HERO master

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

So Hugh, I always respect your comments and admire your mastery of the complexities of HERO System. But I think you're unfairly dumping on me here. If I go back to my Martial Arts example, I'd say the VIPER agents have as their concept a good deal of combat training, martial arts, etc., and skill levels to match. If one of them suddenly showed up throwing fireball spells, I'd say that doesn't fit well and needs to be rationalized in some way to fit the campaign (training in a flamethrower? Fine explanation. Sudden magical gifts? Not so fine an explanation). Conversely, if I have a character who depends on a fire power Multipower suddenly shows up with 15 points of martial arts training, I'd insist on the XP expenditure have some kind of rationale behind it.

 

Why can't he go through VIPER (or UNTIL) basic training?  Or just work out at the gym/dojo with a decent trainer.  I don't think VIPER agents have combat training sufficiently vast and extensive that a typical Super could not duplicate it, nor do I think it is reasonable to think every VIPER agent required a decade of dedicated training to reach the heights of martial arts mastery.  They are not martial arts masters - they have a modicum of HTH combat training.  Compare either to the team's actual martial artist, and their lack of such mastery becomes clear.

 

But really, if our FlameBlaster wants to spend his 15 xp on 3 levels with his Fire Multipower, he's just learned a variety of new moves allowing him to add +3 DCV, +3 OCV, +2 OCV and +1 DCV, +1 OCV and +2 DCV, or +1 DC and +1 OCV or DCV.  That's probably more versatility than 15 points of martial arts would have provided, and no one would bat an eye.  Who provided his training in powers no one else possesses?

 

The rationale for picking up real world skills is a lot easier - real world training.

 

I agree the ultimate question is "is everyone having fun?"  If a player is annoyed at a GM who won't let him develop his character the way he wants, in the manner he envisions, does that add to the enjoyment of the game, or detract from it? 

 

The Fire Blaster spending 15 points on martial arts is not likely to step on the toes of the team martial artist, who has presumably spent a lot more than that on his own martial arts mastery.  Using up game time to debate a "reasonable" basis for his martial arts training isn't my idea of a great game. 

[massey]

I don't know that any of this really matters too much.  Requiring justification in the game for how a character gained a certain ability really only requires a throw away line from the player.  If Bob wants his character to get martial arts, it isn't necessary for Bob to undergo months of rigorous training.  He basically just says "Over the last few months, Captain Fireball has been working with the team martial artist."  There, done.

 

Of course we want our games to make sense.  A character who has new powers falling out of his butt all the time can break our suspension of disbelief.  Or some guy who was a simple detective yesterday and now he's suddenly got training in the mystic arts.  But really, how hard is it for a group of imaginative role-players to come up with a decent justification for anything?  How about something like...

 

--My powers are changing, and I don't know why...

--That blast from Dr Destructo has caused my powers to react strangely...

--Over the last few months, I've been learning how to do this new thing...

--I have a secret, unrevealed background that I'm just now telling you about/finding out about...

--Years ago I studied this subject extensively, but I slacked off once I got my powers.  Now I've rededicated myself and really hit the books...

--I've always known how to do this stuff, why don't you guys ever listen to me?  (cue laugh track)

[Brian Stanfield]

6 hours ago, massey said:

I don't know that any of this really matters too much.  Requiring justification in the game for how a character gained a certain ability really only requires a throw away line from the player.  If Bob wants his character to get martial arts, it isn't necessary for Bob to undergo months of rigorous training.  He basically just says "Over the last few months, Captain Fireball has been working with the team martial artist."  There, done.

 

Of course we want our games to make sense.  A character who has new powers falling out of his butt all the time can break our suspension of disbelief.  Or some guy who was a simple detective yesterday and now he's suddenly got training in the mystic arts.  But really, how hard is it for a group of imaginative role-players to come up with a decent justification for anything?  How about something like...

 

--My powers are changing, and I don't know why...

--That blast from Dr Destructo has caused my powers to react strangely...

--Over the last few months, I've been learning how to do this new thing...

--I have a secret, unrevealed background that I'm just now telling you about/finding out about...

--Years ago I studied this subject extensively, but I slacked off once I got my powers.  Now I've rededicated myself and really hit the books...

--I've always known how to do this stuff, why don't you guys ever listen to me?  (cue laugh track)

 

This, of course, is my point all along. Creative storytelling should affect the world in which everyone is playing, so how the story is told matters in terms of the long-term implications of the changes.

[Scott Ruggels]

6 hours ago, massey said:

 

--My powers are changing, and I don't know why...

--That blast from Dr Destructo has caused my powers to react strangely...

--Over the last few months, I've been learning how to do this new thing...

--I have a secret, unrevealed background that I'm just now telling you about/finding out about...

--Years ago I studied this subject extensively, but I slacked off once I got my powers.  Now I've rededicated myself and really hit the books...

--I've always known how to do this stuff, why don't you guys ever listen to me?  (cue laugh track)

 

Didn’t that used to be called s “Radiation Accident?”

[Brian Stanfield]

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Why can't he go through VIPER (or UNTIL) basic training?  Or just work out at the gym/dojo with a decent trainer.  I don't think VIPER agents have combat training sufficiently vast and extensive that a typical Super could not duplicate it, nor do I think it is reasonable to think every VIPER agent required a decade of dedicated training to reach the heights of martial arts mastery.  They are not martial arts masters - they have a modicum of HTH combat training.  Compare either to the team's actual martial artist, and their lack of such mastery becomes clear.

 

But really, if our FlameBlaster wants to spend his 15 xp on 3 levels with his Fire Multipower, he's just learned a variety of new moves allowing him to add +3 DCV, +3 OCV, +2 OCV and +1 DCV, +1 OCV and +2 DCV, or +1 DC and +1 OCV or DCV.  That's probably more versatility than 15 points of martial arts would have provided, and no one would bat an eye.  Who provided his training in powers no one else possesses?

 

The rationale for picking up real world skills is a lot easier - real world training.

 

I agree the ultimate question is "is everyone having fun?"  If a player is annoyed at a GM who won't let him develop his character the way he wants, in the manner he envisions, does that add to the enjoyment of the game, or detract from it? 

 

The Fire Blaster spending 15 points on martial arts is not likely to step on the toes of the team martial artist, who has presumably spent a lot more than that on his own martial arts mastery.  Using up game time to debate a "reasonable" basis for his martial arts training isn't my idea of a great game. 

 

Whatever floats your boat, Hugh. I can't help but feel you're intentionally obfuscating my point.

 

Even the military (like any para-military group) has basic training which takes a good amount of dedicated time. Weeks of round-the-clock training for basic, and much time afterwards for certification in individual fighting skills. Saying a character went home and did some homework in the last two weeks of non-game time to become highly competent in a skill is far-fetched. To completely package a new set of skills in a way that reworks the character in a way that is inconsiderate and unfair to the other players, or unbalances the game for the rest of the group, is worse.

 

As for your examples, they don't disprove anything I've said. Adding skill levels to a power is not what I am hesitating about. Completely rewriting a power, or adding new ones indiscriminately, is problematic, and I prefer to keep tabs on the changes being made. "Real world training" would, of course, need to be explained in game terms if the player hasn't actually been doing any of this training in the game. If the real world training is happening between sessions, then it needs to be explained. It doesn't need to be much, but there ought to be an effort. If one week passes between game sessions (in game), suddenly showing up with new skills is ridiculous without an explanation. If a player is no longer happy with the character he has, isn't having fun, and wants to rework it, it should be allowed in the context of the already existing group. The reasons for this are not hard to understand. 

 

You may not like this approach. That's your purview. You may have no problem with players showing up to the game session with completely new powers. I prefer to require GM approval for changes because it affects the whole group. 

[Greywind]

"When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?"

 

"Last night."

[Killer Shrike]

On 11/3/2018 at 9:28 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

I ended up despising those "Low mechanics" systems like  Fudge, Fate, and the rest.  Even with a GM I liked running them, I was supremely unsatisfied.   When Killer Shrike popped up with GNS Theory, My ears perked as I was on rec.arts.frp.advocacy and watched and participated in the philosophical brawl in those old USENET days. As i said before, I came out of war gaming into RPG's, and  haven't left it entirely behind (WW2 Re-enacting leads to Postscriptum, and dabbling in Arma). I came to love role playing, and making up the characters personalities. However, I did not leave my love of tactics and mechanics behind.
For me Hero was/is the perfect system for what I want, because the tactics make sense, within the mechanics, and Role play gave context for the fights.

 

My disagreement above is the Role play snobbery, in that enforcing  personalities to be equal to the players.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, quite the opposite...I'd prefer to calm the waters as I think that if all of the people involved in this discussion were to meet in person and sit down to play some hero we'd have a great time doing it and realize we agree far more than we disagree.

 

However...I find it difficult to reconcile when someone refers to a preference for a different style of play as "snobbery" moments after saying they "despise" a style of game that favors that style of play, which semantically suggests those games are despicable (deserving of hatred and contempt).

 

Surely, any position that elevates one position or preference and denigrates another is a form of elitism or "snobbery"?

 

You prefer one style of game, other people prefer a different style of game. Surely that doesn't mean either group is right or wrong, better or worse than the other? Perhaps they just like different things?

 

On 11/3/2018 at 9:28 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

I do not know about you, but I did not game with theater majors.  Games like FATE prioritize that thinking, often at the expense of plausibility, and the Theater Majors tend to dominate the session. (Now I like role playing with theater majors and actors, but in the circles I gamed it, they were not common, except at conventions, also high crunch systems tended to curb their excesses.) Also those games did not have tactical problems to solve. Solutions tended to be what is seen in movies and TV, rather than reflecting the situation on the ground.

 

I'm not a theater major. I've never gamed with a theater major (as far as I know). I don't know what relevance someones college major (assuming they had one) has to gaming with them. What I infer is you mean "theater major" as a euphemism for "people who like roleplaying in character".

 

When you refer to "high crunch systems" "curbing excesses", I draw the conclusion that you think that people who like to roleplay in character are in some way excessive and need to be reigned in. I suppose you find it annoying or unwanted past a certain point. If so, that is your prerogative, but surely your personal bias is at play here; a different sort of player may find that "high crunch systems" intrude on the play experience or interfere with the flow of a narrative. Is either sort of player right or wrong in an objective sense? Or are these just different preferences, neither more universally correct than the other?

 

You forward the position that being presented with tactical problems that require tactical solutions are preferable to situations that lend themselves to a cinematic solution. And it's certainly your prerogative to prefer one style over the other, but does it mean that those who favor the other style...or even (gasp!) a mix of both and perhaps even other styles of resolution...are wrong to like what they like?

 

On 11/3/2018 at 9:28 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

The other problem, is that you have to play with the people that brung ya.  The hobby, I will say, does attract it's share of the socially inept. In a number of cases also the handicapped. What I want to see if the game, is not so much great acting, but engagement. If that engagement is because someone who is not  a good fit for a hard Boiled detective, has that as one of his fantasies, then YES I will let him roll what is on the sheet,  even if it's  "I roll my intimidation". Now there may not be any bonuses unless they elaborate, but I am willing to allow a roll to determine the  outcome. But engagement, and not reading, or checking their phone, is what I am after for good players at the table.  Role play can be learned, tactics can be learned, but to learn takes basic engagement. Enforcing a table house rule of only allowing characters who's personality matches the players, sounds limiting, and , well kinda mean. 

 

Deconstructing this...you don't have to play with anyone you don't want to. It's an elective activity. 

 

That being said, if you choose to play with a given group, then yes you are agreeing to at least tolerate differences in skill and perspective within that group of people (to a certain point at any rate). That's a personal choice. Players who prefer to play with a higher caliber of other players are neither more right or more wrong than players who are more tolerant of a wider range of player capability. 

 

Engagement is indeed important; unengaged players may as well not be there as they are not having fun and their lack of engagement will tend to detract on the experience for everyone else.

 

However, no one style of gaming can claim to be objectively more engaging than any other. Players will self-select for what they find engaging; for some it might be murder hobo kill things and take their stuff, for others it might be high drama, others it might be something else entirely or some admixture of various elements that resists easy categorization. You can of course formulate what you yourself find engaging and try to find or run a game that optimizes for your enjoyment, you can of course say that you find certain styles of play to be uninteresting or sub-optimal for your preferences, but it's not possible for a person to objectively forward their personal preferences as a universal truth...asserting that all things they like are goodright and all things they dislike are badwrong.

 

 

I personally have played many types of games, I'm a big tent sort of person. I'm a roleplayer, wargamer, computer gamer, console gamer, classical strategy gamer, gamer gamer. If it's a game, I'm at least slightly interested in it. I'm not fond of dressing up and play acting, so I've never been interested  in LARP or SCA and similar things, but if it is played at a table or on a computer I'm game to try your game or at least give it a fair shake. I like lots of styles of play. I don't think any of them (including styles I don't like) are intrinsically wrong; if the players are having fun then they are satisfying the purpose of a game which is to have fun. I personally have more fun playing in a certain way. I'm usually the GM, in roleplaying games, and I have more fun running the game in a certain way, and my players typically have fun and I try to find ways to facilitate that within the boundaries of that which will not cause unfun for other players.

 

I'm a centrist; I think that it is worthwhile to reduce hyperbole or lionizing particular styles of play and more important to find common ground. We have a dwindling hobby; sectarianism and balkanization can't be the answer to how to keep it from dying out or becoming irrelevant...that always ends poorly.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Even the military (like any para-military group) has basic training which takes a good amount of dedicated time. Weeks of round-the-clock training for basic, and much time afterwards for certification in individual fighting skills. Saying a character went home and did some homework in the last two weeks of non-game time to become highly competent in a skill is far-fetched. To completely package a new set of skills in a way that reworks the character in a way that is inconsiderate and unfair to the other players, or unbalances the game for the rest of the group, is worse.

 

If I am obfuscating your point, sorry, but I seem to be having difficulty fully grasping your point.

 

I'm trying to see the comparables.  The bar is being set at several weeks of training to acquire four or so martial arts maneuvers.  Where is the bar to acquire 3 skill levels (same 15 xp spent; similar CV/DC modifications)?  Is enhancing one's skill with flame blasts by that extent not at least equally far-fetched?  I know where one could find a trainer in various martial arts, and a venue in which to train.  Where does one find a trainer, and a training location, to become more skilled with fire blasts?

 

Superheroes are pretty far-fetched, as is most cinematic reality.  I don't think learning new skills,. martial arts, skill levels, what have you, is any more - or any less - far fetched than many other xp spends.  +5 STR doubles your lifting capability - 15 x spent on STR octuples it.  How much weight training should that require?  REC and END probably need endurance training.  Reducing reaction time (buying DEX and SPD) or becoming more self-confident and intimidating (PRE, maybe EGO) must take time.  How does one become more intelligent, or train for enhanced PD or ED?

 

Are there certain abilities I either need to buy at character creation or forget about ever having access to, so I should buy them now and buy up the stuff the GM does not apply the same standard of "realistic" training to later?  How many xp can be spent per week of training?  How much can the characters be expected to earn?  If they earn it faster than they can actually spend it, what's the point of earning it at all?

 

I like to buy new abilities and increasing abilities in increments to simulate gradual improvement.  I have started +1 SPD at 8- for 3 points and worked up through the rolls with past characters.  But the RAW require a 10 point minimum spend on Martial Arts, IIRC, and I see little scope for a limitation to reduce the cost and simulate more gradual learning.

 

I am not sure what you are seeing that is unfair or inconsiderate to the other players, or unbalances the game, so I can't speak to that.  I do recall older threads where GMs bemoaned players who never want to branch out and spend xp on broadening their character, but prefer to keep increasing their existing powers - this feels like the exact opposite issue, in that we don't want to allow xp to be spent easily on anything other than increasing existing abilities.

 

[Scott Ruggels]

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, quite the opposite...I'd prefer to calm the waters as I think that if all of the people involved in this discussion were to meet in person and sit down to play some hero we'd have a great time doing it and realize we agree far more than we disagree.

 

Quite probably true. I've hashed out things in some heated arguments with friends at the game table, and we were still friends afterwards,

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

However...I find it difficult to reconcile when someone refers to a preference for a different style of play as "snobbery" moments after saying they "despise" a style of game that favors that style of play, which semantically suggests those games are despicable (deserving of hatred and contempt).

 

Surely, any position that elevates one position or preference and denigrates another is a form of elitism or "snobbery"?

 

I concede the point. It's a difference of style preference.

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

I'm not a theater major. I've never gamed with a theater major (as far as I know). I don't know what relevance someones college major (assuming they had one) has to gaming with them. What I infer is you mean "theater major" as a euphemism for "people who like roleplaying in character".

 

I have. I was in theater in High school for my Senior year, and some of them played D&D. The games were a bit political and "The Duke's Grand Ball" focused, rather than my more combat oriented preferences.  A bit frustrating.

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

When you refer to "high crunch systems" "curbing excesses", I draw the conclusion that you think that people who like to roleplay in character are in some way excessive and need to be reigned in.

 

 

Somewhat, in that it became a struggle for the spotlight between some players.  I begged their leave, and went back to my Champions group. ( I never really left, just  swapped the Wednesday night game. 

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

I suppose you find it annoying or unwanted past a certain point. If so, that is your prerogative, but surely your personal bias is at play here; a different sort of player may find that "high crunch systems" intrude on the play experience or interfere with the flow of a narrative. Is either sort of player right or wrong in an objective sense? Or are these just different preferences, neither more universally correct than the other?

 

 Was a strict simulationist in the old  discussions, in that to me Roleplay was about  creating a distinct and consistent personality for a character, and then subjecting that character to the unknown, whether it be a discussion with team mates, Reacting to the description of the GM, or what ever the dice decided, "story" was to me, something that would be  the product of that interaction, rather than the guideline to the goal. It generated very entertaining, "No shit! There I was...  ... thought I was gonna die". type stories. In LDG's long running Fantasy Hero campaign interesting die rolls produced interesting results.  Sure there were unfortunate character deaths, but that kept things  exciting for th rest of us, sort of like being a character in the early "A Song of Ice and Fire" novels. 

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

You forward the position that being presented with tactical problems that require tactical solutions are preferable to situations that lend themselves to a cinematic solution. And it's certainly your prerogative to prefer one style over the other, but does it mean that those who favor the other style...or even (gasp!) a mix of both and perhaps even other styles of resolution...are wrong to like what they like?

 

 Everyone is wrong! Only I am the true arbiter of truth and Excellence!!! (J/k)

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

Deconstructing this...you don't have to play with anyone you don't want to. It's an elective activity. 

 

Quite true.

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

That being said, if you choose to play with a given group, then yes you are agreeing to at least tolerate differences in skill and perspective within that group of people (to a certain point at any rate). That's a personal choice. Players who prefer to play with a higher caliber of other players are neither more right or more wrong than players who are more tolerant of a wider range of player capability. 

 

True, to some extent, yes.  But how do you get the hobby to grow, with newcomers?  Now we have had our share of turnover in recent Roll20 games, but we gave them a chance, and our core players have been very stable.

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

However, no one style of gaming can claim to be objectively more engaging than any other. Players will self-select for what they find engaging; for some it might be murder hobo kill things and take their stuff, for others it might be high drama, others it might be something else entirely or some admixture of various elements that resists easy categorization. You can of course formulate what you yourself find engaging and try to find or run a game that optimizes for your enjoyment, you can of course say that you find certain styles of play to be uninteresting or sub-optimal for your preferences, but it's not possible for a person to objectively forward their personal preferences as a universal truth...asserting that all things they like are goodright and all things they dislike are badwrong.

 

It's a product of our times.    But yes, I will concede the point, and just advocate for my position, that Hero is one of the best, tactically flexible, and creative gaming systems out there, provided you learn the tools.

 

21 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

I'm a centrist; I think that it is worthwhile to reduce hyperbole or lionizing particular styles of play and more important to find common ground. We have a dwindling hobby; sectarianism and balkanization can't be the answer to how to keep it from dying out or becoming irrelevant...that always ends poorly.

 

A classic bit, but as I write this on Election Day 2018, it's kind of a Life Imitates Art sort of thing.  

I apologize if I have disturbed the Comity and harmony of this board. I come here, because it's NOT Facebook, and I can engage my brain with things that are divorced from the real world. I don't want to mess that up.

 

Scott

[archer]

10 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I apologize if I have disturbed the Comity and harmony of this board. I come here, because it's NOT Facebook, and I can engage my brain with things that are divorced from the real world. I don't want to mess that up.

 

Not speaking for everyone, of course, but I like a robust discussion with all sides being heard.

 

I came from original D&D roll-playing to really enjoying roleplaying. But I like roleplaying by interacting with other people rather than roleplaying, for example, by describing how I'm actually picking a lock (which I've seen attempted).

 

Since getting into roleplaying, I've always played my PC's in a bit of an over-the-top manner and have looked for dramatic flourishes everywhere possible. But about 15 years ago, I had my third traumatic brain injury and have had aphasia problems since (mostly verbal but sometimes normal sounds like listening to a TV is painful to my skin).

 

Anyway, sometimes I just randomly lock up and speak very slowly while obviously struggling to get words out, occasionally I can't speak at all, and on the rare occasion, I speak what I think is English but it is actually gibberish then I wonder why everyone is staring at me. And at the best of times, I verbally randomly substitute some words for others...and don't get me started on a story about John, Sally, and Tim because I will be using their names interchangeably throughout the tale. I'm not confused mentally at all, I just can't reliably get words out of my brain out into the world, verbally.

 

It would be a very real challenge if I were to have to roleplay absolutely everything as some people earlier in the thread suggested that they do in their games. I would like to think that they'd be willing to make accommodations other than making me play each of my PC's as "he's a guy who has speech aphasia".....

[dsatow]

On 11/5/2018 at 2:46 PM, Greywind said:

"When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?"

 

"Last night."

 

Just reminded me of the Holiday Inn Express commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno

 

[Killer Shrike]

On 11/6/2018 at 1:00 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

Was a strict simulationist in the old  discussions, in that to me Roleplay was about  creating a distinct and consistent personality for a character, and then subjecting that character to the unknown, whether it be a discussion with team mates, Reacting to the description of the GM, or what ever the dice decided, "story" was to me, something that would be  the product of that interaction, rather than the guideline to the goal. It generated very entertaining, "No shit! There I was...  ... thought I was gonna die". type stories. In LDG's long running Fantasy Hero campaign interesting die rolls produced interesting results.  Sure there were unfortunate character deaths, but that kept things  exciting for th rest of us, sort of like being a character in the early "A Song of Ice and Fire" novels. 

 

Ya, I've run and played in many a campaign just like that, and that was my dominant play style for many years. I could get into a game like that still as a player, if it presented itself. But I no longer find it fun to GM games like that; at some point I hit saturation and started to want something different and more story focused. I got to where I was far more interested in the broad strokes of campaigns and less interested in microresultions of individual encounters.

 

On 11/6/2018 at 1:00 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

True, to some extent, yes.  But how do you get the hobby to grow, with newcomers?  Now we have had our share of turnover in recent Roll20 games, but we gave them a chance, and our core players have been very stable.

 

I don't conflate newcomer with undesirable;  quite the opposite. It used to be a thing for me to grow the hobby, and the Hero System in particular. There's a difference between "inexperienced" and "it's just not going to work out". I give people a fair shake, but sometimes it just isn't a good fit. Just recently, for instance, a married couple came to play at our face to face game to join up. Another player in the group plays with them in a different group and recommended them. I set up individual preludes for each of them, which I find to be a useful tool both to give players a taste and allow me to feel them out before I introduce their PC's to the other PC's and potentially muck up the continuity if it doesn't work out. 

 

I set up the main thrusts of their individualized preludes, which were bespoke to their characters and designed to allow each one a chance to shine at what they are good at and also get into character and start deciding how they want to present the PC's personality and shtick...makes it less awkward when the eventual meet cute with the rest of the PC's happens...the new characters feel more lived in. The other players help with NPC's, and it's a good intro all around with lowered stakes. I picked up the habit of doing preludes running White Wolf back in the day, and it's one of the more useful tools in my GM toolbox. One of the new players was solid and would have worked out, but the other was extremely scattered and seemed ADHD. Extremely disruptive, interrupting play constantly with all sorts of nonsense. It was very annoying and irritated myself and the other players at the table who were not their spouse. There was no way that was going to work out. So, a non-starter.

 

On 11/6/2018 at 1:00 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

I apologize if I have disturbed the Comity and harmony of this board. I come here, because it's NOT Facebook, and I can engage my brain with things that are divorced from the real world. I don't want to mess that up.

 

Not at all. No disturbance in the force. Quite the opposite, finding ways to meet in the middle fosters the collegial harmony of reasonable disagreement.

[Brian Stanfield]

On 11/5/2018 at 7:53 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

If I am obfuscating your point, sorry, but I seem to be having difficulty fully grasping your point.

 

After thinking on it for a day, I'm going to have to say that I don't believe you. I don't think you're sorry, and I don't believe that you are actually trying to grasp my point. In fact, you consistently misrepresent what I'm trying to say. For example:

On 11/5/2018 at 7:53 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

. . . this feels like the exact opposite issue, in that we don't want to allow xp to be spent easily on anything other than increasing existing abilities.

 

This is not representative of anything I wrote. Instead, it is an extremely discourteous interpolation of what I wrote to the point that you are being rude. And you've done this over and over again with your straw man summaries of what ultimately is not my position. If you'd like to know what I'm trying to get at, feel free to re-read what I've written, with a more gracious attempt to interpret my concerns. But I don't believe that you actually want to do that. I've already explained my concerns vis a vis the original post, and doing so again seems like a waste of time because you aren't actually trying to meet me halfway in this discussion. 

 

I wish you well. I've always respected and admired your points of view on the different discussions over the years. But right now you are simple being rude.

[Hugh Neilson]

Having read back over your and my posts, I feel like you are either not reading, or not understanding, my questions.  Pulling a few words out of my comments puts them largely out of context, and it may well be a misread of your position on my part, but I am not seeing the comparables I have asked for on at least a couple of occasions.  So let's try again to clarify the question, on the assumption (a reasonable one) that the problem is my own lack of clarity.

 

You have indicated you think that, if Flame Guy wants to add 15 points of martial arts to his character sheet, he should have an explanation and be able to show a significant period of time his character spent training in martial arts.  I am assuming we are both discussing the classic HTH martial arts, so he has become a skilled HTH combatant (whether general self-defense training, a specific art like boxing or tae kwon do, or whatever), so I will proceed on that basis.

 

Should he face a similar requirement for justification, and a similar time requirement for the examples below?  If not, how much should it differ?

 

 - 15 points of ranged martial arts specific to his flame powers;

 

 - 3 skill levels with his flame powers;

 

 - 3 skill levels with hand to hand combat maneuvers;

 

 - 15 points added to his existing flame powers;

 

 - 15 points of new flame powers (perhaps multipower slots, or perhaps a small new flame power purchased outside of a framework);

 - conversion of his flame power multipower to a VPP he can change with no skill roll, and as a zero phase action (same as the multipower) which costs 15 points more than the flame multipower he had previously, and which is restricted to flame powers;

 

 - +1 SPD (10 points) and +5 REC (5 points)

 

I'm trying to understand which abilities you think should require in-game justification, and how long you think he should require to spend that 15 xp on any of the items above, relative to the 15 point spend on HTH martial arts, but you seem unwilling to elaborate on the general requirements, only on the time and in-game rationalization which should be required for the HTH martial arts.

 

I am assuming that these questions have been lost in my previous posts (where I am likely not as clear as I could be, and flitting from one discussion point to the next), and not that you are simply ignoring them, rather than assuming you are simply being rude, by the way.

 

Finally, how (if at all) would your requirements regarding the above change if Flame Guy's player had clearly stated an intention to spend his next 15 xp on any of these abilities (including HTH martial arts), then earned the xp, rather than only disclosing his desired xp spend after he earned the 15 xp?

 

EDIT:  Or maybe someone else following the thread can try to clarify what I am missing that would clarify your prior comments - it is clearly going right over my head.

[Brian Stanfield]

I don't like writing long posts because so many things can get lost in translation or overlooked. But let me start by extending an olive branch here. It's not that I haven't been reading or understanding your questions. It's just that they are so many that I don't feel like I can't answer all of them. So I've tried to restate my position, which leads to more questions, and so on and so on back and forth. I think we've simply been talking past each other.

 

Let me attempt to respond to the crux of your questions:

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'm trying to understand which abilities you think should require in-game justification, and how long you think he should require to spend that 15 xp on any of the items above, relative to the 15 point spend on HTH martial arts, but you seem unwilling to elaborate on the general requirements, only on the time and in-game rationalization which should be required for the HTH martial arts.

 

My answer: all the abilities should be justified. All changes in characteristics, perks, limitations or advantages, complications, skills and powers, even equipment. I'm not focused on the martial arts, it was a simple example that someone else came up with and I ran with it (and also admitted that I got it wrong right away, so that example is even less useful at this point). So all changes should be reasonable and justified within the context of the game. I'm not trying to make a ruling of any sort, so I can't really answer all of your rule-based questions about specific point expenditures. Based on where the original post went, it became a subject of roleplaying philosophy, to which I was simply offering a reminder that all unregulated change in skills is not necessarily a good idea. In my opinion, and only in my opinion, players should be required to justify their changes. It appears that you have a different opinion on this. As I said, this is your purview as GM.

 

Going to the HERO rules, the last step of the character creation checklist (and I'll arbitrarily extend this to any character development) on 6e1 38 suggests:

 

"GM Approval: Make sure the GM reviews and approves of your character. Since the HERO System rules are so flexible, it’s possible to build characters who can unbalance the campaign — making the game less enjoyable for other players. Gamemasters should disallow such characters and request that the player build a well-rounded character who’ll contribute to everyone’s fun." 

 

Paired with the frequently recurring phrase, that the GM should make final decisions based on "dramatic sense, common sense, and game balance," I've simply been making a case for how that may look in practice. I've not mandated any sort of ruling on any particular thing, nor would I because that is up to each GM to decide. But I did offer what I thought would be a few problematic situations that may need some clarification by the players. Greywind summed up my concern perfectly: 

On 11/5/2018 at 4:46 PM, Greywind said:

"When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?"

 

"Last night."

 

So I don't have a ruling on all of your examples. I'm not misunderstanding your questions, which are all very good questions. I've simply been saying "slow your roll" to hypothetical players who may be showing up to the game table with unwanted and unwarranted surprises for the group. I'm not even arguing with your examples. I think those are all good questions that will depend on the campaign and the group. I don't have a single blanket policy for them, as that was not my intention in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Finally, how (if at all) would your requirements regarding the above change if Flame Guy's player had clearly stated an intention to spend his next 15 xp on any of these abilities (including HTH martial arts), then earned the xp, rather than only disclosing his desired xp spend after he earned the 15 xp?

 

This, I think, addresses the second part of what I was trying to say. A clearly stated intention is all I've been suggesting. I think if you go back and look at what I was writing you'll find that I was most concerned with players who suddenly and inexplicably show up to a game session with new characters. So the first part I think best expresses what I was trying to offer as a reminder for how and when character changes should happen.

 

I realize that you asked a lot of questions that I haven't answered. Too many for me at this point to go back and try to address. But I can say that I'm not trying to mandate the GM ruining the players' fun. But campaigns do require constraints, and what I've been writing about are campaign concerns, and roleplaying concerns in general, not the specifics of which 15 points gets spent which way. That, I believe, should be a negotiation, just like anything else in roleplaying. 

 

It could very well be that you play your games differently from me. I suspect that may be part of the difference of opinion here. I'm not trying to condemn or correct anyone's approach to the game. I just gave my $.02 worth of an opinion on how to regulate skill advancement, which unfortunately has provided a rapidly diminishing return.

 

Sorry for the length. I don't expect you to respond to all of it, nor is it necessary at this point. Hopefully you can see my overall thesis here. I've got pneumonia, and it's quite possible that I'm not making any sense right now. If so, please forgive me and simply disregard what I've written.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 11/7/2018 at 8:46 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

 I think we've simply been talking past each other.

 

I agree

 

On 11/7/2018 at 8:46 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

My answer: all the abilities should be justified. All changes in characteristics, perks, limitations or advantages, complications, skills and powers, even equipment. I'm not focused on the martial arts, it was a simple example that someone else came up with and I ran with it (and also admitted that I got it wrong right away, so that example is even less useful at this point). So all changes should be reasonable and justified within the context of the game. I'm not trying to make a ruling of any sort, so I can't really answer all of your rule-based questions about specific point expenditures. Based on where the original post went, it became a subject of roleplaying philosophy, to which I was simply offering a reminder that all unregulated change in skills is not necessarily a good idea. In my opinion, and only in my opinion, players should be required to justify their changes. It appears that you have a different opinion on this. As I said, this is your purview as GM.

 

I think this is a major area where we were talking past each other.  When discussing martial arts, your implication was that it takes years to train, so a character gaining these rapidly is unjustified.  That's where I got to the question of time required, and comparable time required to make other xp spends like 3 5 point combat skill levels (seems like that would need as much training as 15 points of martial arts maneuvers), +15 STR (octupling lifting capacity) or 15 points of new multipower slots (learning new maneuvers with those powers).  Perhaps a better example would have been an existing Martial Artist adding 15 points of new maneuvers - are they faster to learn after you get the first few?

 

On 11/7/2018 at 8:46 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

Going to the HERO rules, the last step of the character creation checklist (and I'll arbitrarily extend this to any character development) on 6e1 38 suggests:

 

"GM Approval: Make sure the GM reviews and approves of your character. Since the HERO System rules are so flexible, it’s possible to build characters who can unbalance the campaign — making the game less enjoyable for other players. Gamemasters should disallow such characters and request that the player build a well-rounded character who’ll contribute to everyone’s fun." 

 

Paired with the frequently recurring phrase, that the GM should make final decisions based on "dramatic sense, common sense, and game balance," I've simply been making a case for how that may look in practice. I've not mandated any sort of ruling on any particular thing, nor would I because that is up to each GM to decide. But I did offer what I thought would be a few problematic situations that may need some clarification by the players.

 

I look to your quote and ask how your concern of Player A showing up with martial arts added to his flame blaster unbalances the game.  Assuming he is at or near campaign norms or limits now, I'd say +3 DC to his Flame Blast, +1 SPD or +5/+5 rDEF (in whatever form his defenses currently take) carries a much greater risk of being unbalancing than adding some HTH maneuvers for his likely modest STR.  That seems more well-rounded, consistent with the guidance provided.

 

I recall reading the first edition of Muitants and Masterminds and wondering just how much of Hero they had cut&pasted.  However, one standout comment in that book was the statement that a lot of the guidance discussed when to say "No", but the GM should generally be seeking ways to say "yes" - how can the player's objectives and wishes for his character be met within the parameters of the campaign?  Maybe I think a player's choice of powers and SFX seems unlikely, bizarre or just silly.  But how realistic is it that a fireshield makes someone lighter than air so they can fly, or provides defenses from a solid punch?  Does massive radiation normally result in superhuman powers?  How did Danger Sense and mechanical webshooters become consistent with a "Spider-Man"?

 

Rubber science and cinematic reality brushes these issues aside in the source material - why not in the game?

 

On 11/7/2018 at 8:46 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

This, I think, addresses the second part of what I was trying to say. A clearly stated intention is all I've been suggesting. I think if you go back and look at what I was writing you'll find that I was most concerned with players who suddenly and inexplicably show up to a game session with new characters. So the first part I think best expresses what I was trying to offer as a reminder for how and when character changes should happen.

 

I assume we are discussing new abilities more than new characters, but when a player feels their current character is too constrained and cannot be the character they imagine (and which Hero commits they will be able to build and play), that often leads to a desire to retire and replace that character.  At the same time, when the 15 STR highly trained Martial Artist says he plans on spending his next 15 xp on STR (so he can now lift a car with ease), or buy 10 rED (so now he is fireproof?), I question the justification - not the time required.  What is changing with your character to cause him to become superhumanly strong, or resistant to fire?

 

But, if it is within the campaign's parameters, does it matter whether it is consistent with his initial concept, or an evolving concept?  Perhaps he had a dormant mutant gene triggered by recent campaign events.  What does he want to write up to explain it?  Maybe he does not - it's just happening and his character does not know why.  What a great campaign hook for the GM to develop! 

 

Maybe the player is just lazy, but clearly he has been invited to the game, so he must have some positive qualities for everyone to want him as part of the game.  If part of the fun for him is playing that character, and maybe even playing out the mysteries of how his powers developed, and he does not enjoy developing a backstory, why are we making the game less fun for him by forcing him to write that backstory?  I don't see any crying need for all the PCs to provide full disclosure of their histories to one another in order for the game to be fun.  If anything, such disclosure is unrealistic.

 

If we are playing a gritty superspies game, no, a 30 STR or being naturally flameproof does not fit, and should be disallowed.  But if the abilities fit the parameters of the game,  how is this making the game less fun? 

[mallet]

I agree with Hugh. The game is supposed to be fun and if the improvements fit the setting, genre and power level of the game then no or very little explanation should be required. And a player definitely shouldn't be punished for not working out some big backstory and reason for it. If anything players who do get involved and do all that "extra work" should be rewarded for the effort and interest they put into the game with maybe a discount on the cost of the abilities or something. If you want to get involvement and depth a carrot works better then a stick. 

 

I don't know if anyone here ever player the Amber Diceless RPG, but in that game there was "meta" ways for Players to get bonus points for their character. If the player was will to keep a log/journal of their characters adventures, maybe writing up a page or two, first person recap of each session then they would get extra points for their character, if they didn't write it up or stopped, then they lost those points. If the Players was more into drawing, then if they did up a picture or painting or what not for each session then they got points, etc... This built buy-in and interest in the campaign for the players that wanted to put more effort in by rewarding that effort. It didn't punish the Players that didn't. 

[Christopher]

I think the whole discussion about "needing justification to spend points on Martial Arts" is pointless. Spending the points is not what maters.

So waht if I add martial Arts to 3 OCV when I am still shy of the campaign limit?

 

The only thing that mater is how I stand relative to the campaign limit after the expending. Trying to hide this behind "you must justify spending XP" just makes no sense.

[archer]

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

I think the whole discussion about "needing justification to spend points on Martial Arts" is pointless. Spending the points is not what maters.

So waht if I add martial Arts to 3 OCV when I am still shy of the campaign limit?

 

The only thing that mater is how I stand relative to the campaign limit after the expending. Trying to hide this behind "you must justify spending XP" just makes no sense.

 

I think I'm leaning in your direction in this discussion.

 

If I'm awarded XP, I want to spend it on my character the way that I see fit and I want the other players in the campaign to be able to do so as well. Sure there are campaign limits, but augmenting existing combat abilities,(such as being able to throw a punch) should not be controversial when it is below that limit.

 

When my character wants to learn some simple martial arts because he isn't being effective in hand-to-hand combat or is regularly being curb-stomped by bad guys, that's not an outlandish proposition which is going to take a lifetime to learn.

 

Take a look at this local women's self defense site then this article talking about those classes

https://www.impactbayarea.org/public_classes

https://blackbeltmag.com/techniques/self-defense/the-art-of-teaching-womens-self-defense-less-is-best

 

They teach Escape, Grab, disable, eye gouge, basic throws and either +DC or increased Hand Attack to people with absolutely zero combat experience in just a cheap 24 hour course. So I think it's entirely reasonable in a campaign if a hero, who's been in a large number of combat situations, wants to drop some amount of cash and dedicate three weeks of his life to it during his down time that he could learn actually learn 10 points in martial arts maneuvers from a real expert.