Selling off MCVs

[Nolgroth]

I personally don't think it's game breaking or even unbalancing, but I also think it should be done for character-driven reasons, not point-crunching reasons.

 

Thank you!  Not for the reasoning you expressed but because it helps me illustrate my own jumbled thoughts. I am the opposite. To me, the game is for the people playing it. If crunching 6-9 points out of xMCV helps them build a character that more closely fits their vision, then I am ALL about the point crunching. I take it as my duty as GM to make sure that nothing that player brings to the table is unbalancing or disruptive to the play of the other characters. I also reserve the right to tone down an ability or even replace it. That is a privilege that I have rarely invoked, but it is one that improved the game for everybody when I have. An extra 6-9 points is not a game breaker for me.

[Vondy]

So, do the people in this thread arguing about balance issues due to selling back OMCV really think that a 6 or 9 point (depending on whether or not the GM allows OMCV to be bought down to 1 or 0, respectively) difference in character points is going to be unbalancing?

 

 

Its not unbalancing in a material way.

 

It does, however, serve as an excellent measure of whether I want to play with someone or not.

[Surrealone]

Thank you!  Not for the reasoning you expressed but because it helps me illustrate my own jumbled thoughts. I am the opposite. To me, the game is for the people playing it. If crunching 6-9 points out of xMCV helps them build a character that more closely fits their vision, then I am ALL about the point crunching. I take it as my duty as GM to make sure that nothing that player brings to the table is unbalancing or disruptive to the play of the other characters. I also reserve the right to tone down an ability or even replace it. That is a privilege that I have rarely invoked, but it is one that improved the game for everybody when I have. An extra 6-9 points is not a game breaker for me.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by point-crunching.  I'm ALL FOR effective builds where every single math calculation catches the round; 1st-3rd editions taught this line of thinking.  But I have trouble with a buydown on the basis of 'because I needed 3 more points'; I don't consider that a solid enough reason for a buy-down.  Instead, I think buy-downs should fit and/or fit in with the player's vision of the character.

 

That said, I'm a player, not a GM, so just because I have trouble with 'because I needed 3 more points' and don't that, myself, it doesn't mean it's not present in games in which I've played.  And frankly, when it happens, I don't consider it a big deal, at all; I just consider it 'bad form'.  (After all, the character could just buy whatever it was with after saving 3 experience, or ask the GM to advance some experience points, etc...)

[Shiva13]

So, do the people in this thread arguing about balance issues due to selling back OMCV really think that a 6 or 9 point (depending on whether or not the GM allows OMCV to be bought down to 1 or 0, respectively) difference in character points is going to be unbalancing?

 

Do you honestly believe that the HERO System is that finally tuned?  I certainly don't. I believe that character points can give you characters that are roughly around the same level of effectiveness (although CV levels and attack DC classes probably has more to do with that than total points). I also believe that the tactical abilities and creativity of a character's player also play a big part in the effectiveness of that character. So, frankly worrying about a small difference in points just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

The quest for mechanical "efficiency" and seeking mechanical advantage has nothing to do with supporting a character concept. And it has everything to do with a player trying to take advantage of flaws in the system for their own benefit. Which makes it absolutely unequivocally wrong. And something that a GM should absolutely put the thumbs down upon.

 

And it was absolutely wrong when the spectre of mechanical break points in the primary characteristics appeared in Champions II.

[Surrealone]

And it was absolutely wrong when the spectre of mechanical break points in the primary characteristics appeared in Champions II.

It was also apparently 'by design', since the designer(s) called out those efficiencies and even taught players to do the same via annotations.  Thus, anyone playing with that in mind is playing the game not only as designed, but as instructed by the designers...

[bigdamnhero]

And it was absolutely wrong when the spectre of mechanical break points in the primary characteristics appeared in Champions II.

Fair enough. Tho I also get the opposing view, ie "If I don't get any benefit from having EGO 11 or 12, why should I pay points for it?" My usual answer to this is I generally discourage characters from using XP to buy up CHARs by more than 1 point at a time; so the advantage of buying EGO up to 12 is that you only need one more XP award to buy it up to 13.

 

(And yes, I'm aware EGO 11 does give a slight advantage vs mental powers that work vs EGO+___; but that's not much.)

[massey]

The quest for mechanical "efficiency" and seeking mechanical advantage has nothing to do with supporting a character concept. And it has everything to do with a player trying to take advantage of flaws in the system for their own benefit. Which makes it absolutely unequivocally wrong. And something that a GM should absolutely put the thumbs down upon.

 

And it was absolutely wrong when the spectre of mechanical break points in the primary characteristics appeared in Champions II.

 

The greatest sin one can commit in Champions is to have an inefficient character build.

[Shiva13]

Fair enough. Tho I also get the opposing view, ie "If I don't get any benefit from having EGO 11 or 12, why should I pay points for it?" My usual answer to this is I generally discourage characters from using XP to buy up CHARs by more than 1 point at a time; so the advantage of buying EGO up to 12 is that you only need one more XP award to buy it up to 13.

 

(And yes, I'm aware EGO 11 does give a slight advantage vs mental powers that work vs EGO+___; but that's not much.)

 

All levels of characteristics are supposed to matter. All of them are supposed to meaningfully represent something.

 

And not simply because of what is "mechanically advantageous". "Mechanically advantageous" should not even be on the table. As character concept is supposed to be the guilding point above all else in character generation.

 

"Gaming the system" in any form I view as utterly unacceptable. Turning character generation into a "mini-game" ignores the original purpose of it. So yes, I consider it wrong.

[Shiva13]

The greatest sin one can commit in Champions is to have an inefficient character build.

 

Only to someone who is "gaming the system".

[massey]

Only to someone who is "gaming the system".

 

No.  To all good and noble creatures in the universe.

[Steve]

Only to someone who is "gaming the system".

I have to disagree. When building characters, I find there's something inherently satisfying about using a given amount of points efficiently, and that's coming from a long-time GM. I'm not going to say it's beautiful or artistic, but seeing a well-built character Is like seeing a challenging math problem solved.

[CptPatriot]

The greatest sin one can commit in Champions is to have an inefficient character build.

 

 

Only to someone who is "gaming the system".

 

 

No.  To all good and noble creatures in the universe.

 

 

I have to disagree. When building characters, I find there's something inherently satisfying about using a given amount of points efficiently, and that's coming from a long-time GM. I'm not going to say it's beautiful or artistic, but seeing a well-built character Is like seeing a challenging math problem solved.

 

What is the point behind an efficient character build, if it doesn't truly reflect the character you are trying to writeup in the first place? Not saying that gaming the system is all bad, I might tweak a character to have a 13 or 18 in a particular stat, but the point is to represent the character, not to represent the character efficiently.

[Shiva13]

I have to disagree. When building characters, I find there's something inherently satisfying about using a given amount of points efficiently, and that's coming from a long-time GM. I'm not going to say it's beautiful or artistic, but seeing a well-built character Is like seeing a challenging math problem solved.

 

I find "gaming the system" to the equivilent to someone masturbating in front of a captive audience that can't turn away.

 

Players "gaming the system" are trying to force their methodology on the rest of the game group. Regardless of whether that group agrees with it or not.

 

It's the height of bad behavior. And comparing it to a sex crime I believe is pretty apt.

[massey]

I find "gaming the system" to the equivilent to someone masturbating in front of a captive audience that can't turn away.

 

Players "gaming the system" are trying to force their methodology on the rest of the game group. Regardless of whether that group agrees with it or not.

 

It's the height of bad behavior. And comparing it to a sex crime I believe is pretty apt.

Holy crap balls .

[massey]

See people, this is what happens when you don't build efficient characters. You lose your damn mind.

[Surrealone]

As a result of failing to catch the round when building a particular character within this thread, that character's player apparently wasted some points on INT (as they were paid for yet had no game effect) ... and missed a few key INT rolls, too.

[Shiva13]

In the original Strike Force book, and in Champions 4th edition, Aaron Allston pointed out a type of player called the Rules Rapist.

 

I am simply harkening back to illustrations made by one of the Hero System's greatest acknowledged authors.

[Lucius]

"We now rejoin our correspondent live from the front lines."

 

Thank you. I expect this will be my last transmission before I evacuate, the situation here has escalated. This was recorded no more than two hours ago, and is the raw unedited footage. This will strain your credibility but I swear this recording is not a hoax.

 

 

I find "gaming the system" to the equivilent to someone masturbating in front of a captive audience that can't turn away.

 

Players "gaming the system" are trying to force their methodology on the rest of the game group. Regardless of whether that group agrees with it or not.

 

It's the height of bad behavior. And comparing it to a sex crime I believe is pretty apt.

 

With what is being deployed on the field now, I do not expect the casualties to continue to be limited to horses and straw men. Immediately after this broadcast we will be heading directly to Scotland and checking into our accustomed waterfront hotel.

 

Signing off before they deploy any more weapons of rhetorical overkill, I am

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary News doesn't pay me enough for this, I'm going to the Inn before the Loch.

[Surrealone]

In the original Strike Force book, and in Champions 4th edition, Aaron Allston pointed out a type of player called the Rules Rapist.

 

I am simply harkening back to illustrations made by one of the Hero System's greatest acknowledged authors.

 

 

"The Rules Rapist

In general, this player mostly wants to create characters with Skills or Powers which bend and exploit the existing rules. These players are constantly redesigning their characters for higher point efficiency. Unless they also have other campaign interests, they're probably not all that involved in roleplaying."

--4th Edition

 

"TYPES OF CHAMPIONS PLAYERS

Lots of different kinds of people play roleplaying games; each has different aims and requires different treatment in order to be happy. While this diversity is good for the campaign, the GM must work to discover what everyone wants. The following list constitutes most of the different types of Champions players. It's not completely comprehensive, but you'll probably see yourself and most of your players in one or more of these types."

-- From the beginning of the very same section of 4th Edition

 

OBSERVATIONS:

1) No one'd discussed redesigning characters here -- so I'm not sure why Shiva felt the Rules Rapist label applied.

 

​2) It's clear that even the Rules Rapist type was included in the diversity that the game designers indicated was 'good for the campaign' (see above).  And it's also clear that the the GM is supposed to consider even that player type's aims and handle those aims appropriately in order for that player type to be happy, just as s/he would other player types. It sounds to me like Shiva is discounting this player type even though it was called out by the designers as a legitimate one.

 

3) I don't get the sense Shiva has learned to keep that type of player happy while also keeping them from being abusive.  That's a soft GM skill that must be learned/practiced...

[Nolgroth]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by point-crunching.  I'm ALL FOR effective builds where every single math calculation catches the round; 1st-3rd editions taught this line of thinking.  But I have trouble with a buydown on the basis of 'because I needed 3 more points'; I don't consider that a solid enough reason for a buy-down.  Instead, I think buy-downs should fit and/or fit in with the player's vision of the character.

 

That said, I'm a player, not a GM, so just because I have trouble with 'because I needed 3 more points' and don't that, myself, it doesn't mean it's not present in games in which I've played.  And frankly, when it happens, I don't consider it a big deal, at all; I just consider it 'bad form'.  (After all, the character could just buy whatever it was with after saving 3 experience, or ask the GM to advance some experience points, etc...)

 

No, I think I understood your meaning. I even get where that perspective comes from. I just happen to get something else from the game than strict control and point management. Character generation, though given a lot of priority in terms of rules space, it only important to me in terms of getting players "on the board."  It is the long-term goals of telling a story and having a shared experience with my players that keeps me in the hobby.

 

Thank you all. Even though I didn't originate this thread, I have seen a very decent conversation about this subject and it has allowed me to evaluate many things during the course of it. You folks are awesome.

[Tasha]

What is the point behind an efficient character build, if it doesn't truly reflect the character you are trying to writeup in the first place? Not saying that gaming the system is all bad, I might tweak a character to have a 13 or 18 in a particular stat, but the point is to represent the character, not to represent the character efficiently.

 

Yeah, but when your Character concept hits up against the hard point limit. Then you HAVE to start looking for point inefficencies and stuff you don't need. Also, you hope that all the stuff you are having to cut doesn't destroy your character vision.

[Ninja-Bear]

"The Rules Rapist

In general, this player mostly wants to create characters with Skills or Powers which bend and exploit the existing rules. These players are constantly redesigning their characters for higher point efficiency. Unless they also have other campaign interests, they're probably not all that involved in roleplaying."

--4th Edition

 

"TYPES OF CHAMPIONS PLAYERS

Lots of different kinds of people play roleplaying games; each has different aims and requires different treatment in order to be happy. While this diversity is good for the campaign, the GM must work to discover what everyone wants. The following list constitutes most of the different types of Champions players. It's not completely comprehensive, but you'll probably see yourself and most of your players in one or more of these types."

-- From the beginning of the very same section of 4th Edition

 

OBSERVATIONS:

1) No one'd discussed redesigning characters here -- so I'm not sure why Shiva felt the Rules Rapist label applied.

 

​2) It's clear that even the Rules Rapist type was included in the diversity that the game designers indicated was 'good for the campaign' (see above). And it's also clear that the the GM is supposed to consider even that player type's aims and handle those aims appropriately in order for that player type to be happy, just as s/he would other player types. It sounds to me like Shiva is discounting this player type even though it was called out by the designers as a legitimate one.

 

3) I don't get the sense Shiva has learned to keep that type of player happy while also keeping them from being abusive. That's a soft GM skill that must be learned/practiced...

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.

[Ninja-Bear]

So, do the people in this thread arguing about balance issues due to selling back OMCV really think that a 6 or 9 point (depending on whether or not the GM allows OMCV to be bought down to 1 or 0, respectively) difference in character points is going to be unbalancing?

 

Do you honestly believe that the HERO System is that finally tuned? I certainly don't. I believe that character points can give you characters that are roughly around the same level of effectiveness (although CV levels and attack DC classes probably has more to do with that than total points). I also believe that the tactical abilities and creativity of a character's player also play a big part in the effectiveness of that character. So, frankly worrying about a small difference in points just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I've said before, its not somtimes the amount of point spent is the problem, but the where. So I woll politely disagree with you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Implied by my previous post was the idea that maybe that particular RAW needs to be reconsidered.  Why would a non-mentalist have anything, at all, in a stat it will never use?  This is why starting values of zero (0) seem to make more sense for things like MOCV ... and even MDCV.

I see the pros of dropping MCV's to nil by default, however that does mean no one can be "below the norm". However, I believe the most compelling reason this option was discarded from 6e was reverse compatibility, as it would mean dropping the MCV's of every 5e character by points for consistency. That lead to the "Base 3".

 

For those gamers who want to encourage the "free points sellback", however, what stops you from basing your game on 418 points instead of 400, with OMCV and DMCV set at a base of 0?

 

 

Yeah, but that train has left the station. There's not going to be a 6.5 Hero that fixes the little things like OMCV. (it is OMCV and DMCV). Also in genres where there are Mental powers "normals" start with MCV and CV of 3 both defensively and offensively. It makes it a bit easier to build a slightly better than average normal (i.e. 10's in all of the primaries, and the base numbers in the secondaries). Which is why the rules say to ignore OMCV if your campaign doesn't make use of it. It also allows for individual GM's to decide whether to allow players to buy down OMCV to 1.

 

If I were rewriting the game I would explore eliminating Dex and Ego and moving their functionality into OCV/DCV and OMCV/DMCV. One to have less stats in the game. Also to give more uses for CV than just hitting and dodging. It would be interesting to see how well it would function and "how it would feel" in play.

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.

[Hugh Neilson]

To the point that "6 points does not make much difference", why bother tracking points at all if they are not useful in achieving a balance?

 

The D&D model has moved from random chance to point buy over the past many years, albeit with far less abilities to purchase. Whether you invest in STR or CHA depends on the type of character you want to build, but everyone starts the game with the same points to invest in their stats. And sell backs are restricted.

 

So, as d20 moves closer to Hero, should Hero move closer to historical d20?