Duplication

[InfiniteKarma]

Having it be a hard and fast rule that Duplicates always permanently die, and injured Duplicates always recombine to harm the original character, seems like bad design to me, especially since there aren't advantages to bypass those limitations. Plenty of concepts would utilize Duplicates as disposable cannon fodder, and from fictional sources, disposable Duplicates seems to be more common than vulnerable ones. RAW, building Multiple Man or Naruto seems very difficult - neither Duplication nor Summon have the proper options to make them "guilt-free".

 

On the topic of permanently losing CP, that's a pretty touchy subject for most players. Permanently losing character points is usually outside the ability of game mechanics, and a GM building an ability that permanently stripped CP from other characters seems inappropriately adversarial to me.

 

You do lose all of your CP on death, but you also get to create a new character that will be similarly powerful to replace him, unless your group kicks out players when their characters die. Having your character crippled, but not dead, isn't very much fun if you can't meaningfully participate in the game anymore, which would be the case if you had a 200 point character in a 400 point game. At that point, it's breaking the most important rule, which is to make the game fun - just retire him anyway.

 

Of course, spending 5 XP to buy more duplicates to replace dead ones is an option, but that's a unique penalty to the Duplication power that exists nowhere else in the game system. Sure, Duplication is very powerful, but other powerful abilities have a set cost, not an open-ended one. It's just not consistent.

[Surrealone]

 

Plenty of concepts would utilize Duplicates as disposable cannon fodder, and from fictional sources, disposable Duplicates seems to be more common than vulnerable ones. RAW, building Multiple Man or Naruto seems very difficult - neither Duplication nor Summon have the proper options to make them "guilt-free".

Those concepts are either built around duplication as a special effect (instead of using the actual power) OR (as a nod to Duke's point) using a house-ruled Advantage that prevents the death of a duplicate from being permanent  OR (as a nod to Christopher's point) using handwaves by GMs to handwave away the permanent nature of death for a duplicate (a la different house rule).  None of these approaches is any more correct than the other; each has their place and it's up to the GM of each campaign to decide how to approach the issue.  Personally, I can't stand handwaving, especially when (as Duke rightly pointed out) something is an Advantage that should be charged for rather than (lazily) giving that Advantage for free -- but that's my opinion only and I don't expect everyone else to share it.

 

As I'm currently playing a character who has exactly 1 Duplicate (which can permanently die in a world where, if it does, additional CP expenditure can be used to replace it since the SFX for the power would allow that), I wrestled with the same sort of issue Duke did during the design phase and have already offered up all suggestions I have on non-crippling limitation approaches.

 

In a nutshell:

If Duplication is intended to occur in combat, then from a powergaming angle it makes sense to take limitations largely on the Duplicate recombination activity and/or after you're done using the power -- such that there are still very real limitations but their impact doesn't hamper the combat aspects of the power's use.

 

If, however, Duplication is intended to be a non-combat thing, then from a powergaming angle it makes sense to take limitations largely on the Duplicate creation activity and/or as the power is invoked -- such that there are still very real limitations but their impact DOES hamper the combat aspects of the power's use.

 

And then there's my build which does some of each because it's just appropriate to concept...

 

Oh, and as a new afterthought -- the Focus limitation is always an option if the Duplicate is, for example, holographic in nature with an AI-type function driving it -- or magical in nature where a wand or ring or somesuch is the source of the power.  Obviously, whether a Focus is applicable really depends on the nature and SFX of Duplication.

[dsatow]

As a GM, if you are a player with duplication (or summoning of yourself) with lots of duplicates,the GM would very much like that 

1) you pre-plan all you moves before it gets to your phase

2) learn to calculate what you hit with any 3d6 roll in about 1 sec

3) learn to sum up your dice in about 1 sec per 3d6.

 

If you think about the aggravation with a player who rolls 3d6 and then starts calculating out loud "11 + my OCV + my maneuver - your DCV - environmental conditions" and then re-compare that  to what you rolled.  Afterwards you hit and you roll 12d6 EB and you begin counting pips for stun, 1 die at a time and you give me a stun number.  Then you recount all the dice to add up the body one at a time.  Then you roll for knock back and count the pips on those dice one at a time.

 

Now multiply it by the number of duplicates and you will get the number of head bangs your GM and other players will have as their heads hit the table.

 

My advice:

1. learn to use the diff 11 method on what you hit.
2. learn to bunch damage dice into 10s
3. learn to calculate from average for the number of body and count 1s and sixes
4. write results of attacks before you attack a target (get started ahead of the curve)
5. make it easy to track stun for each duplicate and bring your own number counters for your duplicates

 

You need to make it easier on your GM, because a duplicating character is a pain if not run like a well oil machine, not just for yourself but for your party members too.

[Surrealone]

Heh, I expect most of that from all players at the table unless they are brand new.  (And I won't play in a game with more than 1-2 newbies; drives me nuts.)

[Hugh Neilson]

No one said it was needed .. but it's RAW per both 5er and 6e.

No one is denying it is in the rules. The question is whether that rule is needed, or even appropriate.

 

Frankly, I don't see a problem with it. If you're playing one character and it can die, what's the issue with multiple characters you're playing being able to die? For that matter, what's the issue with death, at all? I ask this because, without death/risk, there's very little point in playing because you are doing so knowing that everything will always work out ... eventually ... and that's stupidly boring (to my way of thinking, anyway). The world just doesn't work that way -- and neither do most storylines. Crap happens. Characters die and are gone forever. Why not duplicates, too?

As someone else has noted, when a character dies you build a new one at more or less the same power level and rejoin the game. If you lose a significant ability, you limp along as a low power sidekick to the bigger characters. And, especially in a points based game, that means the dead character is not mechanically gone forever. Make a new character identical to the old one (or a new fighter with the same skill and feat choices in D&D, or a new wizard with the same character choices).

 

Philosophical Aside:

 

In keeping with your concern around permanent loss of CP that have been spent, do you also think that Favors (i.e. the Favor perk) should magically reappear once used, too? I'd expect you would if you're to be consistent in your application of your remark that "CP are typically never lost or destroyed", but Favors are single use and permanently lost once used. It's not different, really -- as it's CP that's permanently lost ... so if you think CP shouldn't be lost or destroyed and you apply that philosophy evenly, then you must also think that Favors should be reusable, yes?

First off, I did say “normally”, not “without exception”. However, I find few players spend their cherished xp on an expendable Favour, but rather develop a Contact. I see Favours used a lot more as a bonus from an adventure than as base xp whose spending rests within the character’s control.

 

If you want the big change in this regard from 5e to 6e, it is the removal of the -2 “Independent” limitation, which imposed the “if lost, the points are gone forever” mechanic on powers, typically foci. But when you lose all your powers, you retire your character and make a new one, right?

 

"Duplicates stay death unless revivedd by build-in Regeneration or another Power" is a important balance factor.

In your opinion, clearly.

 

As important as "Must win a EGO contest" is on Summon and "Base form can not act while Multiform is engaged".

Amicable summons require no EGO roll. Multiform is a variant of Multipower, to me, so of course the points only get allocated to one place at a time.

 

Practically, Duplication could be replaced with a Slavishly Loyal Summon (or less than that – Multiple Man’s duplicates do not always do just what he says without question). There may be a pricing issue, but that’s beside the point. I suspect, if Summon had come along first, we would have used it to simulate duplication.

 

Or, you could just drop the rule which is silly and unwarranted. Its not there as a balancing feature. Its there because in the comics, when the most famous one (in the Legion of Superheroes) had a duplicate died, she lost it forever.

And for all we know, her GM gave her a 5 point HTH combat skill level to make up for loss of her doubled duplicates. Or it was a player-initiated radiation accident rebuild. But I agree that’s the precedent for “dead duplicates are gone forever”. Plenty of other characters have duplicates who die routinely. It seems like TG is the anomaly. Hero also doesn’t simulate characters’ powers being radically reduced, which happens WAY more often in the source material than a duplicate dying.

 

It happens in D&D – Undead drain levels; gear gets lost or destroyed. It’s not really a Hero-ism.

 

I can't see why anyone would even argue this. Taking points away from a character permanently, making them fewer total points than everyone else in the campaign permanently just because they bought a certain power is utterly ridiculous.

 

The only perk that says this is Deep Cover. The rest give ways to shift the points to something else. Even Deep Cover offers an optional "or you could let them put the points somewhere else." Option.

 

Just because the rules are written a certain way doesn't make them right or scribed in stone by God on high. That's why the cost of things change over editions.

Agree with all, especially the part emphasized. The rules themselves say “change the rules if they interfere with the fun”.

 

It is ridiculous only to someone who apparently doesn't want players to have any risks. What fun is it if you always know everything will work out OK and there's no pain or consequence of poor decisions? That's a bit too much like masturbation without the, ahem, payoff, IMHO.

So what is the risk to characters who did not buy Duplication? How do they risk permanent loss of a significant point investment each game?

 

This also seems like a D&Dism – it is possible to have loss without death, so it is similarly possible to have risk without risk of death.

 

Few games see perks disappear without points being transformed.

 

If you spend CP on an ability you lost, where did your CP go? I'll answer with an analogy that a reasonable person would likely consider logical, realistic, fair, and appropriate: The CP obviously goes to the same place your money goes when you spend money on something that you then lose in the real world; it doesn't magically reappear in your wallet or any other usable place.

Sorry, but this is actually a really horrible analogy. Someone else now has the money, which I traded for some other goods or services. That’s basic economics. Who received the extra character points when the duplicate died? What did the character who lost the points receive in return? A lost item is found, or findable, by someone. By your logic, why should a destroyed focus be replaceable, or charges recover? In the past, we had a significant limitation for Independent, and for Charges never recover.

 

So house rule it if you have a problem with it. Done. What's your need to insist that other people see it your way when the rules as written are what they are? Do you need everyone to house rule it the way you would just because you would, or can you, perchance, accept the fact that some people are good with RAW as RAW???

Difficult though it seems to argue with such primal logic, let’s give it a whirl:

 

So don’t house rule it if you have no problem with it. Done. What's your need to insist that other people see it your way and keep the rules as written as they are? Do you need everyone to house rule it the way you would just because you would, or can you, perchance, accept the fact that some people are good with changing RAW???

 

This is the Hero System Discussion Board – it is, by design, a place where people come to discuss the Hero System rules. Not just the RAW, but how they might be changed, how they may not be appropriate, how other editions may have handled it, and perhaps handled it better, etc. If we take the RAW as the Truth from On High, we should not have duplication at all. It was not in the First Edition of the rules, so adding it changed the RAW. There have been lots of changes to RAW which became RAW.

 

Finally, yeah, I remember that Dragon article. I also remember it never became RAW, and most of the abilities could be simulated in plenty of other ways.

[Christopher]

Seriously, that whole argument about "Perma Death" is ludicrous. Could we just stop with that non-argument already?

 

If you want Character Permadeath, you will of course want Duplicate permadeath. If not you can overwrite it for that specific campaign (but that is a really wierd combo you got there; are you asking for players to abuse that with Duplication?).

If you do not want Characer Permadeath, of course it will not be permanent for Duplicates either.

Problem cases to exist.

 

In the average Heroic settings Characters can not afford any freely bought duplication. The point budgets and Campaing rules simply do not allow it.

It will be a prebuild spell or item, at wich point the GM has full control over ofsetting the ability of "automatically reviving duplicates" however he sees fit.

 

In the average Superheroic setting, permadeath is not a thing. Death does not exist, to the point where resurrectiuon should not even cost any points:

 

For all other and fringe cases I can only repeat:
"If you want Character Permadeath, you will of course want Duplicate permadeath.

If you do not want Characer Permadeath, of course it will not be permanent for Duplicates either."

All the rule does is say "does not offer protection against loss from existing Permadeath rules, beyond that one 'life'".

[Hugh Neilson]

In the average Heroic settings Characters can not afford any freely bought duplication. The point budgets and Campaing rules simply do not allow it. It will be a prebuild spell or item, at wich point the GM has full control over ofsetting the ability of "automatically reviving duplicates" however he sees fit.

Why are all spells prebuilds? Can`t Wizards do research?

 

Let`s see... Duplication, 150 point character, costs 50 points (ignoring a much smaller cost for a duplicate much weaker than the main character, which seems a perfectly legitimate spell). Tack on some limitations. m Feedback could be a good one. It could Cost END to activate, or even to maintain. The usual Spell type limitations like Continuing Charges, Concentration (probably only to activate), Extra Time, Gestures and Incantations (both likely to activate only), maybe a Focus or Material Component, and Requires a Roll (Magic Skill) can all apply. Limited Power - only lasts a turn or something like that is another option.

 

So maybe we have a Dimensional Assistance spell defined as Duplication (say 60 AP so I can build my character up to 180 points with xp), Stun Feedback (-1/2), Costs 2x END only to activate (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Requires a Magic Skill Roll (-1/2). That`s a 17 point spell. Not cheap, but not out of the realm of possibility. Hardly crippling in its limitations. A 12d6 Blast spell will have a higher cost, or more limitations, in that STUN Feedback is not viable (and it`s going to cost 12 END per blast if you keep -1/2 for 2x END), so it would be 20 points, or 17 for a 10d6 Blast. Drop it to 8d6 and you can get it at normal END cost for 16 points.

[Surrealone]

 

So what is the risk to characters who did not buy Duplication? How do they risk permanent loss of a significant point investment each game?

This also seems like a D&Dism – it is possible to have loss without death, so it is similarly possible to have risk without risk of death.

Few games see perks disappear without points being transformed.

Because you asked: permanent death is the risk other characters that did not buy Duplication take ... and it entails complete loss of all investments.  Duplication inherently increases this risk (by a factor of the number of duplicates one can create with the power), so NOT taking that risk with each duplicate should, as Duke suggested, be an advantage.

 

You are correct, by the way, that players can start over with a new character after theirs permanently dies (in most cases).  However, you made quite an assumption about being able to start over at the exact same CP level.  In 20+ years of playing Champions/Hero, I have only ever been in one game where people whose characters have died were able to start anew with the exact same CP their previous character ended with.  In -all- other games across that time, the GM enforced whatever the campaign's original starting CP was .... for the new, post-death character's starting CP.  (i.e. All experience that had been earned by the dead character ... was gone.)  Then again, I like gritty games where actions have consequences and dumb decisions have real risks.

 

Most games in which I've played in ~20 years see no recycling of Perks.  Bases and vehicles do get destroyed when people aren't careful with them ... and just as in life, the characters have to buy new ones with their hard-earned EXP (to extend the aforementioned money analogy).  Duplicates die.  Characters do, too.  Focii are taken.  Independent ones, as well.

That's all VERY good, as it properly models the way the world works.  If you want to houserule/handwave it away, great, rock on, do it in your game, but please, please stop suggesting that the rules should change from ones that currently model how things tend to work in the adult world (i.e. successful risk = reward; failed risk == no reward or hardship) ... toward a model that in no way resembles how things work in the adult world (i.e. everyone gets a trophy whether they won or lost; that's BS for 5 year olds who haven't learned to cope with failure).

 

/sarcasm on

• Recycling Favor CP is lame because now there's no urge to hold that Favor for just the right moment knowing it's a one-shot deal; now, in the World According To Hugh [TM], you can use it again and again and again knowing the 1 point will always come back. (That should be an advantage, right???  Not handwaved away by a GM, right???)
• Allowing dead duplicates to come back without it being an advantage in the World According To Hugh [TM] is similar, because now, heck, I'll just have my duplicate dive on that grenade to protect the group ... knowing he'll be back in the morning.  No need for the whole group to scatter or protect one another.  And worse, that duplicate's sacrifice (i.e. the remaining character's sacrifice, since he lost a part of himself) is far less meaningful to the group he saved ... since there's no permanent death of the duplicate ... and no EXP spent by the player to recover the duplicate.  Heck, toss duplicates on grenades willy-nilly, why don't we? -- since their deaths are moot and the duplicate will always return (for no advantage cost) in the World According To Hugh [TM].
• Allowing vehicles and bases to be rebuilt without fresh CP expenditures for the replacement in the World According To Hugh [TM] is also now a yawner in the storyline instead of a huge plot mover that generates player hardship (via tough and unanticipated choices on upcoming EXP expenditures) in addition to character inconvenience.... because no one really lost anything in the World According To Hugh [TM].  A new base will just magically reappear (eventually) despite the base not having Regeneration.  Heck, in the World According To Hugh [TM], you don't need base defenses, at all, and you can leave the doors wide open and let the world know the base is there with all this cool stuff in it -- because there are no meaningul or lasting consequences in the World According To Hugh [TM].  If someone takes things from the base, no problem, the group will get those CP back to spend some other way.  If someone blows the base up, no problem, the CP spent on it will magically reappear to be reused for a new base.  Saving and investing EXP/CP into a base is so tedious, anyway; no group could possibly feel a sense of accomplishment at pooling resources together to replace a lost base -- so let's not make them go through that, let's just handwave some recycled CP into Hugh's new Chia-Base (patent pending) ... add water ... and watch it grow into a fully-functional replacement that had zero cost.
• And then there's death in the World According To Hugh [TM].  In this fantastic and completely retarded place, if you make dumb decisions that get you killed, no problemo, Hugh will ensure you lose none of your starting CP or EXP; he'll give it to you to use on a fresh new character that you can then immediately use to base jump off the Eiffel Tower without a wingsuit or parachute and become street pizza, once more.  Die ten times a day if you want, because you should never lose CP in the World According To Hugh [TM]; he wouldn't want something as insignificant as death to put you out or anything.  Nevermind that your new character didn't actually earn those EXP with this group.  Forget about the fact that others in the group might take issue with a brand new character having the same starting CP value as their characters which they've kept alive for two years have -- because it's perfectly OK to devalue their careful play in a gritty world just to keep failure boy, who got himself perma-dead (for the fourth time, today), from feeling butt-hurt.  We need to treat him as if he were just as successful as those who survived two years worth of games -- so let's give the loser a trophy just for playing ... by starting his replacement characters off with the same CP his old character had, every time, nevermind how this undermines the feelings of success others in the game have.

/sarcasm off

 

Am I getting through, yet?  Is it clear that I feel your vision of game play renders actions meaningless through lack of real risks.  Does it compute for you that successes just aren't something to be celeberated or thrilled about in the World According To Hugh [TM] because they entail no real risks of permanent loss or hardship that had to be faced and overcome by the player? (Important: Not the character, but the player!)  Does it resonate that it's equally true in the World According To Hugh [TM] that failures aren't truly felt because they don't entail real loss/hardship of something the player values? (Again, not the character, but the player!)

 

I really don't want to see RAW shift toward the World According To Hugh [TM], because in the World According To Hugh [TM], there are actually no triumphs or failures, there is only story entailing pretend risks ... not actual ones involving CP/EXP that will influence player feelings and decisions much like risks in the real world influence feelings and decisions.  It's hollow.  Meaningless.  Having 200 earned EXP and 100 survived sessions under your belt in the World According To Hugh [TM] means nothing because Hugh will just let you keep all that EXP on your replacement character when you die ... so why bother trying to live/survive since it costs you, the player, nothing when your character dies in the World According to Hugh [TM]?

 

 

Someone else now has the money, which I traded for some other goods or services. That’s basic economics. Who received the extra character points when the duplicate died? What did the character who lost the points receive in return? A lost item is found, or findable, by someone. By your logic, why should a destroyed focus be replaceable, or charges recover? In the past, we had a significant limitation for Independent, and for Charges never recover.

Incorrect.  Go read it again.  You lost something you bought with money ... which means whoever you paid has your money ... and whoever acquired what you purchased and later lost ...  has whatever you lost.  You still have neither -- and unless you find what you lost ... you still lack both your money and what you lost.  Should you recover it, you have it again ... and you might be able to sell it for what you paid for it to turn it back into money ... if you can find a buyer.

​The analogy holds.  Since you couldn't or didn't follow it, I'll spell it out.  You lost a duplicate you bought with CP ... which means whoever you paid the CP has your CP (in this case, the system/GM) ... and whoever acquired what you purchased and later lost (the grim reaper) ... has what you lost (your duplicate).  You still have neither -- and unless you find what you lost (your duplicate -- in the possession of the grim reaper) ... you still lack both your CP and what you lost (your duplicate).  Should you recover it (resurrection), you have it again ... and you might be able to sell it for what you paid for it to turn it back into CP ... if you can find a buyer (the system/GM).

 

Unless, of course, your GM will just handwave away such things while saying, 'Awww, poor baby, wouldn't want you to actually take risks and feel bad about failure. Here, you can have your duplicate or equivalent CP back like a good little five year old that doesn't know how to face failure, yet ... and, thus, will never know the exhilaration of successfully overcoming an actual risk that has meaning/consequence'.  I hope such a GM has trophies for everyone and not just winners, too... for the sake of consistency.  I know I'd never play in his game, by the way...

 

I'm also done, because I can't make a blind man have surgery that will let him see if he has no interest in seeing... that RAW pertaining to abilities entailing permanent CP loss ... are good, flavorful things to be savored and leveraged in Hero ... not problems to be fixed.

 

 

Surreal

 

P.S. Want to make danger room sessions awesome for your players?  Charge 1CP/EXP admission to fill the kitty, and make it winner take all.  (Teamed fights with a split can be done, too, if you want a wider CP/EXP distribution to multiple winners instead of it all going to one.)  And if you want to do an experiment on the value of CP/EXP gains/losses as motivation, pay attention to:

1. Whether people who usually participate ... opt out (because they're unwilling to risk a CP ... but will fight if there's no risk) -- this is akin to saving that Favor for just the right moment -- hanging onto something valued instead of flippantly using it because its value is meaningless.  It's also akin to playing carefully to stay alive if you might not keep all earned EXP when you die (i.e. won't risk the CP loss)  ... but not being so careful if there's no risk of actual loss on death (i.e. usually fights if no risk of loss).
2. Whether the high is higher for the winner because not only did he risk loss and overcome it ... he also got something tangible/usable in player space for it as a reward (which reinforces his character's feelings of success in the fight through gain of something valued by the player) -- which shows added meaning derived from tangible risk.
3. Whether the low is lower for the losers because they failed to overcome risk ... and lost something tangible/usable in player space because of it (which reinforces their character's feelings of failure in the fight through loss of something valued by the player) -- which also shows added meaning derived from tangible risk.

This is especially effective if you track danger room session participation in sessions that have no CP/EXP at risk for a while before you begin doing the above.

[Hugh Neilson]

Because you asked: permanent death is the risk other characters that did not buy Duplication take ... and it entails complete loss of all investments.  Duplication inherently increases this risk (by a factor of the number of duplicates one can create with the power), so NOT taking that risk with each duplicate should, as Duke suggested, be an advantage.

 

You are correct, by the way, that players can start over with a new character after theirs permanently dies (in most cases).  However, you made quite an assumption about being able to start over at the exact same CP level.  In 20+ years of playing Champions/Hero, I have only ever been in one game where people whose characters have died were able to start anew with the exact same CP their previous character ended with.  In -all- other games across that time, the GM enforced whatever the campaign's original starting CP was .... for the new, post-death character's starting CP.  (i.e. All experience that had been earned by the dead character ... was gone.)  Then again, I like gritty games where actions have consequences and dumb decisions have real risks.

Well and good. However, if the character spent 1/3 of his character points to have one Duplicate, and he can come back into the game from "permadeath" with a new character who has more than 2/3 of the points his old character possessed, he is still ahead.

 

What are the comparable consequences of actions and real risks of dumb decisions to a character who did not purchase Duplication? Can a Martial Artist permanently lose, say, a 5 point skill level or a Martial Arts DC? I again reiterate that death of a character is not the only way actions can have negative consequences, nor that decisions can have risks. In fact, I find playing on, through the negative results of our previous errors and actions, to be much more reinforcing of the consequences than, say, a TPK and we start all over again with new characters.

 

Most games in which I've played in ~20 years see no recycling of Perks.  Bases and vehicles do get destroyed when people aren't careful with them ... and just as in life, the characters have to buy new ones with their hard-earned EXP (to extend the aforementioned money analogy).  Duplicates die.  Characters do, too.  Focii are taken.  Independent ones, as well.

 

That's all VERY good, as it properly models the way the world works.  If you want to houserule/handwave it away, great, rock on, do it in your game, but please, please stop suggesting that the rules should change from ones that currently model how things tend to work in the adult world (i.e. successful risk = reward; failed risk == no reward or hardship) ... toward a model that in no way resembles how things work in the adult world (i.e. everyone gets a trophy whether they won or lost; that's BS for 5 year olds who haven't learned to cope with failure).

So what is the risk for the player who simply does not invest his character points in such constructs. Does the player whose character has natural powers, skills and abilities (the Superman character) have a "get out of risk free" card not available to the gadgeteer with his web of contacts and foci (the Batman character)? Even risk of death can be mitigated with higher defenses, higher BOD, Regeneration and Resurrection. Even before we consider that the player gets to bring in a new character, none of whose precious xp, perks, duplicates, etc. have ever been subject to risk.

 

Recycling Favor CP is lame because now there's no urge to hold that Favor for just the right moment knowing it's a one-shot deal; now, in the World According To Hugh [TM], you can use it again and again and again knowing the 1 point will always come back. (That should be an advantage, right???  Not handwaved away by a GM, right???

It is an "advantage". It's called "buying a contact instead". I did not say "favour should recycle", I said I see it used far more often as a bonus xp award than as a purchase by the player with his precious xp. Much more often, I see the player build a long-term relationship with NPCs with his precious xp.

 

 

Allowing dead duplicates to come back without it being an advantage in the World According To Hugh [TM] is similar, because now, heck, I'll just have my duplicate dive on that grenade to protect the group ... knowing he'll be back in the morning.

As opposed to having a Summoned creature do so, protecting the group with my one charge per day SuperBarrier (knowing the charge will recover at the stroke of midnight), the high DEF character leaps on the grenade, etc. etc. etc. Is the game meaningful only if someone loses abilities or a character? How Angsty-Wangsty!

 

 

Allowing vehicles and bases to be rebuilt without fresh CP expenditures for the replacement in the World According To Hugh [TM] is also now a yawner in the storyline instead of a huge plot mover that generates player hardship (via tough and unanticipated choices on upcoming EXP expenditures) in addition to character inconvenience.... because no one really lost anything in the World According To Hugh [TM].  A new base will just magically reappear (eventually) despite the base not having Regeneration.  Heck, in the World According To Hugh [TM], you don't need base defenses, at all, and you can leave the doors wide open and let the world know the base is there with all this cool stuff in it -- because there are no meaningul or lasting consequences in the World According To Hugh [TM].

So why does the Blaster get an unlimited supply of END that just keeps recovering? Why does STUN and BOD come back on its own, without expenditure of precious xp - are there NO meaningful or lasting consequences to combat? You also highlight the solution - simply apply a "regeneration tax" to every CP expenditure so that you can recover duplicates, vehicles and bases in the same manner you recover, say, Charges, Foci (like those four OAF Grenades), STUN, END and your own BOD.

 

 

If someone takes things from the base, no problem, the group will get those CP back to spend some other way.  If someone blows the base up, no problem, the CP spent on it will magically reappear to be reused for a new base.  Saving and investing EXP/CP into a base is so tedious, anyway; no group could possibly feel a sense of accomplishment at pooling resources together to replace a lost base -- so let's not make them go through that, let's just handwave some recycled CP into Hugh's new Chia-Base (patent pending) ... add water ... and watch it grow into a fully-functional replacement that had zero cost.

Kind of like Batman gets a new utility belt, Hawkeye picks up a fresh bow and quiver stocked with arrows and Iron Man has a new suit waiting, isn't it? Really, you should have to buy all your powers and abilities with charges, and when they are gone, they are gone - buy new powers with your XP! There's no real drama or cost to using your EB when it has unlimited charges, or casting your Mystic Protection spell when you know you will be able to cast it again tomorrow for zero cost.

 

 

And then there's death in the World According To Hugh [TM].  In this fantastic and completely retarded place, if you make dumb decisions that get you killed, no problemo, Hugh will ensure you lose none of your starting CP or EXP; he'll give it to you to use on a fresh new character that you can then immediately use to base jump off the Eiffel Tower without a wingsuit or parachute and become street pizza, once more.  Die ten times a day if you want, because you should never lose CP in the World According To Hugh [TM]; he wouldn't want something as insignificant as death to put you out or anything.  Nevermind that your new character didn't actually earn those EXP with this group.  Forget about the fact that others in the group might take issue with a brand new character having the same starting CP value as their characters which they've kept alive for two years have -- because it's perfectly OK to devalue their careful play in a gritty world just to keep failure boy, who got himself perma-dead (for the fourth time, today), from feeling butt-hurt.  We need to treat him as if he were just as successful as those who survived two years worth of games -- so let's give the loser a trophy just for playing ... by starting his replacement characters off with the same CP his old character had, every time, nevermind how this undermines the feelings of success others in the game have.

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT! GLORY HALLELUJAH - never again will I allow a player to retire a character. If your character goes, you must go as well. Character dead? You are out of the game. Go, and never darken my doorstep again.

 

Now, how do we get the rules fixed so there is real risk - clearly, if you lose your character, Hero Games representatives should be on call to seize and destroy all of your gaming materials - there's no risk if you can just keep playing after losing a character, after all. Once you lose a character, that's it - you can NEVER return to Hero again. Unless, of course, you purchase new copies of the books. That would be OK, since that means there is some actual RISK in playing and dumb decisions (like role playing your Heroic Paladin to sacrifice his life, that his friends might live) must have real consequences, real loss, or else they are utterly meaningless.

 

CAN I GET AN AMEN, BROTHERS?

 

 

/sarcasm off

OK, me too 

 

 

Am I getting through, yet?  Is it clear that I feel your vision of game play renders actions meaningless through lack of real risks.  Does it compute for you that successes just aren't something to be celeberated or thrilled about in the World According To Hugh [TM] because they entail no real risks of permanent loss or hardship that had to be faced and overcome by the player? (Important: Not the character, but the player!)  Does it resonate that it's equally true in the World According To Hugh [TM] that failures aren't truly felt because they don't entail real loss/hardship of something the player values? (Again, not the character, but the player!)

Oh, the sarcasm is back on again, I see. Do you want me to agree that, if the character is shot, then the player should take a bullet as well? Lose a limb? No problem, just step out back - I'm pretty sure I have an axe in the garden shed. Percy the Paladin stayed behind to allow his friends to escape the Fire Breathing Dragon? I think I have a jerry can around here somewhere, but we may have to hold off until next week for me to rent a wood chipper. Can't have the character die without consequences to the player, can we now?

 

I really don't want to see RAW shift toward the World According To Hugh [TM], because in the World According To Hugh [TM], there are actually no triumphs or failures, there is only story entailing pretend risks ... not actual ones involving CP/EXP that will influence player feelings and decisions much like risks in the real world influence feelings and decisions.  It's hollow.  Meaningless.  Having 200 earned EXP and 100 survived sessions under your belt in the World According To Hugh [TM] means nothing because Hugh will just let you keep all that EXP on your replacement character when you die ... so why bother trying to live/survive since it costs you, the player, nothing when your character dies in the World According to Hugh [TM]?

So if you get xp, all's right with the world. Never mind that your father was lost to the Pits of Hades, you can buy a skill level, so that was a win. Only increasing power matters, and only loss of power is a real penalty for in-game losses. If you should happen to lose, or retire, a character, expect your new character to be a comic relief sidekick compared to the others, who role played so much better by heroically skulking in the shadows, fleeing in terror and only sneaking back later to loot your character's body. Clearly, you do not know how to play a role playing game. Seriously, how DO we get the gaming companies to ban you for life and seize your rule books?

 

Too many quotes...have to split the post

[Hugh Neilson]

Incorrect. Go read it again. You lost something you bought with money ... which means whoever you paid has your money ... and whoever acquired what you purchased and later lost ... has whatever you lost. You still have neither -- and unless you find what you lost ... you still lack both your money and what you lost. Should you recover it, you have it again ... and you might be able to sell it for what you paid for it to turn it back into money ... if you can find a buyer.

Seems like SOMEONE has it. Who has that lost xp?

 

​The analogy holds. Since you couldn't or didn't follow it, I'll spell it out. You lost a duplicate you bought with CP ... which means whoever you paid the CP has your CP (in this case, the system/GM) ... and whoever acquired what you purchased and later lost (the grim reaper) ... has what you lost (your duplicate). You still have neither -- and unless you find what you lost (your duplicate -- in the possession of the grim reaper) ... you still lack both your CP and what you lost (your duplicate). Should you recover it (resurrection), you have it again ... and you might be able to sell it for what you paid for it to turn it back into CP ... if you can find a buyer (the system/GM).

 

Unless, of course, your GM will just handwave away such things while saying, 'Awww, poor baby, wouldn't want you to actually take risks and feel bad about failure. Here, you can have your duplicate or equivalent CP back like a good little five year old that doesn't know how to face failure, yet ... and, thus, will never know the exhilaration of successfully overcoming an actual risk that has meaning/consequence'. I hope such a GM has trophies for everyone and not just winners, too... for the sake of consistency. I know I'd never play in his game, by the way...

 

I'm also done, because I can't make a blind man have surgery that will let him see if he has no interest in seeing... that RAW pertaining to abilities entailing permanent CP loss ... are good, flavorful things to be savored and leveraged in Hero ... not problems to be fixed.

So why are we not also insisting the rules should reflect this consistently, such as:

 

​The analogy holds. Since you couldn't or didn't follow it, I'll spell it out. You lost a hand grenade/END points you bought with CP ... which means whoever you paid the CP has your CP (in this case, the system/GM) ... and whoever acquired what you purchased and later lost (the street sweeper; the Spirit of Exhaustion) ... has what you lost (your hand grenade/END points). You still have neither -- and unless you find what you lost (your grenade -- good luck reforging it/your END point -- in the possession of the Spirit of Exhaustion) ... you still lack both your CP and what you lost (your hand grenade/END points). Should you recover it (resurrection - we'll just use the same term for any recovery of an ability you have used), you have it again ... and you might be able to sell it for what you paid for it to turn it back into CP ... if you can find a buyer (the system/GM).

 

Unless, of course, your GM will just handwave away such things while saying, 'Awww, poor baby, wouldn't want you to actually take risks and feel bad about failure. Here, you can have your hand grenade/END points or equivalent CP back like a good little five year old that doesn't know how to face failure, yet ... and, thus, will never know the exhilaration of successfully overcoming an actual risk that has meaning/consequence'. I hope such a GM has trophies for everyone and not just winners, too... for the sake of consistency. I know I'd never play in his game, by the way...

 

I'm also done. Gamers for whom mechanical benefits and increasing power are the sole measure of success in a game are roll players, not role players, and not needed at any table. These are the gamers for whom only mechanical losses - reduced CP equating to reduced character power - are the only in-game losses that matter.

 

Want to make any sessions awesome for your players? Make them about role playing, not just roll playing. XP, power advancement, level advancement? These are tools of the game. In a GOOD game, the players have fun, enjoy the game and would play and enjoy a game with no character advancement whatsoever, much less competitive character advancement. Role playing, at least in the GOOD games I've played in, is a team effort, not a munchkinny grab at "power for my character, whether by gains for me or losses for you, at all costs".

 

YMMV

[Hugh Neilson]

One final thought: Your Danger Room scenario is all about one player winning and the rest losing. It contains nothing about character development, team work, or the social aspect of role playing. Why don`t you just play a board game? Everyone can put a buck in and the winner takes all.

[Duke Bushido]

so that you can recover duplicates, vehicles and bases in the same manner you recover, say, Charges, Foci (like those four OAF Grenades),

Charges of Duplication....

 

 

I'm going to be out for a while. Hugh has my creative side tingling, and I need to go see what kind of fun I an have with "Charges of Duplication."

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I think you need continuing charges, but other than that...

[Duke Bushido]

I think you need continuing charges, but other than that...

That was where the _fun_ was going to come in:

 

Trying different types of Charges, Endurance Reserves, etc.

 

What can I say? When I'm left to myself, I do some odd and strange things for laughs.

[Christopher]

Most games in which I've played in ~20 years see no recycling of Perks.  Bases and vehicles do get destroyed when people aren't careful with them ... and just as in life, the characters have to buy new ones with their hard-earned EXP (to extend the aforementioned money analogy).  Duplicates die.  Characters do, too.  Focii are taken.  Independent ones, as well.

I think you missunderstand something:

If you bought the Vehicle base with money (INSTEAD of the perk), of course you do not get it back. That is normal heroic equipment rule. Buy with money, loose it your lost it.

However, if you bought the Vehicle/Base with Points, then you should get it back.

You do not have to pay both ways to have the lesser effect of both. THat would be somewhat stupid.

 

Also note 6E1 98:

"Unlike Skills, Perks are inherently transitory

in nature. A character can gain Perks during the

course of the campaign and later lose them just

as easily. If a character loses a Perk he typically

get the Character Points he spent on it back,

unless the rules for a specifc Perk note otherwise."

 

However Duplication is NOT a perk.

It is a power, either prebuild and bought as equipment/magic or bought with points.

The only of the 1/5 CP perks even remotely similar is Follower. And it has this to say:

"If a Follower dies during an adventure, the

character may permanently lose the Character

Points spent on him. At the GM’s option, the character can recruit another Follower (built on the

same amount of Character Points) to replace the

dead Follower, but this typically takes a long time

and should be roleplayed."

But that Limited Repalceability is paid for with these line about limited control:

"A Follower is loyal to the character (sometimes slavishly so), but that doesn’t mean he’ll do

anything for him. He’ll ofen risk life and limb to

aid the character, but the character can’t exploit him at will. Followers won’t tolerate abuse, degradation, or similar poor treatment any more than

any other NPC would; a character who wants to

keep a Follower’s loyalty has to treat that Follower

with a certain amount of respect. Te GM determines what tasks a Follower will perform, taking

common sense and dramatic sense into account."

Player Control: Not Fully (still a NPC, even if a loyal one)

Repalceability: Not fully lost in most circumstance

 

Compare that to duplication:

"Each Duplicate is as free-willed as the base

character. Te player plays each character simultaneously, and must have a complete character

sheet for each Duplicate (or some other method

of keeping track of the actions and states of the

various Duplicates)."

"f a Duplicate has the

Resurrection form of Regeneration, he comes

back from the dead when killed just like any other

character, and thus isn’t “lost.” Similarly, he could

be brought back to life with Healing Resurrection."

"If a Duplicate or the base character is killed,

the others cannot revive him by recombining

— he stays dead; the character has lost a part of

himself. (Te dead Duplicate could be Resurrected, however.)"

Player Control: Fully.

Replacebility: Worst (from all the 5 to 1CP powers).

 

And of course again:

"Death is only as relevant as the setting wants it to be."

No perma-death for Characters? No permadeath for Duplicates or Followers either.

Perma-Death for Characters? Why would you want no-permadeath for Duplicates or Followers then?

Fringe cases: Either of the above two should apply.

[Hugh Neilson]

Great summary of current RAW. I am not sure about the design philosophy you intuit. It does not cover Deep Cover, nor explain a slavishly loyal Summon which has no parameters for permanent loss of points. The much more expensive "summon specific being" does, I suppose. We've discussed that issue once before.

 

In any case, I suggest we have established that the RAW (outside any house rule/variant, however weird, wacky, unrealistic, unfair, toddler-directed, PvP encouraging, surreal and/or fun-crushing) is that CP can be permanently lost only with Followers (GM discretion), Deep Cover, Duplicates and Summon Specific Being.

 

To me, that makes these uncommon enough to be outlier rules. In my view, bringing them under the common philosophy, with the usual "subject to a GM deciding not to follow these rules in the interests of adding fun to the game", would be the best approach.

 

It would also continue the trend in that regard, in that "charges never recover" and "Independent" were both removed in the last update. In addition to a "points are never lost" metarule, this is also consistent with a "point costs do not vary on how you spend your points" rule, into which loss of points, or forced reassignment of points, falls. So does Elemental Control and the Normal Characteristics Maximum disadvantage/complication.

 

I like a consistent underpinning of the rules where practical. It does, however, sometimes conflict with ease of play, which is always a balancing act. I don't think any benefit from "points lost permanently", whether from a balance or logic perspective, is enough to justify the hassle factor, outlier rule and balance issue of "some characters can lose points and some cannot".

 

If the player and GM agree "dead duplicate is gone forever", it's a radiation accident and the points can be re-spent elsewhere, ideally with in-game role playing and storyline. It's not "I spend 5 XP to double my duplicates - now I am Quadruple Queen", especially with no in-game explanation for the dead duplicate suddenly springing back to life, along with another clone. If we don't have that issue, a new follower (similar or not) can be recruited, and a new Deep Cover established. I don't see either as inconsistent with the source material. Nor do I see any source material that suggests "the points are gone, never to return".

[Nolgroth]

If the player and GM agree "dead duplicate is gone forever", it's a radiation accident and the points can be re-spent elsewhere, ideally with in-game role playing and storyline. It's not "I spend 5 XP to double my duplicates - now I am Quadruple Queen", especially with no in-game explanation for the dead duplicate suddenly springing back to life, along with another clone. If we don't have that issue, a new follower (similar or not) can be recruited, and a new Deep Cover established. I don't see either as inconsistent with the source material. Nor do I see any source material that suggests "the points are gone, never to return".

 

That's how I would do it. If the base form died forever, then the Duplicate would become the new base form, along with said "radiation accident." The only way I could see myself deviating from this is upon player request. I'm very hesitant to change the fundamental nature of a character, especially after an incident with the Reincarnation spell in D&D. 

[eepjr24]

Just so I am clear, this thread tangent is about what people use in there games, not confusion about RAW, correct? Because I don't see ambiguity in RAW for this one.

 

If a Duplicate or the base character is killed, the others cannot revive him by recombining — he stays dead; the character has lost a part of himself. (The dead Duplicate could be Resurrected, however.) If he later spends points to buy more Duplicates, calculate the additional number as if the death(s) had not occurred. For example, suppose a character has eight Duplicates. One Duplicate is killed. If the character pays another +5 Character Points to double the number of Duplicates he has, he now has 15 — the 16 he’d ordinarily have for paying +20 Character Points, minus the one who died.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't think there is any confusion as to RAW - the discussion is on the appropriateness of the RAW. As indicated above, I think this is an outlier mechanic (maybe not an orphan - it has a sibling, Deep Cover, and a half-sibling, Follower). However, the one time Favor clearly can't just regenerate. I see that as more a role playing reward than a point expenditure, though - a "bonus xp in specific form" flowing from an in-game event that causes the person to feel he owes the character something. I would allow the character to cultivate that relationship, though, spending xp to convert the NPC into a Contact (or leave the favour outstanding and buy the contact in addition).

 

Again, source material - does the guy who "owed me one" disappear without a trace after delivering the favour "and now we're even", or recur in some ongoing role? Often, the "favour - one and done" is an opponent rather than a friend/contact. "I ain't gonna kill youse on account of what you done for my sister, but that's it - we're even. I better never see your face in my bidness no more."

[Duke Bushido]

I suggest we have established that the RAW (outside any house rule/variant, however weird, wacky, unrealistic, unfair, toddler-directed, PvP encouraging, surreal and/or fun-crushing) is that CP can be permanently lost only with Followers (GM discretion), Deep Cover, Duplicates and Summon Specific Being.

I am _seriously_ not trying to keep this argument (the good kind of argument; not the flames and hatred kind, but "argument" used correctly) going. But as the conversation has died down, it's my hope that any heated seats may have cooled enough for me to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, would someone be kind enough to define "PvP," as used above, please?

 

 

 

To me, that makes these uncommon enough to be outlier rules. In my view, bringing them under the common philosophy, with the usual "subject to a GM deciding not to follow these rules in the interests of adding fun to the game", would be the best approach.

Hugh, specifically: I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that the "common philosophy" is the "losing points is wrong" position, or that it is the "game groups can use what they want and ignore the rest" position?

 

"charges never recover" and "Independent" were both removed in the last update.

As much as I thought that "Independent" was a sort of "gimme," points-wise, I liked the fact that the two Limitations to which you referred existed. Not so much because I thought there was a need for them (well, I suppose one-shot flares and certain enchanted items might take the "charges never recover," but how often do they get statted out anyway? And it's not like you couldn't call it Burnout: 18- )

 

Hmm... 18-) is now my go-to smiley face. 18-)

 

But what I liked about them was that they _increased_ the number of constructs with which points could be lost forever. Before making assumptions, though--

 

There have been a couple of references in this thread to "D&D-isms," I think the term was. It just struck me that the existence of these things could allow for better modeling of effects that HERO doesn't do as well. That, and the addition of "points lost" builds adds to the validity of the existence of a points-lost mechanic.

 

 

In addition to a "points are never lost" metarule,

That's why I felt the existence of a points-lost mechanic was a good thing. As demonstrated above, I don't use it personally-- not in Supers; I have used Independent on almost every no-name weapon in the Sci-Fi games). The points-lost idea is a meta-rule. I have always assumed it's a meta-rule to enforce some kind of balance:

 

"want to play five characters while the other five players twiddle their thumbs? Here's the chance you're going to take."

 

It's not like the major bulk of "game balance" isn't enforced through meta-rules, anyway:

 

Defenses are less costly than offenses. Adjustment Powers work against mechanics and not SFX: Drain: Flight will Drain telekinetic flight, magic amulet flight, lighter-than-air flight and rocket packs equally. Defenses work against mechanics and not SFX: rED stops Radiation, Electricity, Sonic Vibrations, or anything else assigned "Energy attack."

 

I am perfectly willing to accept that this is yet another "metarule" that was meant in some way to balance things out in the game.

 

Of course, I'm not a mathematician. I'm a math hobbyist, and not much of one at that, so I don't expect everything follow one universal set of rules. I also understand the need for metarule balance: if we didn't use "rED" but instead used "rED: Electricity," then the guy with the flame powers is going to rule the tristate area in no time.

 

Just my thoughts on it; you already know how I actually use (ish) the rule anyway, at least as it falls to Duplication.

 

 

this is also consistent with a "point costs do not vary on how you spend your points" rule,

I swear, I read and re-read this thread several times before deciding to ask these questions, but would you be kind enough to explain what you meant there? I'm really not getting it.

So does Elemental Control and the Normal Characteristics Maximum disadvantage/complication.

I see where you're going with Normal Characteristics Maxima. Well, sort of. I mean, it's another metabalance: like the blues player at the crossroads, it's the deal you made early on when you really wanted a few points to spend right now. It's never been a big issue in our Supers games just because it's one of the first things most players try to buy off with XPs. In our Heroic stuff, it's pretty much mandatory for everyone at 0 pts. I suppose that isn't a fairness issue, though, as everyone gets it the same way.

 

 

 

especially with no in-game explanation for the dead duplicate suddenly springing back to life, along with another clone.

A bit OT here, but I rather like the notion that the dead one pops back up when you Duplicate. Still dead, of course. (I don't like it for gameplay, but the mental image amused me).

 

 

Nor do I see any source material that suggests "the points are gone, never to return".

There was a series of (awful) publish-to-Kindle books a while back one of my brothers finally talked me into reading. The main character was some sort of supernatural assassin. After far more books than could be justified by the writing talent, he was so powerful that he really should have had his own nation. He even commented that he was so powerful only an assassin's bullet from umpteen miles away traveling faster than he could perceive had a chance to take him out.

 

So that's what the author did. And it took him out. And he came back (the supernatural schtick). And he was just as low-powered as he was in the first book. And he stayed that way, building his powers back up over the next few books until I just couldn't take it anymore and told my brother I had read all I ever wanted to read of that. Oddly, I can't remember the name of the series or the character. I'll have to ask D when I see him again.

 

It's not much, but it's something. 18-)

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

(Thanks for any points you may want to clarify for me)

[Hugh Neilson]

I am _seriously_ not trying to keep this argument (the good kind of argument; not the flames and hatred kind, but "argument" used correctly) going. But as the conversation has died down, it's my hope that any heated seats may have cooled enough for me to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, would someone be kind enough to define "PvP," as used above, please?

Duke, you discuss. You don’t argue. Maybe you debate, but that’s a different animal. Happy to continue the discussion.

 

PvP = Player vs Player

 

 

Hugh, specifically: I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that the "common philosophy" is the "losing points is wrong" position, or that it is the "game groups can use what they want and ignore the rest" position?

The common philosophy of the rules is that CP are not taken away from characters. That default should be applied to the few current outliers (though Favour remains a challenge). Game groups can vary from that consistent RAW as they see fit, but I would suggest “character points are not lost” be included in the meta-rules, and Favour specifically called out as the exception.

 

 

As much as I thought that "Independent" was a sort of "gimme," points-wise, I liked the fact that the two Limitations to which you referred existed. Not so much because I thought there was a need for them (well, I suppose one-shot flares and certain enchanted items might take the "charges never recover," but how often do they get statted out anyway? And it's not like you couldn't call it Burnout: 18- )

To me, limitations are valid only if they will be used. Independent is used only if the ability is eventually lost. So we get a character who is vastly more powerful than his peers out of the gate, then eventually loses his powers and limps along as a low powered sidekick, or gets replaced with a new character (also with these high limitation powers, so the cycle continues).

 

It’s a lot like old school RPG’s that figured “your character is really underpowered and useless at low levels, but becomes overpowered and omnipotent at higher levels” is “balanced”. Independent et al are the reverse – start out really powerful and watch your powers decline as the campaign progresses.

 

There have been a couple of references in this thread to "D&D-isms," I think the term was. It just struck me that the existence of these things could allow for better modeling of effects that HERO doesn't do as well. That, and the addition of "points lost" builds adds to the validity of the existence of a points-lost mechanic.

IMO, most abilities that are permanently lost in D&D come from things that are acquired as gear, which would not be acquired with CP in a Heroic game in Hero. “You did not pay points for it” makes it independent. As you don’t pay points, no limitation is relevant.

 

"want to play five characters while the other five players twiddle their thumbs? Here's the chance you're going to take."

Or buy followers, or use Summon to bring in slavishly loyal allies, in both cases playing five characters while the other five players twiddle their thumbs, with no risk the points will be lost. And, again, how is it a fun game if we have one player who dominates the game with his huge number of duplicates at the start, then becomes a weakling tagalong as the campaign progresses? All the other players have no fun at the start, and if they stick it out, they can twist the knife when the spotlight hog becomes useless?

 

I swear, I read and re-read this thread several times before deciding to ask these questions, but would you be kind enough to explain what you meant there? I'm really not getting it.

NCM was the classic, for me. You can have Disadvantage points to spend elsewhere if you agree to pay double for characteristics higher than this bar. So who would take the disadvantage (for 20 points) if this would double the cost of more than 20 points of characteristics? Why do you get a special deal for that specific character concept? My Brick doesn’t get a 10 point disadvantage for “can’t buy mental powers”.

 

Elemental Control had similar issues – you get a point break for having a tight character concept? Isn’t everyone supposed to have a tight character concept? And are you really telling me if Stan Lee didn’t create SpiderSense, we’d think Danger Sense went hand in hand with Spider Powers? And how are Focus webshooters part of a “tight concept” of a guy who gains spider-powers from a radioactive spider? Stan, you munchkinny point whore!

 

5e (IIRC) brought the mechanical drawback of “drain one, drain all”, and 6e moved that to a limitation.

 

I see where you're going with Normal Characteristics Maxima. Well, sort of. I mean, it's another metabalance: like the blues player at the crossroads, it's the deal you made early on when you really wanted a few points to spend right now. It's never been a big issue in our Supers games just because it's one of the first things most players try to buy off with XPs. In our Heroic stuff, it's pretty much mandatory for everyone at 0 pts. I suppose that isn't a fairness issue, though, as everyone gets it the same way.

Heroic changes the ground rules, which is fine (if ineffectual – a 150 point character can buy a 30 DEX for 90 points which, pre 6e, meant 10 OCV and DCV and 4 SPD with 60 points left over for other abilities – and this enforces “normalcy”?). But why would anyone with NCM as a 20 point disad pay double for charateristics rather than buy it off, once the doubling was costing 20 or more points? It’s borrowing against future xp, not actually disadvantaging the character.

 

 

There was a series of (awful) publish-to-Kindle books…

My reference to no source material suggesting “points gone, never to return” was to Duplication, Deep Cover, etc. specifically, not to the potential that characters lose power, not just continually gain it. Plenty of examples of power downs in Supers source material, but we just don’t do that in games, do we?

 

As for the example, that could as easily be a long-term Drain with points coming back over time as lost CP regained only with XP. Game mechanics simulate what we see in the source material, so we don’t always get a clear picture of the mechanics the source material operates under.

 

btw, all I see is "18_-_)" without the underlines.

[Surrealone]

My reference to no source material suggesting “points gone, never to return” was to Duplication, Deep Cover, etc. specifically, not to the potential that characters lose power, not just continually gain it. Plenty of examples of power downs in Supers source material, but we just don’t do that in games, do we?

You might not, but some GM's do ... and many players like it.   I'm one of them -- a fact you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge, despite RAW actually entailing 'power downs', as you term it.  And when I cite RAW, you then speak of the RAW as being obsolete or orphaned just because you don't agree with it.  Forgive me, SETAC Gadfly, but I am not arguing with you; I am counterpointing you to help ensure that your opinion on this matter is not ushered in as a rule change in some future revision of RAW, as your stance seeks to remove a tool from the GM's toolbox -- that tool being loss of XP/CP.  I like my GM's to have tools ... and to wisely use them to enhance the game ... to make it feel more real.  This is not munchkinny as you indicated, but is instead an admission and understanding that players feel their successes more deeply when rewarded for them in tangible terms ... and also feel their failures more deeply when they, too, are underscored in tangible terms.  (It's just human nature.)  The tools that let GMs do this ... are XP/CP gains/losses, power gains/losses, etc.  (Not real bullets and being thrown out of the game, as you indicated, earlier.)

 

If you underscore success by granting EXP/CP (one tool in the GM's toolbox) to make the high feel 'higher', it makes sense to do the same as it pertains to failure using EXP/CP loss (another tool in the GM's toolbox).  Anything else is one-sided and akin to having day without any concept of night -- i.e. tough to appreciate the reward, because there's just no concept of risk or loss in that game.  You may not think this way, but it's how the rules are written when it comes to some abilities -- i.e. they entail actual permanent losses of XP/CP.  If that's not how you play, fine, I get it, but that does NOT make RAW on those topics obsolete or orphaned just because you think it so.  I -like- feeling loss when I make a mistake ... because I'm NOT munchkinny and because I understand that mistakes, like successes, should have consequences reinforced by player-tangible things that help me feel them more deeply.  It's the munchkinny types that tend not to be able to handle losses.

 

In danger rooms, characters learn things.  I expected you to be seasoned enough that I didn't have to explain there is both a social and RP aspect to danger rooms held within a Base -- just as there's a social and interactive aspect to practicing kung fu in a dojo in a one-against-many practice, baseball on a field as a team, etc.  Esprit de corps is built.  Knowledge of other characters' abilities is gained.  Characters learn their weak points and where improvements are needed.  So -- why shouldn't a GM underscore successes and failures in danger rooms like they would any other in-game effort?  Winner take all should be that -- meaning players should have some risk for failure and reward for success and it should come from them, be it in-game currency on the table or XP/CP representing actual experience in the danger room (be it success experience gained of failure experience lost).  Team-based approaches (which I previously mentioned), are just fine, too -- and disperse the wins/losses over several characters instead of concentrating them with one.  And you also find out who among your players IS munchkinny -- i.e. those who cannot handle losses and are in it only for power advancement, level advancement, and/or XP/CP ... when you see who won't risk XP/CP on the table ... or who don't want to suffer permanent XP/CP loss.

 

Oddly, these are the people to whom you're catering when you push for a philosophy that entails no permanent loss of XP/CP.  I find that highly ironic.

 

 

Also note 6E1 98:

"Unlike Skills, Perks are inherently transitory in nature. A character can gain Perks during the course of the campaign and later lose them just as easily. If a character loses a Perk he typically get the Character Points he spent on it back, unless the rules for a specifc Perk note otherwise."

 

However Duplication is NOT a perk.

And here is where we have a problem caused by two sets of rules being treated as the latest/greatest 6e rules ... both of which are considered accurate and complete.  Why?  Because, if PDF searches of Champions Complete are to be believed, the sentence above which I emphasized using red ... appears nowhere within Champions Complete  -- which is the only available in-print version of the 6e rules, today, and is considered as valid as 6e V1 & V2 at the insistence of certain vocal people on these very forums, despite it being shown to be missing things.

 

So is the lack of the above text an omission in Champions Complete?  I think not -- because Champions Complete actually expounds upon the transitory nature of character abilities.  How?  Well, as I previously cited in this post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94153-duplication/page-3?do=findComment&comment=2534861) of this very thread, page 36 of Champions Complete says in the general description for (all) Perks: "Perks are more transitory in nature than most character abilities, with characters often gaining and losing Perks during the course of the campaign. For example, mistreating a Contact can cause the character to lose that Contact, doing something completely out of character can cause a Deep Cover to be “blown,” a Follower can die during an adventure, a Fringe Benefit can be lost by leaving the organization that granted it, a Vehicle or Base can be destroyed, and so on."

 

​That sentence tells us several things -- with zero ambiguity:

1. Followers can die.
2. Vehicles and Bases can be destroyed (no mention of whether purchased with CP or Wealth)
3. Fringe Benefits can be lost.
4. Character abilities other than perks are also transitory in nature -- Perks are simply "more transitory in nature than most character abilities"

There's no indication, whatsoever, within Champions Complete's RAW that CP will be returned if a Perk or other character ability entails transient loss.  That's a risk I happen to like as a player -- and I'm presently playing a character with some of those risks (Fringe Benefits -and- Duplication, in my case) on the table while other characters in our game don't have them -- which should tell you I mean what I say.

 

I'll stop with that, because #4 makes your point about Duplication not being a Perk ... moot.  And Christopher, I'll leave you with this question that is likely good fuel for a new topic of its own (much to Tasha's chagrin, I'd bet):

• Given the discrepancy I just pointed out between two 6e rule sets that this community's old hands have insisted are both correct and equally valid... which is the correct one (or more correct one) and why -- and what authority says so? Fineprint: Stating the GM must decide, is, by the way, a cop-out that dodges the question -- since, duh, that's patently obvious to all of us that the GM has final say...

 

As much as I thought that "Independent" was a sort of "gimme," points-wise, I liked the fact that the two Limitations to which you referred existed.

Me too!

 

 

That's why I felt the existence of a points-lost mechanic was a good thing. As demonstrated above, I don't use it personally-- not in Supers; I have used Independent on almost every no-name weapon in the Sci-Fi games). The points-lost idea is a meta-rule. I have always assumed it's a meta-rule to enforce some kind of balance:

 

"want to play five characters while the other five players twiddle their thumbs? Here's the chance you're going to take."

I really like that we're on the same page about this, as it shows that I'm not the only one feeling this way and means I'm not the only counterpoint to Hugh's sentiments of a game without XP/CP losses, perma-death, etc.

 

 

A bit OT here, but I rather like the notion that the dead one pops back up when you Duplicate. Still dead, of course. (I don't like it for gameplay, but the mental image amused me).

That's probably more on-topic than much of the rest of this thread -- but thankfully this community isn't militant about threads staying on topic, as they all seem to meander a fair bit.  But I digress.  What I really want to say on this point is that you think a lot like my current GM, as making the dead duplicate appear when the power is used sounds like something he would do if it made for good dramatic sense.  As the character with Duplication to which it could happen in our game, I'd be just fine with it -- most especially if it added game flavor.  In fact, I love the imagery and the poetic license!

 

Note: ​If my duplicate died and wasn't resurrected, paying more points to double the number of duplicates (from 1 to 2 ... with one being perma-dead) is also an option given my character's special effects ... but as I'd expect to be obvious to seasoned players, the in-game explanation and story that represents the XP/CP expenditure would, of course, need to be present.  In some games this could actually be as simple as use of the power to make the dead duplicate appear ... and resurrecting it.  I could see this in a magic/fantasy setting where the party doesn't have someone who can resurrect and the the death of the duplicate spawns a story arc to resurrect it ... which is the in-game explanation for the spent XP/CP to recover the duplicate.

 

 

Surreal

[Duke Bushido]

hey guys-- just popped back in for lunch and wanted to thank you both for replying. I don't know if I'll get back online tonight (wife's got some classes to take tonight), but I wanted to make sure thanks were given.

 

 

I hope to do a more in-depth read through soon.

 

Thanks!

 

(oh! Hugh:

 

That's all there is. Just the 18-)

 

It reminds me of John from Garfield when his hair is slicked back for a date. )

[Duke Bushido]

Duke, you discuss. You don’t argue. Maybe you debate, but that’s a different animal. Happy to continue the discussion.

 

Most certainly. I meant "argument" in it's truest sense; not the modern perversion to mean "fight." I meant it thusly:

 

1) An exchange of diverging or opposite views

2) a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others

 

Not actually doing battle. Thus, "argument: the good kind."

 

Moving on though (and thanks again for your clarifications):

 

 

 

 

1--The common philosophy of the rules is that CP are not taken away from characters.

 

2--That default should be applied to the few current outliers (though Favour remains a challenge).

 

[sNIP]

 

3-- I would suggest “character points are not lost” be included in the meta-rules, and Favour specifically called out as the exception.

[numeration added by Duke for clarity of response]

 

 

1. I'm not entirely certain that is a core philosophy behind this rules set. Certainly decades of tradition amongst individual play groups seem to have made it.... GAH! What's the word for something that's taken as gospel but not actually gospel? I forget. Well, the name isn't too terribly important, of course, but my point is that I don't think that anywhere in the published works (and mind you: I have likely seen far fewer of them than anyone else, but I've got most of the really early stuff). I don't have a serious problem with the assumption that players don't lose points, but I don't think I can accept out of hand that it is a core principal of the design. I say this not so much as for the source material (I'm not terribly comic savvy), but for the fact that it's a roleplaying game, and if it's not possible to lose power levels in a significant way, that would put it in very, very narrow company amongst its peers.

 

 

2. Limitations such as "Independent," if left in the game, and perhaps the inclusion of similar Limitations--- this would make the-- what have we got? Three builds now with "points are lost?"-- at any rate, it would make them less outlier, would it not? I'm not advocating for a whole new slew of these things (mostly because, at least as of now, I haven't seen any need for them), but had the new addition, instead of ditching two of them, opted to add two more, then -- -well, put another way, at what point do they become mainstream, or core, or even "usual?"

 

I ask this because so many things in the game: Energy Blast, Mind Control, etc, all come at 5pt / D6. Yet Killing Attack does not. It's the only one that doesn't. It's the only one that applies it's pips total directly against a Character as damage. Being the case, is it not far more of an outlier construct than something that has a handful of examples? Yet very few people have trouble accepting that this one-off Power is as it should be. In fact, not too terribly long ago, you demonstrated, quite well, how my own group's rules to bring it more in line with other offensive powers had the side effect of making it potentially more powerful than the accepted, one-off rule it currently uses.

 

 

3. Is it better to have a single glaring exception to a design principle that may not actually even exist, or is it better to have a group of things with a common element? Particularly when that element has been around for quite some time.

 

 

 

To me, limitations are valid only if they will be used.

 

[sNIP]

 

is used only if the ability is eventually lost.

I agree completely. But, like dead duplicates, I treat it as a _risk_. I don't guarantee it. Just like I don't guarantee that your duplicate will be killed. But I prefer that the player and the character both know up-front it's a possibility. And of course, both have happened in- game. Here's the essential thing, at least to me, with either build: I didn't require it, and I explained up-front that it was a possibility. The players made an informed decision (in the case of "Independent," more than once) and accepted the risk. some times, they were lucky. A few times, they were not.

 

(there's an aside in this, but I don't want to over-complicate one discussion with another ).

 

 

 

If I may use this moment to offer up something that may or may not support the acceptability of lost points, look at the Limitations themselves. Over the years, the default values of many of them have changed-- some up; some down. Some constructs have changed as well (the cost for Shape Shifting, the cost for Enhanced Senses, etc). On the surface, this doesn't seem like much, but over-all it's a clear sign that there may not really be a universal methodology for just how many points a Character spends on something. Under one rules set, a particular power build may cost him, say, 40 pts, but under a later or earlier edition it may cost 50 or 35. The effect is the exact same, but one rules-legal build charges more than another. It's a minor quibble, but it might suggest that there really isn't a equitable trade for character points to _anything_. Add in that all rules editions suggest changing the values of Limitations and Advantages to suit your campaign, and "points" just don't seem to be so inviolable. Again, this isn't a solid support, but it is something to consider.

 

 

[ So we get a character who is vastly more powerful than his peers out of the gate, then eventually loses his powers and limps along as a low powered sidekick, or gets replaced with a new character (also with these high limitation powers, so the cycle continues).

I am being completely honest here: I really believe one or two experiences like this would have the player considering altering his build strategy, if such a thing exists. The only players (supers-wise) I've ever had try to really abuse things like Independent and the like were what might best be described as "battle mongers," anyway. The combat was the point of the game for them, and most of them didn't last long enough to actually _lose_ their focus. They got bored pretty quickly with all the talking and clue-chasing.

 

 

It’s a lot like old school RPG’s that figured “your character is really underpowered and useless at low levels, but becomes overpowered and omnipotent at higher levels” is “balanced”. Independent et al are the reverse – start out really powerful and watch your powers decline as the campaign progresses.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Nothing. I really gave this a mulling over when I went back to work, and I have to say that I cannot find a single problem with the scenario you present. For many reasons, I actually rather _like_ having the ability to do this. The game is not just about keeping things even, it really isn't. If a player is actually interested in experiencing that very thing or exploring how he might cope with the shadow of eventually losing his powers---

 

I suppose the upshot here is that I _like_ the story possibilities of almost _anything (that is not fantasy)_, and I think removing the means to model something novel is a huge mistake. Sure, you can always house rule independent to still exist (heck, we still use "Discrimination" from way, _way_ back when, if it's appropriate), but I think removing them from the canonical rules sends a particular message that wanting to do such a thing is somehow "wrong." That, I don't like. Not one bit. As it was, this option was out there. No one forced anyone to use it (I hope). Now it's gone, and some folks are going to wonder what was wrong with it.

 

IMO, most abilities that are permanently lost in D&D come from things that are acquired as gear,

 

Or curses, or poison, or injuries, or handicapping, or the whim of the gods. Of all fantasy, D&D was the one I liked least, but like most other gamers, I've had a great deal of exposure to it. There are plenty of ways to get whacked but good in D&D, and they're not always story driven.

 

not be acquired with CP in a Heroic game in Hero.“You did not pay points for it” makes it independent. As you don’t pay points, no limitation is relevant.

I think perhaps my games are way more casual than yours. I don't care if players want to buy certain bits of equipment with points. To me, it just means that it's something they won't lose. If they buy it as a Focus, then it's something they won't lose forever. Granted, I've got great players who have never tried to be really abusive of this. But it's a nice way to model something like "this was the two-stage maser rifle Grandaddy carried with him into the last battle of Separation, back on Faraway, before I was born." This character will not lose this rifle. He may have it taken away, but it won't be for long:

 

"As you're fleeing the precinct house, you notice your stuff laying on the counter for processing. You see your wallet and your keys, right next to your grandfather's rifle." Obviously (since this is a reference to a particular scenario from our Starrigger game, it stands that I find this a perfectly valid points-based focus). Had the player taken it as Independent (as a couple of players have), then we might have had a couple of sessions of his trying to get it back (maybe he does; maybe he doesn't), or the points are gone. He knows that's possible with Independent: I went over it thoroughly when he was building the character.

 

And, again, how is it a fun game if we have one player who dominates the game with his huge number of duplicates at the start, then becomes a weakling tagalong as the campaign progresses? All the other players have no fun at the start, and if they stick it out, they can twist the knife when the spotlight hog becomes useless?

Rhetorically, I would ask you to define "useless." Characters are still Characters. They still have their Skills, their knowledge, etc. They still have something to bring to the table. If all effectiveness and uselessness relates to Phase-based utility (more commonly called "combat,") then I suggest that this discussion is never going to come to head, simply because there are a great deal of us who find combat to be a _part_ of a game, but not the best part.

 

NCM was the classic, for me. You can have Disadvantage points to spend elsewhere if you agree to pay double for characteristics higher than this bar.

I totally agree with you that this was not a "Limitation" in the classic sense. However, it _was_ a Limitation. In my own experience, I only saw it used as a literal "loan" of points, repaid by buying it off before it became an issue. However, it _was_ limiting, but only if your Character was going to buy his Stats up above the levels described. If he wasn't, it was "free points." That part I didn't like. By the same token, I had similar issues with "Package Deals."

 

Why do you get a special deal for that specific character concept? My Brick doesn’t get a 10 point disadvantage for “can’t buy mental powers”.

 

Why can't your brick buy mental powers?

 

post split for .... "reasons," apparently.

[Duke Bushido]

Part 2

 

 

Elemental Control had similar issues – you get a point break for having a tight character concept? Isn’t everyone supposed to have a tight character concept? And are you really telling me if Stan Lee didn’t create SpiderSense, we’d think Danger Sense went hand in hand with Spider Powers? And how are Focus webshooters part of a “tight concept” of a guy who gains spider-powers from a radioactive spider? Stan, you munchkinny point whore!

 

5e (IIRC) brought the mechanical drawback of “drain one, drain all”, and 6e moved that to a limitation.

Well then I've been using Elemental Control wrong since '81. I took it at it's word, and felt that it represented a single element: some specific power or ability that you could manipulate to produce several possible game results. You know: Elemental Control: Fire, for example:

 

I become Fire. Living fire. I can fly because I can excite myself to be so much lighter than air that I take off. I can expel excess heat (or whatever super balls pass for science in your game) to provide thrust. I can expel that same heat to create blasts of fire. I can get the atmosphere so hot near me that it melts projectiles before they touch me and inflicts damage on anyone who attempts to grapple me."

 

 

But it's one power. One element. I rather liked it (still do). But we always treated it as "Drain: Fire" affects everything in your elemental control equally (by draining the control pool).

 

In fact, Elemental Control is the single biggest reason we become so hard-core on SFX definitions instead of meta-ones, particularly for Adjustment Powers and Defenses. Yes; I know: Drain: Fire isn't RAW. But we allow it because it makes more sense than "Drain: jetpack, because it's technically flight."

 

I always thought Multipower was the cheesy one, simply because it didn't require any significant correlation of powers; it was just a random discount.

 

Which goes back to my earlier comment about the possibility that points themselves have no hard value: I can get a discount for having no tight conception whatsoever. Okay, I'll put my Kryptonian Powers into a Multipower." Or I can simply buy them one at a time, for full price.

 

Same exact results, game wise. Massive difference price-wise. Where's the consistent value?

 

 

Heroic changes the ground rules, which is fine (if ineffectual – a 150 point character can buy a 30 DEX for 90 points which, pre 6e, meant 10 OCV and DCV and 4 SPD with 60 points left over for other abilities – and this enforces “normalcy”?). But why would anyone with NCM as a 20 point disad pay double for charateristics rather than buy it off, once the doubling was costing 20 or more points?

 

Perhaps the GM won't let him.

 

Or perhaps it's being used for that quick twenty points lost to a dead duplicate- a rules legal "loan," if you will.

 

But I agree. If you don't run afoul of it during Character Generation, then it's hardly going to be Limiting at all. That's why I only use it in Heroic level stuff, as a "must have" at 0 value.

 

 

My reference to no source material suggesting “points gone, never to return” was to Duplication, Deep Cover, etc. specifically, not to the potential that characters lose power, not just continually gain it. Plenty of examples of power downs in Supers source material, but we just don’t do that in games, do we?

Twice in forty-odd years. So, realistically, "not really." But just as realistically, "it does happen." Honestly, we tend to retire Characters when they become "too effective" because there's no fun left in them. But I happily accept that other people do not, or prefer to see just how far they can go. Cosmic stuff doesn't appeal to us. If I start with 250 pts and I want to build... I don't know-- Spiderman? Once I get that character to the level that I envisioned him growing to become, I'm usually done. That's all I wanted. And supers-wise, most of my players are like that: They have a concept, they adventure and endure hardships and grow the characters to match their vision, then they retire him and make another one. But flat out power-drop? For the whole group, once every twenty years. As individuals, it depends on where they want their story to go. As individuals, I've had it happen to players maybe a dozen times during that same forty years. Maybe. Perhaps only ten. Again: nowhere near enough to say it happens a lot, or even regularly, but enough to say that it _does_ happen.

 

As for the example, that could as easily be a long-term Drain

Yep. That was already mentioned way up-thread, I think. But yes; we've used that a couple of times (points returning at such a long interval that they just weren't coming back, in any appreciable manner. So the player who wants to try this particular hardship (I think there was character she was trying to emulate who had her powers stolen by another character in a comic book?) basically played a straight normal for a couple of years, helping where she could until she built her XPs up and bought a couple of small powers. She was never as strong as she was, but the Player got the experience she wanted and enjoyed doing it. We celebrated her "retirement" with a radiation accident that returned her powers and she went off to become a teacher at a government-sponsored supers training program.

 

btw, all I see is "18_-_)" without the underlines.

 

Yeah. Sorry. I realized after my lunchtime post went up that it looks much cooler in the "compose a reply" box than it does on the actual board. I'll try to refrain.

 

 

 

Surrealone:

 

It's getting late. I'll try to address some of your more interesting points in the near future.