Modeling Characters from Other Sources

[massey]

Nogroth: The problem isn't the comparison between just those two character. The problem is when nearly every character in the entire game falls into that same narrow band. It just doesn't give you much room to differentiate between characters. As an extreme example, look at the MHI RPG book, where the entire range of Strengths among the human Hunters ranges from 12...all the way up to 15.

 

That's why I think you've got to let normal people go higher than that. 20 isn't the absolute human limit. It's just that beyond 20 gets really special. That gives you a lot more room to move around in.

[Nolgroth]

Nogroth: The problem isn't the comparison between just those two character. The problem is when nearly every character in the entire game falls into that same narrow band. It just doesn't give you much room to differentiate between characters. As an extreme example, look at the MHI RPG book, where the entire range of Strengths among the human Hunters ranges from 12...all the way up to 15.

 

Sheesh. I hate arguing with you because I feel like I am being a punk. There are a couple of things that I want to touch upon and then I'll let it be an "agree to disagree" kind of thing.

 

The first thing, you alluded to in the message I quoted from; not everything is about combat. That's a bit trite because, frankly, combat is a core concept in most peoples' games. Still, having a support character and a character designed to hold the attention of the bad guys while the heavy hitters do their thing is such a routine thing that it has been codified in CRPGs and D&D 4th. That doesn't really address the granularity issue, but it does provide an external evaluation of the rolls different characters can play on the battlefield. Sure, in D&D, the attention getter usually tanks the combat. In our progressively humorous Buffy example, Cordellia may get the monsters to chase her around until Buffy is in a position to smack them, which pretty much does the same thing; tie up the monsters' attention until the heavy hitter knocks them down.

 

The second thing is that Characteristics are not the start and end of the scale. Adding in Martial Arts, Combat Skill Levels and even some Talents can drastically make two characters that have identical characteristics, vastly different characters. Tactics in game, though not technically part of character abilities, also impact how a combat plays out, making two characters with identical stats different simply because the players approach combat differently.

 

Finally, Powers and Equipment are the great inequalizer. Two people with Strength 15, but one has a large, sharp, pointy thingie. All other things being equal, the large, sharp, pointy thingie is going to change the odds in favor of one over the other.

 

As an example of how this works in other systems, take two 1st Level fighters for D&D. Give them the exact same equipment. They already fall within a certain range of stats and will have comparable chances to hit and comparable ability to deal (and take) damage. There really isn't that much difference between the two. Less than Hero, as a matter of fact, because Hero has many more ways to customize a beginning character to give them an edge. Now throw a mage in there. Sure, his physical stats are weaker, but let him cook off a decent combat spell and he can roast either fighter. Toss in the cleric. Definitely not as tough as the fighter, but he has the healing spells that more than even the odds. The thief is probably the least suited to go head to head versus a fighter, but could still potentially beat him with lucky rolls or if the scenario was set up to allow the thief to utilize his backstab. I guess what I am trying to say is that diversity also adds an element of granularity, in that different approaches to the same problem makes for more flexibility.

 

Don't let the similar Characteristic rolls convince you that even lower point Hero games lack granularity. It is tempting to believe that and I DID believe that for some time. When you actually go out and really read and consider how the mechanics of other systems interact with the relative granularity, you will see the Hero falls somewhere in the middle-high end of the granularity scale and has plenty (sometimes too many) options. In fact, the best system I have found for granularity (Fantasy Flight Star Was) relies upon the dice over the generic mechanics of the game. The dice allow for a far wider granularity than Success or Failure.

 

Okay, I am now done beating the dead horse. Just wanted to express what I was thinking on the subject and I think I've said all I can say now. If you do find a system that deals with the granularity a bit better than Hero, I am all for hearing about it. I love to explore other systems and still want to try out a FATE game and run an entire Star Wars: Force and Destiny campaign. Maybe I should go look at Savage Worlds....

[NuSoardGraphite]

Easy.

 

 

Average TV Cop

Str 13

Dex 12

Con 13

Body 10

Int 10

Ego 10

Pre 13

Com 10

PD 4

ED 3

Spd 3

Rec 6

End 26

Stun 24

 

Deduction 11-

KS: Police procedures 11-

PS: Cop 11-

Perk: Cop

 

Police issue 9mm -- D6+1 RKA, 8 charges, 4 clips

Bulletproof vest -- 5/5 Armor, activation 12-

Cop radio -- Radio Transmit and Receive

Handcuffs -- 4D6 Entangle, no range, extra time, must follow grab, arms only

 

 

Done. The exact point values don't matter. The cop doesn't get more points when he goes from a heroic game to a superheroic game. We're doing character modeling. He has XYZ stuff. He costs as many points as he costs. There is no budget whatsoever. Besides, points are for players. Points are not for NPCs.

I am a GM and I support this message.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Hero doesnt need huge amounts of granulatity. It also boils down to design philosophy.

 

In Hero, 1 point difference in skill is pretty big. 2 points difference is very noticeable. 3 points is huge. Thats enough granularity for the system to function accordingly.

 

While Characteristic based skill rolls may not differ much, Heroic characters should he defined by their skills. An experienced character will put more points into an important skill. Will buy skill levels etc. This while there might not be much of a difference in the Dex roll of characters with comparable scores, maybe one put points into climbing and the other put points into Acrobatics which helps to both define and dofferentiate the characters from one another.

 

I actually prefer that Hero has its skill resolution in such a tight curve. Modifiers dont have to be very big to be effective.

[Ninja-Bear]

Nogroth: The problem isn't the comparison between just those two character. The problem is when nearly every character in the entire game falls into that same narrow band. It just doesn't give you much room to differentiate between characters. As an extreme example, look at the MHI RPG book, where the entire range of Strengths among the human Hunters ranges from 12...all the way up to 15.

 

And yeah, games with a bunch of normals and one superhero are problematic. I once saw a Buffy convention game where the player having the most fun was the guy playing Cordelia; she had been given a "endless nagging" power - can't remember if it was done as Mind Control or just a PRE Attack - and spent the whole game getting up in the Bad Guys' grills and yelling at them. And Xander basically had a bunch of Aid Teammate powers that were all activated by him getting his ass kicked. It was great fun...for 4 hours or so. Not sure how well it would work for an ongoing campaign.

I would say that a majority of Champion characters are in a narrow range too. Especially player characters.

[Nolgroth]

Easy.

 

 

Average TV Cop

Str 13

Dex 12

Con 13

Body 10

Int 10

Ego 10

Pre 13

Com 10

PD 4

ED 3

Spd 3

Rec 6

End 26

Stun 24

 

Deduction 11-

KS: Police procedures 11-

PS: Cop 11-

Perk: Cop

 

Police issue 9mm -- D6+1 RKA, 8 charges, 4 clips

Bulletproof vest -- 5/5 Armor, activation 12-

Cop radio -- Radio Transmit and Receive

Handcuffs -- 4D6 Entangle, no range, extra time, must follow grab, arms only

 

 

Done.  The exact point values don't matter.  The cop doesn't get more points when he goes from a heroic game to a superheroic game.  We're doing character modeling.  He has XYZ stuff.  He costs as many points as he costs.  There is no budget whatsoever.  Besides, points are for players.  Points are not for NPCs.

 

There is a flaw in your write-up; no KS: Donut Shops 24- 

[bigdamnhero]

That's why I think you've got to let normal people go higher than that. 20 isn't the absolute human limit. It's just that beyond 20 gets really special. That gives you a lot more room to move around in.

I agree, but that's not even the problem I'm talking about. If the main characters' stats range from 8-20, that's plenty of room for individuality; no lack of granularity there. I'm talking about when GMs feel they have to restrict everyone to a much tighter range, like 8-13, because that's what Normals are "supposed" to have. I'm saying if you need to give the Football Captain a 20 STR and the Gymnastics Captain a 20 DEX because that's how good they should be in relation to other character in the game, do it. It doesn't matter if they're not actually Olympic caliber, like RAW says those scores "should" be.

 

Sheesh. I hate arguing with you because I feel like I am being a punk.

Hey FWIW, I certainly don't think you're being a punk. Hope I'm not being one.

 

The first thing, you alluded to in the message I quoted from; not everything is about combat.

...

The second thing is that Characteristics are not the start and end of the scale. Adding in Martial Arts, Combat Skill Levels and even some Talents can drastically make two characters that have identical characteristics, vastly different characters.

...

Finally, Powers and Equipment are the great inequalizer.

I absolutely agree with every word of this. But again, Martial Arts, CSLs, and especially Talents are things that Heroic characters have, not things that Normals are generally "supposed" to have. If you're comfortable handing them out to a bunch of High School in order to help individualize the characters - awesome! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm suggesting. What I'm criticizing is the mindset I've seen among some Hero GMs that Normals in a "Normal Heroes" game must be 1-for-1 exchangeable with their 25-point Hapless Bystander equivalents in a Supers game.

 

If you're not that GM, then I think we're in violent agreement.

 

I would say that a majority of Champion characters are in a narrow range too. Especially player characters.

Really? That's been the opposite of my experience. In my last Champions game, the Primary Characteristics for the 5 PCs almost all had at least a 10-15 point spread from min-to-max. (The only exception being EGO, which everyone bought up to the 18-23 range.) And of course STR ranged from 10 to 65. And that's just the PCs - the comparison with NPCs, super and otherwise, was far broader.

[bigdamnhero]

In fact, the best system I have found for granularity (Fantasy Flight Star Was) relies upon the dice over the generic mechanics of the game. The dice allow for a far wider granularity than Success or Failure.

...

I love to explore other systems and still want to try out a FATE game and run an entire Star Wars: Force and Destiny campaign. Maybe I should go look at Savage Worlds....

Just a note on other systems. I'm currently playing in a FF Star Wars game, and while to some extent there is more granularity in Characteristics - they only range from 1-5, but each level has a concrete mechanical effect, like going up 5 points in Hero terms - I feel like the sheer randomness of the dice pool mitigates against that to some degree. Plus there's so much room for subjectivity, both in how many opposing dice the GM assigns to the tasks and in how to interpret the results, that to me if often feels like that dwarfs the differences between characters. YMMV of course.

 

I've played a lot of Savage Worlds, and it's okay for simple, fast-playing pulp games IMO. It does have good granularity at the normal-to-heroic level, but of course it doesn't really do Supers well. I also feel, similar to my SW comments above, like the Bennies, Wild Dice and Exploding Dice mechanics can really mitigate against the differences between characters. If you're the expert at something and I'm an amateur, that just means I'm going to have to blow a lot more Bennies on the task to get a comparable result. Which does matter - next time we get shot, you'll have Bennies left to soak damage and I won't - but still.

 

What can I say, I'm a fan of the Hero Bell Curve!

[NuSoardGraphite]

The bell curve us king. Its why Hero works in such small mechanical spreads.

[Nolgroth]

 

Hey FWIW, I certainly don't think you're being a punk. Hope I'm not being one.

 

Nope. Not even a little. I just felt that I was starting to proselytize a bit. That annoys me when others go too far down that road.

 

 I absolutely agree with every word of this. But again, Martial Arts, CSLs, and especially Talents are things that Heroic characters have, not things that Normals are generally "supposed" to have. If you're comfortable handing them out to a bunch of High School in order to help individualize the characters - awesome! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm suggesting. What I'm criticizing is the mindset I've seen among some Hero GMs that Normals in a "Normal Heroes" game must be 1-for-1 exchangeable with their 25-point Hapless Bystander equivalents in a Supers game.

 

One of the things I try to do when creating a campaign, is to use the so-called 0-Point Normal as a yardstick. With Everyman Skills, the 0-Point Normal is supposed to roughly be what you get as you look on the collective masses. While I think Heroes can arise from those masses, I've always been puzzled about how the 0-Point Normal works with racial/species/professional packages. My conclusion has always been that they don't. Most people have something, beyond their PS: <Insert Here> 11- and a collection of common skills. The concept can never be, to me, more than a starting baseline. Dark Champions really sold that to me with a standard Soldier package being ~24 points and the standard beat Cop being ~33 points. Neither one of those packages are heavily combat skill oriented, but they do provide a good baseline to what a professional anything would look like.

 

The 0-point Normal is simply and easily fleshed out skeleton that you start with.

 

 

If you're not that GM, then I think we're in violent agreement.

 

Then tables and chairs are breaking in our bar room brawl of agreement.

 

 

[Nolgroth]

Just a note on other systems. I'm currently playing in a FF Star Wars game, and while to some extent there is more granularity in Characteristics - they only range from 1-5, but each level has a concrete mechanical effect, like going up 5 points in Hero terms - I feel like the sheer randomness of the dice pool mitigates against that to some degree. Plus there's so much room for subjectivity, both in how many opposing dice the GM assigns to the tasks and in how to interpret the results, that to me if often feels like that dwarfs the differences between characters. YMMV of course.

 

...

 

What can I say, I'm a fan of the Hero Bell Curve!

 

Dice pool systems do require a lot of trust between the Character Players and the GM. If that trust does not exist, then every arbitrary assignment of difficulty comes under scrutiny. There has to be a way to bring up disagreements and suggestions. Also, they work really well with rotating GM groups. Nobody wants a long-term grudge to come back and bite them later. 

 

The reason I cite the FFG Star Wars games is that there are roughly six results possible from a die roll, from Absolute Success to Abject Failure (my terms), and some graduated results in between. I think that would be a great narrative tool to use as a GM where a failed roll doesn't necessarily mean that a future success isn't being set up. I admit it is more a flavor thing that fits my overall narrative GM style. When a rule slows down the game or gets in the way of fun, I can it and come back to it later. I did that with Stunning attacks in Hero once and the results were so positive that I tossed them out for the rest of the campaign. Even now, if I include them, I make them a Stun vs. Con x X, where X can be 1.5 or 2. I tend to run cinematic games and find that to work pretty well.

 

There is a lot to recommend the Bell Curve. It is the one thing in Hero that is constant between all genres and power levels. In essence, it is the glue that holds the entire system together, IMO. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Really? That's been the opposite of my experience. In my last Champions game, the Primary Characteristics fro the 5 PCs almost all had at least a 10-15 point spread from min-to-max. (The only exception being EGO, which everyone bought up to the 18-23 range.) And of course STR ranged from 10 to 65. And that's just the PCs - the comparison with NPCs, super and otherwise, was far broader.

Ok but now look how much difference is really between 15 pts in a stat. When converted to char rolls thats only a 3 pt spread. True in a Supers game a brick can have a really high strength score but then compare all your mentalists and gadgeteers type usually they are grouped around 10-15 STR and Martial Artists around 15-20 STR but with martial arts and skills they can be competitive to Bricks. Dex and speed are usually closer together. When was the last time you saw a 31 STR or 19 DEX? I don't anymore just because its easier for me and my kids. I hope Im making sense. : )

[Hugh Neilson]

Ok but now look how much difference is really between 15 pts in a stat. When converted to char rolls thats only a 3 pt spread.

With an 11- roll, an unmodified characteristic check will succeed 62.5% of the time. That 3 point spread results in a 14-, which is a 90.74% chance of success. If anything, maybe the baseline should not be an 11- chance of success, but that three point change is the difference between failing almost 4 times out of 10 to failing a bit less than one time in 10.

 

If the task is difficult (-3 penalty), you move from 8- (25.93% chance of success) to 11- (62.5% chance of success. A -5 (a really tough task) moves you from 6- (9.26% chance to succeed - a fluke) to 9- (37.5% chance, so at least you have a decent shot).

 

That 3 point spread seems pretty significant to me.

 

When was the last time you saw a 31 STR or 19 DEX? I don't anymore just because its easier for me and my kids. I hope Im making sense. : )

The old Mayfair DC Heroes game used a logarithmic scale where one point in a stat doubled how good it was (eg. a 3 STR lifts twice what a 2 STR does), and baseline was 2. That's really not that different from 5 points doubling the stat and having a baseline of 10, except for the ability to have minor gradations. If you want every point to count, try this:

 

STR - multiples of 5 are an even DC. +1 adds 1d2-1 (a 50% chance of 1 extra point), +2 adds a d2, +3 adds 1d3, +4 adds 1d6-1. That 31 STR now has a 50/50 chance of adding +1 STUN to a punch. Apply the same for every stat that has a "1d6 for +5" roll.

 

DEX - your roll improves by 1 at 13 or 18. When you make a DEX roll, roll an extra d6. If your 3d6 roll just misses, but the extra d6 is equal to or less than your DEX score in excess of the breakpoint, you succeed. So your 19 DEX character will succeed if he rolls 13-. If he rolls a 14, he has a 1 in 6 chance of succeeding anyway. Apply to all stats on which 3d6 rolls are based.

 

CON - every point reduces your chance of being Stunned. Similarly, every BOD, EGO (mental attacks), PRE (PRE attacks) point has an impact already. So do all "figured/secondary" stats.

 

The cost of the added granularity is some added complexity, of course.

[bigdamnhero]

The reason I cite the FFG Star Wars games is that there are roughly six results possible from a die roll, from Absolute Success to Abject Failure (my terms), and some graduated results in between. I think that would be a great narrative tool to use as a GM where a failed roll doesn't necessarily mean that a future success isn't being set up.

I thought that was a really neat concept at first. But for me the novelty wore off fairly quickly. The results are too damn random and it seems like you never just win something outright, it's always "I got a Triumph and 2 Successes, but I also got 3 Disadvantages..." YMMV

 

When was the last time you saw a 31 STR or 19 DEX? I don't anymore just because its easier for me and my kids.

Sure, PC stats tend to cluster around the break points, at least initially. (I typically only let players buy up Characteristics 1-2 at a time, so I actually see a lot of 31s and 19s when players are in the process of buying up those stats.) But there is still a significant difference between 19 and 31, as Hugh points out. That's the problem with games where the main characters' stats all cluster within a 3-5 point range - there is no significant mechanical difference.

[massey]

 

 

 

 

Nope. Not even a little. I just felt that I was starting to proselytize a bit. That annoys me when others go too far down that road.

 

 

 

One of the things I try to do when creating a campaign, is to use the so-called 0-Point Normal as a yardstick. With Everyman Skills, the 0-Point Normal is supposed to roughly be what you get as you look on the collective masses. While I think Heroes can arise from those masses, I've always been puzzled about how the 0-Point Normal works with racial/species/professional packages. My conclusion has always been that they don't. Most people have something, beyond their PS: <Insert Here> 11- and a collection of common skills. The concept can never be, to me, more than a starting baseline. Dark Champions really sold that to me with a standard Soldier package being ~24 points and the standard beat Cop being ~33 points. Neither one of those packages are heavily combat skill oriented, but they do provide a good baseline to what a professional anything would look like.

 

The 0-point Normal is simply and easily fleshed out skeleton that you start with.

 

 

 

Then tables and chairs are breaking in our bar room brawl of agreement.

 

 

The 0 point normal is the guy in the background who yells "Look, up in the sky!"

[Ninja-Bear]

But Hugh how many games do you have that have rolls past the 3pt spread? Its possible of course but in game?

 

YY Yes Con and Dex one point has more impact on other game mechanics but that cannot be said of all characteristics.

[Hugh Neilson]

It depends a lot on the game, but a 3 point spread is a huge difference, as spelled out above.

 

In a d20 game, a character with an 8 stat and one with a 20 have a 30% difference in their odds of success with an unmodified roll, where a 3 point spread in Hero for an unmodified roll 62.5% vs just over 90%, almost the same difference. But a d20 "basic task" tends to need a roll of 15, so that 20 stat means you have a 55% chance of success, and something simple (10 DC) still fails 20% of the time.

 

I don't think most games have that huge a spread.

 

Now, if I look at DEX checks in a Supers game (STR is wider, but it's really a damage power), 33 DEX is 16- and 18 is 13-, so that's a four point spread. 10 INT (11-) vs 30 INT (16-) is pretty broad, and I've certainly seen that in Supers.

[Nolgroth]

My next project. Build a character using the Heroic rules and then translate him over to Superheroic, at least in terms of buying equipment with points. I would like to see how that balances out. 

 

Okay. I did exactly as I threatened to do and created a character using the Heroic rules (where equipment costs "money") and then made a version that was exact in every way except that equipment was paid for with points. For simplicity's sake, I mostly used existing resources from Fantasy Hero Complete, Fantasy Hero 6th Edition and the Hero System 1/2 books. I did make some changes based on my personal preferences (mostly with creating Light). I added a Custom Perk under Equipment to represent the utilitarian Adventurers kit. For Heroic characters, it is a matter of coin. For this point buy example, it fits within the Resource Pool. I modeled the Adventurers Kit from the D&D 4th Edition one. 

 

I applied the Racial template (Elf without any of the sub-race options) to represent the Half-Elf abilities and tweaked a little bit to get an "Elf-lite" sort of package. I renamed some of the racial abilities as I did not like the default labels.  I then added the Paladin package but did not include all of the powers. I still had a few points to play around with, so I bought up some of the secondary stats like PD, ED, Stun, END, and Body. Not a lot, but enough to represent that he is a warrior first. I bought him a warhorse with points for both versions. It has the Battle Trained package attached, but is not really special as in a Paladin's Holy Mount. 

 

For Complications, I added some fairly bone stock zealotry, a distinctive features which basically makes him a target for supernatural evil creatures, and a social limitation in that being half-elf makes him a second class citizen around full-blooded elves. Nothing too special there. I wanted to keep him "book legal" or else I would have just dropped the Complication thing altogether.

 

I modeled all of his equipment (sans the aforementioned Adventurers' Kit) from Fantasy Hero 6th edition. Not sure if I got it exactly right, but the builds are internally consistent and that is good enough for this comparison. He had no special gear, but that would have come out of his character point allotment anyway. I gave him a 500 Silver Piece limit. Here is the final Heroic build:

 

Galdarin-H.pdf

 

Converting it over to point buy was relatively easy. I took his basic armor and his horses barding out of the general equipment list and bought them separately. I then looked at the highest Active Point cost (41 for the Medium Lance) and rounded that up to 45. That was the Control cost. I then matched the Control cost with the Pool cost and applied Power Modifiers. The total came out to 71 points. With the armor and the barding, it balanced out to an additional 80 points to buy equipment. That gives me a pretty good idea of how many points I will need to add in order to facilitate a point buy equipment system. I will probably make starting characters 280/75 with a cautionary message that a typical Resource Pool will take 71 points. I won't require it to be purchased, but I will be ruthless about equipment if the player doesn't buy one. I need to build other characters to test that out the final values. A sample of one is too small to get a definitive answer to that. I'm posting the point-buy version as well. I left the equipment section intact as sort of flavor to show how the Resource Pool is broken down.

 

Galdarin-SH.pdf

 

And that is the end of that little exercise. It gave me a pretty solid idea of how I want to organize my future games. It also gave me some meaningful numbers on how weapons are built in terms of points so that I might apply similar ranges to combat spells. I am certainly open to critiques and questions. I'm not sure if this information is useful to anybody else, but I thought I might post it in the off chance that it is.

 

Cheers.

[Wardsman]

That's why I think you've got to let normal people go higher than that. 20 isn't the absolute human limit. It's just that beyond 20 gets really special. That gives you a lot more room to move around in.

Ultimate Skills from 5th had a solution. In a Heroic campaign change the calculation for Charistic base skills.

I'm playing with CHA/3 which gives an 8-10 normal an 11-.

[bigdamnhero]

Ultimate Skills from 5th had a solution. In a Heroic campaign change the calculation for Charistic base skills.

I'm playing with CHA/3 which gives an 8-10 normal an 11-.

Yeah, I've used 8+CHAR/3 before; it works really well for some games.

[Christopher]

Yeah, I've used 8+CHAR/3 before; it works really well for some games.

I noticed something similar when someone asked me to covert Dark Heresy to Hero.

I noticed that the success chances were way lower then what the Hero System could ever provide. Ended up dropping 8- to 7- or even 6-. And reducing the flat part of the formula to 6+Char/5. Never occured to me that I could also change the divider to get more granulatiry.

[Alcibiades]

I noticed something similar when someone asked me to covert Dark Heresy to Hero.

I noticed that the success chances were way lower then what the Hero System could ever provide. Ended up dropping 8- to 7- or even 6-. And reducing the flat part of the formula to 6+Char/5. Never occured to me that I could also change the divider to get more granulatiry.

 

Dark Heresy is a bonus-based system, though, where a "standard" roll has something like a +20-30% bonus default.

[NuSoardGraphite]

CHAR/3 works beautifully to increase the spread.