come up much"...

 

That's not a character concept. That's a metagame reason based on unfounded opinion. And it's also completely unacceptable.

 

Nobody can anticipate what a GM will throw into a campaign. Or how the characters will be effected over the course of the campaign. But the tools need to be there in case they are needed. And not for what the player immediately perceives to be beneficial or not.

 

I tried to point something out earlier in the thread. That the base assumption the Hero System assumes is that people will be playing characters that are in some interation a hero. And that heroes are expected to be more than just a flat normal human in some way to make them stand out.

 

Many package deals representing various careers have characteristics requirements. From police, to agents of whatever campaign organization the GM thinks up. This leaves you with two basic assumptions. That characters will be some kind of heroic stature. And that they will need to meet the characteristic requirements of any required package deals that covers their career or organizational membership.

 

People wash out of the military all of the time due to medical problems or being in insufficient condition for the job. Even police have minimum physical and mental requirements for their jobs.

 

A character whose player shorts their MCV or any of their other characteristics below the minimums would be a washout of any such fields on the spot. Simply because they would be seen as putting their fellows in danger because they weren't up to rigors they would be exposed to regularly.

 

Navy SEAL training is an example I will refer to. They have to be able to withstand torture and various types of mental coersion and manipulation. If they cannot withstand it or hold their own at a certain threshold, they wash out of the program before they hardly get started.

 

I know people say you can play campaigns of just pure normals. However. That is not the basic design assumption of the Hero System. The people who do so are stretching the system into territory beyond the game's basic intended design. And in my opinion. Taking that into account is going way, way off topic.

[Vondy]

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.

 

It doesn't help that Hero is a game that requires a cooperative spirit of good faith from the players and a well-developed sense of judgement by the GM to run smoothly on all cylinders. Hero is, by its open-ended nature, more susceptible to abuse by people seeking to game the system than many other games are. As a result, munchkins have a heightened pernicious effect at a table where Hero is being played.

[Surrealone]

People wash out of the military all of the time due to medical problems or being in insufficient condition for the job. Even police have minimum physical and mental requirements for their jobs.

 

A character whose player shorts their MCV or any of their other characteristics below the minimums would be a washout of any such fields on the spot. Simply because they would be seen as putting their fellows in danger because they weren't up to rigors they would be exposed to regularly.

 

Navy SEAL training is an example I will refer to. They have to be able to withstand torture and various types of mental coersion and manipulation. If they cannot withstand it or hold their own at a certain threshold, they wash out of the program before they hardly get started.

 

I know people say you can play campaigns of just pure normals. However. That is not the basic design assumption of the Hero System. The people who do so are stretching the system into territory beyond the game's basic intended design. And in my opinion. Taking that into account is going way, way off topic.

 

1) There are plenty of people in the military who did not wash out who are a collection of 8's (above average) in stats. People working in the IT/electronic security segments, for example, may be high-INT and high skill but low physical stats.  They certainly DO NOT have Navy Seal stats... or training.

 

2) The table I cited earlier in the thread covers skilled normal all the way to powerful superheroes.  It is stock Hero System data you can look up for yourself. I point this out because playing at the skilled normal, competent normal, agent, and such levels are all WELL within the scope of the game as designed, and that table is evidence that the game designers considered play at those levels -- and even took the time to call out rough point totals for those levels.

 

You originally said you expected no stats below base to qualify as superheroic.  I notice that your most recent post has downgraded your conversation to 'heroic' instead of 'superheroic', meaning you've backpeddled a bit.  Given that there is proof in the RAW (see #2, above) that play at normal levels was, indeed, considered in the game's design -- are you sure you don't want to backpeddle just a bit more, so that you're actually correct instead of merely stating your opinion as if it were fact?

 

[Shiva13]

It doesn't help that Hero is a game that requires a cooperative spirit of good faith from the players and a well-developed sense of judgement by the GM to run smoothly on all cylinders. Hero is, by its open-ended nature, more susceptible to abuse by people seeking to game the system than many other games are. As a result, munchkins have a heightened pernicious effect at a table where Hero is being played.

 

Players who engage in such behavior are ultimately selfish. They don't approach the game as a group activity. In fact. They don't look beyond themselves for a second.

 

Such players lack the maturity to truly participate in any type of group activity at all. And their presence can't help but be a disruption.

 

It all comes down to knowing the people you game with. Their maturity. Their capability. Their fitness for group activities. And even more importantly. That you can trust them.

[Nolgroth]

People that fail to understand that role playing games are a zero sum activity are playing the wrong game, IMO. I believe that they would be much happier playing a tabletop wargame, a competitive card game or an online shooter like Battlefield or Call of Duty. Role playing is about building a world and story around characters that are part of a team environment. There is no "win" in terms of being the best or achieving victory. That is the assumption I go to when I review a character. If a character sells off a stat, I usually have no problem with it unless it is directly contrary to the character's concept. I embrace that openness because to me, it is a game. I can become invested in the fictional world and the fictional characters that the GM and players portray, but at the end of the day it is merely a game that I can put down if I am not happy with it.

 

Maybe I've just been lucky with the players I've had.

[bigdamnhero]

That's not a character concept. That's a metagame reason based on unfounded opinion.

Umm, yeah that was kinda my point.

 

People that fail to understand that role playing games are a zero sum activity are playing the wrong game, IMO. I believe that they would be much happier playing a tabletop wargame, a competitive card game or an online shooter like Battlefield or Call of Duty. Role playing is about building a world and story around characters that are part of a team environment. There is no "win" in terms of being the best or achieving victory.

Amen! Actual exchange in my game group earlier tonight (playing Star Wars Edge of Empire):

 

Player 1 totally botches an important skill roll, but has an ability that grants him one re-roll per session.

Player 1: "Guess I should re-roll that, huh?"

ghost-angel: "Waitwaitwait!" [looks at GM] "Which would be funnier?"

 

That's roleplaying folks!

[Vondy]

Players who engage in such behavior are ultimately selfish. They don't approach the game as a group activity. In fact. They don't look beyond themselves for a second.

 

Such players lack the maturity to truly participate in any type of group activity at all. And their presence can't help but be a disruption.

 

It all comes down to knowing the people you game with. Their maturity. Their capability. Their fitness for group activities. And even more importantly. That you can trust them.

 

This touches on something inherent in all cooperative endeavors: the social contract.

[Hugh Neilson]

And personally, when I GM, I don't go out of my way to bring up characteristics that are bought down.  The player doesn't really save enough points for something like that to matter.  If it comes up naturally, then it comes up.  Saving 6 points for having OMCV 1 does not bother me.  I think the pricing on a lot of things in 6th is kind of messed up anyway.

 

There's a bit of anal-retentiveness to the Hero community.  Because you're supposed to get what you pay for, too many GMs seem like they're looking for ways to punish players.  But I can say I've never seen them go out of their way to give a player credit for some useless little thing he paid for.  Sell off 2" of Swimming, and they'll try to drown you.  But I've never seen PS: Truck Driver come up even once.  I've seen people penalized because they didn't take a PS, but I've never seen PS made useful on its own.  There's a difference.

Just as I would not allow gaining points for a "drawback" that has no drawback, I would not charge points for an ability that carries no advantage.

 

The character sheet is the blueprint for the character's story. Selling back mOCV to the bare minimum says "my character is unusual in that he is deficient in this area". That should come up in the game. PS: Truck Driver says "my character is unusual in that he has skills and experience driving a big rig for a living". That should also come up in the game. if the GM looks at the character sheet and thinks "this will be a game where the characters are caught in a time warp and stranded in 12th century Japan, and will have no mental powers, and no trucks", then he should tell the player neither of these store elements will be relevant to this game, so they have no impact on points.

 

Of course, if 6 points is no big deal, so my mOCV sellback should never come up and no one should care, then the ability you spent the 6 points on is also no big deal - don't complain if it is never useful in the game.

[bigdamnhero]

The character sheet is the blueprint for the character's story. Selling back mOCV to the bare minimum says "my character is unusual in that he is deficient in this area". That should come up in the game. PS: Truck Driver says "my character is unusual in that he has skills and experience driving a big rig for a living". That should also come up in the game. if the GM looks at the character sheet and thinks "this will be a game where the characters are caught in a time warp and stranded in 12th century Japan, and will have no mental powers, and no trucks", then he should tell the player neither of these store elements will be relevant to this game, so they have no impact on points.

Definitely. I ran a time travel campaign a couple years ago, where I encouraged the players to take whatever background skills they thought would be appropriate to their character, and then charged them 0 points for the ones that were unlikely to ever come up.

[Christopher R Taylor]

There is a type of player that isn't a munchkin but always comes up with the most powerful build, most effective use of abilities, etc.  These people are beautiful when it comes to playtesting design and new content.  They'll find the exploit, the plot hole, the gap, the way to use that item you didn't consider.  Kind of a pain in a game, but wonderful in the right setting.

 

This isn't necessarily someone who's selfish and antisocial, or a jerk.  This is the kind of person who just loves to find the most efficient way to do everything and take advantage of that.  Not for personal gain but because it comes naturally to them and they enjoy the efficiency for its own sake.

[Tasha]

1) There are plenty of people in the military who did not wash out who are a collection of 8's (above average) in stats. People working in the IT/electronic security segments, for example, may be high-INT and high skill but low physical stats.  They certainly DO NOT have Navy Seal stats... or training.

 

2) The table I cited earlier in the thread covers skilled normal all the way to powerful superheroes.  It is stock Hero System data you can look up for yourself. I point this out because playing at the skilled normal, competent normal, agent, and such levels are all WELL within the scope of the game as designed, and that table is evidence that the game designers considered play at those levels -- and even took the time to call out rough point totals for those levels.

 

You originally said you expected no stats below base to qualify as superheroic.  I notice that your most recent post has downgraded your conversation to 'heroic' instead of 'superheroic', meaning you've backpeddled a bit.  Given that there is proof in the RAW (see #2, above) that play at normal levels was, indeed, considered in the game's design -- are you sure you don't want to backpeddle just a bit more, so that you're actually correct instead of merely stating your opinion as if it were fact?

 

 

Funny thing is that RAW does mention that games without mental powers shouldn't allow players to sell their OMCV to 1 (the lowest it can go by RAW). So most heroic Level games this shouldn't be an issue. It should only really be showing up in Champions games where 6points doesn't get you much.

 

If you the GM have a huge issue with it make sure you mention it when you give your Character Generation guidelines. (ie "I don't allow OMCV to be sold off" or "I encourage non mentalists to Sell their OMCV off.) Make sure you mention it upfront that you have an issue with it and then you will never have to deal with a Player doing it. You may have a great player that comes from a group like mine that allows and recommends they do that. 

[Tasha]

This touches on something inherent in all cooperative endeavors: the social contract.

 

This touches on something that Too many GM's neglect. Spelling out the social contract BEFORE the game starts. Too many GM's assume that everyone plays the way they do, that players will automatically know what the table rules are. Then they get all bent out of shape when the poor new player crosses some line they didn't even know was there. Communicate with the players, it's one of the GM's main jobs besides running a game that is fun for everyone.

[Tasha]

There is a type of player that isn't a munchkin but always comes up with the most powerful build, most effective use of abilities, etc.  These people are beautiful when it comes to playtesting design and new content.  They'll find the exploit, the plot hole, the gap, the way to use that item you didn't consider.  Kind of a pain in a game, but wonderful in the right setting.

 

This isn't necessarily someone who's selfish and antisocial, or a jerk.  This is the kind of person who just loves to find the most efficient way to do everything and take advantage of that.  Not for personal gain but because it comes naturally to them and they enjoy the efficiency for its own sake.

 

I game with Game Designers and Software Engineers. The Software Engineers love to come up with weird but powerful builds. They are great Roleplayers, but also are great a plumbing any game system for the best options for their character. It's frankly amazing to see they stuff they come up with. Keeps me on my toes. It's kind of a mini game to them, building efficient, powerful characters. I learn a lot from the stuff they come up with.

[Markdoc]

There is a type of player that isn't a munchkin but always comes up with the most powerful build, most effective use of abilities, etc.  These people are beautiful when it comes to playtesting design and new content.  They'll find the exploit, the plot hole, the gap, the way to use that item you didn't consider.  Kind of a pain in a game, but wonderful in the right setting.

 

This isn't necessarily someone who's selfish and antisocial, or a jerk.  This is the kind of person who just loves to find the most efficient way to do everything and take advantage of that.  Not for personal gain but because it comes naturally to them and they enjoy the efficiency for its own sake.

 

And this is why I am reluctant to call munchkin without a lot more context. First, because I have had players like this when I GM (and I have always been glad to have them) - secondly, because I am a player like this when I play. It's not all about Ultimate Powah! or even being better than the other PCs. It's not at all antisocial. I almost always play party-friendly PCs and make a point of asking the GM what they would like to see as a PC before I start designing. In our current pathfinder campaign, I chose a class (Mystic Theurge) which the CharOps boards are adamant cannot be optimised. For sure, it's not the most powerful option, but I am having a blast. For me, part of the fun in this case, is the challenge of turning class that almost everyone says is unplayable or at best highly suboptimal, into a viable character. In other words, character design is a crucial part of the fun, for me.

 

cheers, Mark

[massey]

Funny thing is that RAW does mention that games without mental powers shouldn't allow players to sell their OMCV to 1 (the lowest it can go by RAW). So most heroic Level games this shouldn't be an issue. It should only really be showing up in Champions games where 6points doesn't get you much.

 

If you the GM have a huge issue with it make sure you mention it when you give your Character Generation guidelines. (ie "I don't allow OMCV to be sold off" or "I encourage non mentalists to Sell their OMCV off.) Make sure you mention it upfront that you have an issue with it and then you will never have to deal with a Player doing it. You may have a great player that comes from a group like mine that allows and recommends they do that. 

 

This is a good point.  As I mentioned earlier, 6 points is not that much to our group.  We know our way around the system well enough that it really isn't an issue of power -- i.e., it isn't going to determine how tough the character is.  The only thing it might determine is how many corners we have to cut, and that's really just a matter of taste and personal preference.

 

If I'm playing a Batman clone, that last 6 points is probably going to determine how many of the "extras" I can afford.  I might be missing a few slots in my utility belt because of it.  Or I might only be able to afford 5 points of Wealth instead of the full 15 that Bruce Wayne traditionally has.  I might not have a Batcave, or at least it won't appear onscreen until I actually have some points saved up.  On average, we get about 3 XP per game session, so 6 points is just two nights worth of adventures.  I've sold off a stat like OMCV before, with the intent that later on, as I get more points, I'll buy it back up.

 

A lot of my characters start at 350, and my "vision" of the "real" character would probably take an extra 50 or 100 points to fully realize.  Sometimes you cut corners to get them as close to the ideal as possible.  This isn't an attempt to be munchkin, it's an attempt to fully realize the character.

 

I have built some very efficient characters over the years.  If I just wanted a pure badass, I'd play one of those again.  Combat efficiency is fairly easy, it's character modeling that can be expensive.

[bigdamnhero]

Funny thing is that RAW does mention that games without mental powers shouldn't allow players to sell their OMCV to 1 (the lowest it can go by RAW). So most heroic Level games this shouldn't be an issue. It should only really be showing up in Champions games where 6points doesn't get you much.

  Mental Powers show up in a lot of my heroic games, if not most of them. Even in genres that don't tend to have "psionics" per se, like a lot of fantasy, they're still used to model a lot of common spell effects. YMMV obviously.

 

And I agree there's nothing wrong with trying to optimize/maximize a character build. To me, it becomes munchkinism when the character concept is built around getting maximum effect, rather than trying to get maximum effect out of your character concept. That's obviously a somewhat subjective line. But in general, when a player approaches me with "My character should be able to do X," that's one thing. When they approach me with "The rules say I can do Y," that's another thing. And when they start with "The rules don't say I can't do Y,"...then you might just have a munchkin on your hands.

[Surrealone]

Funny thing is that RAW does mention that games without mental powers shouldn't allow players to sell their OMCV to 1 (the lowest it can go by RAW). So most heroic Level games this shouldn't be an issue. It should only really be showing up in Champions games where 6points doesn't get you much.

I am curious why you assume a game at a heroic level would not have mental powers.  The games I tend to play in allow any/all powers and are simply played at point heroic point levels... which makes things like mental powers, invisibility, desolidification, etc. VERY powerful when encountered. Keep in mind, I also play in games where characters can (and do, from time to time) die -- which is rather the point of playing at lower point levels -- things like 4d6 RKA's (i.e. equiv of a surface to air missile) are VERY lethal ... as they should be.

[Tasha]

I am curious why you assume a game at a heroic level would not have mental powers.  The games I tend to play in allow any/all powers and are simply played at point heroic point levels... which makes things like mental powers, invisibility, desolidification, etc. VERY powerful when encountered. Keep in mind, I also play in games where characters can (and do, from time to time) die -- which is rather the point of playing at lower point levels -- things like 4d6 RKA's (i.e. equiv of a surface to air missile) are VERY lethal ... as they should be.

 

If I am playing Gritty Cold War Espionage, there aren't many instances where PC's will be using Mental Powers. Beyond using a Con based Mindcontrol (truth serum).

 

Also remember, By RAW OMCV only helps Mentalists(AKA people with Projective Mental Powers), It's totally useless for everyone else.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, OMCV would help target a mental-based spell (Mental blast, etc) so it could show up in a fantasy campaign.

 

But yeah the majority of heroic level games I've run had no mental powers in them at all like the cop show, or the mercenaries or the sci fi game (although there were psionic aliens that never showed up).