Levels, Balance and Development

[DHKnechtLLC]

One thing I've noticed about the HERO system is it that works great for a Champions campaign, but skills and development are a bit trickier for a Fantasy Hero game.  In a level based system (like D&D or Rolemaster), characters start with a limited skill set and develop better skills (both combat and others) as they gain in levels.  In FH, depending on how they spend their points, they can be the equivalent of 10th level fighters just starting out.  It takes quite a bit of balancing and oversight by the GM to make sure this doesn't happen.  Certainly we can all do that, but here's the question:

 

Has anyone developed a limit system or leveling system for characters?

 

I am currently working on something and playtesting it during a campaign, but would love to see what others have done.  Basically, I have used the standard characteristic maxima as a hard limit -- no one can exceed them, even at double cost or more.  From there, characters gain experience points similar to a D&D system and once they reach a break point (i.e., gain a "level"), the character gains additional FH points to increase character skills, combat levels, etc.  Additionally, skill levels are limited based on their experience level (i.e., starting out, they have a max OCV/DCV of 8, and can develop only 2 levels of Combat skills, choosing 2 levels of full HtH or Ranged Combat, 2 Overall Levels, 1 level of a Limited Group and 1 Overall Level, or however they want to break it up).  Also, once set, characteristics can only be adjusted later at certain level break points too.

 

The leveling system I've set up graduates things based on the 20 levels most of us are familiar with in D&D, so that at 20th level, a character would be based about 900 points, with 10th level being about 350 points.  Each level they gain, the limits of different things increase, but not every limit every level.

 

In any event, without going into a full leveling description here, I'd love to know people's thoughts, if you've done something similar, or what you think of what I've described.  Additionally, if you'd like to know all the rules I've set out, let me know and I can get those posted here (or in a different thread) for a more thorough analysis.

 

Thanks!

[Wardsman]

It would help to know your point levels and style of magick.

There is a difference between characters built on 50 pts vs 75 or 100. How much Disadvantages you allow do you allow?

 

I'm a 5th edition guy myself and just saw an interesting take on Characteristic Maxima. Limit everyone to 15(double cost above) except one primary for their group say 20 strength for fighters, Intelligence for Mages , Dex for Rogues. It is an interesting Idea.

[Richgee]

The easiest way to do what you want is to reduce the starting base points for characters. I find 50 base with 50 disadvantages works quite well for a lower power feel. You then only allow points earned in play to be spent on stats, skills and "powers" used or actively perused during the game.

 

This gives you the ability to add points from disadvantages as the campaign dictates. Adding a hunted to all pc's as a result of who they are annoying during your campaign is fair enough. Add it peace meal as they impact the plans of their new enemy. So after dismantling an evil army's plan to take over a strategically important village it may be worth 5 points but after they raid their main strong hold and steal their cash reserves it can be worth 25. This is in addition to exp character points.

 

These new disadvantage points could be directed to perks, contacts or to any thing you feel balances the effect that the imposed dis advantage will have.

 

As an old player of dnd and role master the artificial level structue never sat too well with me. With hero the simple truth is there are no levels(beyond cps) or profesions it is driven by character development, through role play. So your "thief" can be a magic using assassin and your fighter can be a bit sneaky.

[eepjr24]

It sounds like the goal is to encourage more breadth of skills? Or am I reading that wrong?

 

If that is your goal, I just require packages at the start for games that are supposed to have a level based flavor to start. If you require a racial package, background package and profession package you end up with a character who has quite a few skills unrelated to combat by the nature of the process. And bonus: players have to think about their characters more. =)

 

For some examples you can look at the packages I converted from D&D 5e over on KS's site:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Contributions/eepjr24/Default.aspx

[Hugh Neilson]

My usual question to the "my players build only for combat effectiveness" is "why would that be?"

 

Are you as GM not balancing challenges between combat and non-combat solutions, so they can see value in their non-combat skills (that is, they feel they are being required to spend points on abilities that are, or will be, useless in your game)? One example of this is where social interaction is resolved by the player's cleverness, eloquence, etc. rather than the PC's skills? Maybe it's one of those games where it doesn't matter that you have 23- Charm - I've already decided the unshakeable viewpoints of every important NPC, or where your knowledge skills are useless because where you look for info will be the sole determinant of what you find.

 

Are they sending the message that they WANT the game to focus primarily or exclusively on combat? Is there a disconnect in your and their preferred game styles?

 

Do they feel the opponents are so powerful that they have to pump virtually all of their points into combat in order to survive?

 

This isn't a lot different from D&D games where players never take Craft or Profession because they never have any in-game benefit, or never take social skills because the GM never lets them have any impact - they're only useful for background flavour, or ignore Knowledge skills because it's acceptable to just memorize the Monster Books themselves.

[Christopher R Taylor]

In a level based system (like D&D or Rolemaster), characters start with a limited skill set and develop better skills (both combat and others) as they gain in levels.  In FH, depending on how they spend their points, they can be the equivalent of 10th level fighters just starting out. 

 

 

The best way to deal with that is to give lower points and enforce caps.  The "recommended starting points" for heroic campaigns are so high you will have pretty experienced characters right off the bat.  If that's the kind of game you want -- and there's nothing wrong with it -- then go with those points.  But if you want just Jack and Jill right off the farm starting to learn, cut the points way back.  And put a cap: you cannot have higher than 6 OCV with all levels and maneuvers.  You cannot go over 7 damage classes no matter what combined skills etc you use.

 

Then as time goes on, you start to nudge the caps up to represent greater skill, and the experience increases their point total and hence overall power.

[Hyper-Man]

I'm with Hugh on this one.

 

I think enforcing caps without also educating the players that putting all their XP eggs in one basket can backfire. Combat proficiency can always hit a brick wall. Just be prepared to play out that scenario.

 

HM

[NuSoardGraphite]

Whats wrong with starting a game out with characters who are competent in their roles?

[Richgee]

Absolutely nothing. But other systems impose the level idea, for players that want a tangible quick reward for hitting things with their chosen weapon. Regardless of the levelled system chosen they all share one thing in an almost vampiric way killing things is the way to increase your power.

[Manic Typist]

And by 10th level, all the fighters know obscure languages that only really make sense for the wizard to know... As opposed to HERO, where you actually have to explain how your character is growing instead of gaining arbitrary points.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Absolutely nothing. But other systems impose the level idea, for players that want a tangible quick reward for hitting things with their chosen weapon. Regardless of the levelled system chosen they all share one thing in an almost vampiric way killing things is the way to increase your power.

There are plenty of RPGs where that is not the case. Palladium. Shadowrun. Storyteller. Just about any point based game out there like Hero and Gurps.

 

I actually think these days, games that give the majority of xp for killing creatures are actually in the minority.

[Wardsman]

There are plenty of RPGs where that is not the case. Palladium. Shadowrun. Storyteller. Just about any point based game out there like Hero and Gurps.

 

I actually think these days, games that give the majority of xp for killing creatures are actually in the minority.

 

Absolutely nothing. But other systems impose the level idea, for players that want a tangible quick reward for hitting things with their chosen weapon. Regardless of the levelled system chosen they all share one thing in an almost vampiric way killing things is the way to increase your power.

Chaosium doesn't give XP at all. Uses skill checks.

[Richgee]

I know, my comment was about level based advancement systems. Though having mentioned it, skill checks aren't that much better. They are open to pc abuse. I recall one player in particular who spent the entire campaign trying to use every skill they had at any opportunity while playing CoC. While it was moderately amusing to see it quickly started to become very annoying. Constantly explaining swearing at deep dwellers in sandscript and dodging when someone is trying to toss you a note book won't get you a skill check can be a little disruptive.

[Wardsman]

I know, my comment was about level based advancement systems. Though having mentioned it, skill checks aren't that much better. They are open to pc abuse. I recall one player in particular who spent the entire campaign trying to use every skill they had at any opportunity while playing CoC. While it was moderately amusing to see it quickly started to become very annoying. Constantly explaining swearing at deep dwellers in Sanskrit and dodging when someone is trying to toss you a note book won't get you a skill check can be a little disruptive.

As I recall the GM gets some say in what counts and what does not. though That is mitigated also by have decent training rules as well.

[bluesguy]

I would like to see how you have detailed it out.

 

My own approach is detailed here - it is not a leveling system (here are some specifics characteristics, combat skills, magic skills, and XP).

[Christopher R Taylor]

When I ran Fantasy Hero last time, I would hold back xps until they got 10 or more at a time then give it to them all at once.  I had limits on how much they could spend on any one thing (so no +10 STR at once, for example), but it let players feel a large amount of change rather than small incremental changes.

 

For a lot of players, I've found they understand spending xps directly for abilities better in large chunks rather than small changes over time that add up to a major addition.

[Pegasus40218]

My usual question to the "my players build only for combat effectiveness" is "why would that be?"

 

Are you as GM not balancing challenges between combat and non-combat solutions, so they can see value in their non-combat skills (that is, they feel they are being required to spend points on abilities that are, or will be, useless in your game)? One example of this is where social interaction is resolved by the player's cleverness, eloquence, etc. rather than the PC's skills? Maybe it's one of those games where it doesn't matter that you have 23- Charm - I've already decided the unshakeable viewpoints of every important NPC, or where your knowledge skills are useless because where you look for info will be the sole determinant of what you find.

 

Are they sending the message that they WANT the game to focus primarily or exclusively on combat? Is there a disconnect in your and their preferred game styles?

 

Do they feel the opponents are so powerful that they have to pump virtually all of their points into combat in order to survive?

 

This isn't a lot different from D&D games where players never take Craft or Profession because they never have any in-game benefit, or never take social skills because the GM never lets them have any impact - they're only useful for background flavour, or ignore Knowledge skills because it's acceptable to just memorize the Monster Books themselves.

My gaming group appears to be one that is at least slightly larger than average based upon most of the material I've read (which seems to assume about 4 players) -- we have 7 members (1 GM and 6 players), and we rotate the GM role every couple of months.  Most of the campaigns that are run are "canned" adventures, and with relatively few exceptions, and just about all of the rewards seem to come from combat.  So, regardless of what type of game ​I ​want to run, the players' experiences in every other campaign in the group has driven them to develop combat-oriented characters.

 

To avoid having nothing but combat monsters in the game, when we make our next foray into Fantasy HERO, I'm going to be generating characters for the players.  I don't particularly like this -- I would much rather the players create the characters they want to play -- but, I have come to the conclusion that it's the only way I'm going to end up with characters that aren't going to be completely unbalanced to start with.  Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience with the system to be able to "spot" problem characters with a simple character review.  I'm more experienced with the system than my players, but it's not difficult to create a character that unbalances things in play -- and harder for the GM to spot if it's done with CSLs, martial maneuvers, or other power combos.

 

As others have mentioned, I've come to the conclusion that for the style of campaign I'd like to run (low fantasy), the "heroic" point levels recommended in 6E1 are simply way too high.  Since we primarily play D&D (5e) and Pathfinder in my group, I'll be watching this thread as the details emerge, in particular, paying attention to what did and did not work.

[zslane]

Playing for "levels" can be a difficult habit to break. Many gamers never learn to play any other way. And video game "RPGs" don't help expand anyone's horizons in this matter because they just ape the creaky old level concept and rarely try anything different. That's why I'm not surprised that non-Hero System gamers come to the system wanting the benefits of its combat mechanics, but balk at is experience paradigm. Which is a shame, IMO.

 

After a while (read: a couple of years), I came to dislike the level concept in RPGs. You spend lots of time adventuring with no improvements to your character at all, and then *BAM*, all of a sudden, you get a bunch of new abilities/improvements simply because you crossed some arbitrary point threshold. It is the Christmas Paradigm where you wait and wait and wait and then get all your presents at once, as opposed to the Working Paradigm where you work a little and get a little reward, then you work a little more and get another little reward. The former appeals to our inner child, I suppose, but the latter is more organic and mature.

 

Artificial "leveling" constructs can be overlaid on top of the standard Hero System experience reward methodology, but I'm not convinced it fits well with the philosophy behind a pure point-based character build system. It's square peg/round hole territory in my view. But if you absolutely must do this, the easiest way is to just withhold XP until, say, 15 or 20 points are earned, and then give it to them in a lump sum. But for god's sake, at least don't dictate how those points are spent.

[Manic Typist]

 

As others have mentioned, I've come to the conclusion that for the style of campaign I'd like to run (low fantasy), the "heroic" point levels recommended in 6E1 are simply way too high.  Since we primarily play D&D (5e) and Pathfinder in my group, I'll be watching this thread as the details emerge, in particular, paying attention to what did and did not work.

 

 

What style of low fantasy campaign would you like to run, and what about the recommended point levels do you feel are too high? In 6E I feel it would be fairly easy to make 200-250 pt low fantasy characters who are still quite capable -both off and on the field of battle.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The last Fantasy Hero game I ran, I started the characters on 50 points +25 in complications.  They were young people who just started school in a special academy.  Hence, they were pretty close to a level 1-4 character in D&D terms.  The mage had only a few minor spells.  The fighter was little more than familiar with weapons, the thief was a beginner, etc.  It worked really well, because the characters grew into more fully fleshed out guys over time instead of pre-built super competent in their chosen type.  I was able to threaten them with giant rats and city guards.  Orcs were very dangerous.  Over time they got better and could face more significant foes.

[Wardsman]

The last Fantasy Hero game I ran, I started the characters on 50 points +25 in complications.  They were young people who just started school in a special academy.  Hence, they were pretty close to a level 1-4 character in D&D terms.  The mage had only a few minor spells.  The fighter was little more than familiar with weapons, the thief was a beginner, etc.  It worked really well, because the characters grew into more fully fleshed out guys over time instead of pre-built super competent in their chosen type.  I was able to threaten them with giant rats and city guards.  Orcs were very dangerous.  Over time they got better and could face more significant foes.

I began with earlier edition that had low point totals too.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Starting with lower points works great. I honestly wonder how many Hero gamers have tried it.

[Lucius]

I have, and I'd do it again. I think I probably have a little more fondness for higher point totals but the important thing is being balanced against the challenges; so if a single ogre can wipe out all the player characters, there needs to be some way around the ogre without combat (or a lack of ogre.)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Feeding an ogre to a high point palindromedary

[NuSoardGraphite]

Running is always an option.

 

I love putting characters up against monsters completely capable of slaughtering them just to see how they respond to it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yup, that's how I envision high adventure cinematic heroic role playing - protagonists who either flee from everything or get slaughtered.

 

I think it's important to ensure the players and GM have a common vision in this regard, or conflict in game takes a back seat to conflict out of game.