Free Equipment - Pros & Cons

[RDU Neil]

So I'm sure this topic will bring lots of opinions and heat. I'm sure the AMTs (angry math types) will show up with their calculations to prove the horribleness of other people's ideas, and that is fine.

 

I'd still like to discuss my sense that "Pay for Everything With Points" is a left-over relic of old-school Champions, and that the "problems" of free equipment are not so much with what is free, but with the lack of value in what you actually pay for.

 

As a caveat, I've long since come to the position that "equipment" (including guns and explosives and cell phones and handcuffs, whatever) is just that, equipment like in any other RPG, and it is available to the PCs if it is situationally, plot-wise and economically appropriate for them to have it... no points necessary. If the Cap clone wants to say he has a .45 on his hip but not pay points for it, no problem. I mean, the tendency is to allow lower point, much more vulnerable "Heroic" characters to use and go up against assault rifles and such, why should it be any more unbalancing to let supers have similar access, especially when those weapons are much less likely to be as dangerous to supers? It really isn't.  (There are issues that arise, but it isn't because the equipment is free... see below.)

 

Another reason I can't justify equipment is the following: Imagine a character had a small, palm size device that contained the vast knowledge of humanity at the touch of a button, could light up a room, capture images, communicate over vast distances and do it all through voice interaction. In the '80s, we'd have called this a "Mother Box" and it would have been nearly magical and probably the majority of a 300 point character's point build. Today, this is a cell phone and every idiot has one. Do you still make someone pay points for their smart phone? I certainly don't. That whole concept right there is one of the biggest barriers to entry for new players. It makes no intuitive sense.

 

So, anecdotally, I've been allowing "free equipment" no matter what kind of HERO game we are playing for some time, and it has 90% of the time worked fine, supers or heroic.*

 

But my anecdotes are not your anecdotes, so let's discuss further

 

So... bear with me... what are the downsides of allowing free equipment for supers, with the same caveats as heroic (it is situationally, plot-wise and economically appropriate for the PC to have it)?  Like I said, the AMTs will have all kinds of numbers and formulas, but I think it comes down to one concept: Equipment (free or not) makes super powers less super, powers less powerful.

 

For example: The classic issue in Fantasy Hero, is that the fighter with a sword is dishing out top notch damage, spending points only on stats. The magic user has to sink a ton of points into a "spell" that essentially does the same damage, but cost a big chunk of the build points that the Fighter can spend on all kinds of other things. There is very little outside of contrived plot scenarios, that the blast spell and the sword aren't really just two different SFX for the ability to deal 2 1/2d6K or whatever. Where is the advantage (mechanically) that should come with investing so many points? That magic user ain't feelin' very magical... and that hurts the game.

 

In a supers game, Zapper pays 30 pts for a 2d6RKA electro blast, while Gunman is wielding a 2d6 AF AR-15 at the same time, for minimal point outlay (Weapon Fam).

 

In many cases, especially with modern military arms... equipment is even MORE powerful than the super-powers capped at an AP level far below that of a decent assault rifle. Essentially, super powers (specifically around damage levels) are stuck in '70s-'80s concepts and not caught up with modern understanding of and access to high-powered weaponry. At the same time, HERO has gone out of its way to attempt to standardize/stat out/document the wide variety of weaponry and attack equipment potentially available. Equipment/weapon damage has leveled up over the years, but super-powers haven't (and in fact, buying powers has become MORE expensive for the same abilities over time).

 

Now... part of this is not just raw damage. It is the fact that the game tries to apply "realistic damage and fire rates" to weapons, but doesn't enforce all the "realistic" downsides. Weapons can get heavy, humans get tired quickly hauling and firing them, ammunition needs to be carried and can run out, weapons fire a lot faster and run out a lot faster without necessarily hitting more than the rules allow. Weapons get hot, dirty, broken, need maintenance, slow you down when turning to fire, cause ear and eye damage to the unprotected user, etc. They cost money and require access, and are uncomfortable to carry around even if you aren't using them.

 

I mean, if I could shoot 2d6RKAs out of my fingers, with no needs for any equipment or ammo, just occasionally stopping for a few quick breaths... that WOULD be incredibly super, and amazing, and in the real world would be of HUGE advantage to people relying on equipment. BUT in a HERO game, all that matters is 2d6RKA... whether it comes from my fingers or a gun. If you spend points for your attack, and I don't, I can spend points to be BETTER with that attack even, making super powers even less super.

 

Now, even with free equipment... movement powers still seem super. Defense powers still seems super (unless you are playing super high level SF and everybody has their own power-armor). Enhanced senses and most importantly, inherent stats still feel super. We might all have AR-15s, but the guy with a 40 STR 25/25PD/ED resistant and a base 8 OCV/8DCV is a GOD with those guns compared to the normals. Even if characters have access to free body armor and such, it is quickly and easily outclassed by paid-for powers.

 

Ultimately, what tends to feel "no longer super" or "no longer powerful enough" are the damage dealing powers. They just don't feel super when the guy with the gun is doing essentially the same damage as blasting guy. There is only SFX as a difference.

 

Essentially, the real world downsides (cost, weight, encumbrance, maintenance, ammunition, slowness to ready, etc.) are not appropriately modeled as the real world upside (high damage and rate of fire, etc.) are. 

So, the question is... how do you make attack powers feel powerful in comparison to baseline equipment damage.

 

1) A supers game can ramp up the AP limits of the supers, so that super powers are better than the baseline. I've done this, and found that yes, 600 point characters with 75AP levels do still feel super, because they ARE more powerful than baseline equipment.

2) Start nerfing equipment and putting all kinds of limitations that more accurately reflect how equipment works (this could get unfun, very quickly)

2) Provide a different level of effectiveness for powers, or those things that are "bought with points" (they at faster, more accurate, unencumbered, etc.) and make those things meaningful where it counts, in combat.

 

Thoughts?

 

* There is a completely valid reason why a Player/PC might want to pay points in the traditional way, not just use free equipment, but that is another discussion and can be addressed later in this thread.

[Chris Goodwin]

Part of the assumption is "normal equipment" that's available to more or less anyone in the setting.  In a modern (Danger International or Justice Inc.) game, this would be modern firearms; in a Fantasy Hero game, this would be medieval weapons and armor.  As well as the 50' of rope, backpack, iron spikes, and a 10-foot pole, or whatever the genre equivalents are.  

 

Any equipment that is available to the PCs is coming off of a list, either one that I've already created as a GM, or one that's already in the book somewhere (the various weapon lists).  I'm assuming a number of other things as well: Normal Characteristic Maxima, Impairing, Disabling, Bleeding, Hit Locations, Knockdown.  I'm also assuming an overall lower point budget, more likely, probably 75 points base with a maximum of 75 points in Disadvantages or Complications.  

 

I'm probably not putting Active Point and DC limits in play, partly because the assumption is going to be that if you're not paying points for your attacks, you're going through Skills (including Martial Arts) and Characteristics to get them, partly because your point budgets are lower in general.  A character with, let's say, 18 STR and a martial arts package, will likely be looking at 7-8 DC.  Normal Characteristic Maxima on PD and ED is 8; light armor is probably 3 DEF (leather armor in a fantasy game, light Kevlar in modern) while heavy armor might get up to 8 or 10 (and it will be heavy; field plate for fantasy, bulky Kevlar with ceramic plates for modern).  

 

Melee weapons are going to be limited via STR Minimum and the weapon's DC themselves.  I'm assuming 7-8 DC total there as well; perhaps as high as 10 DC (3d6+1 Killing) with Strength.  DC 8-10 is probably as high as I'm willing go on a "normal" firearm (let's say DC 9 would be a .50 Desert Eagle, DC 10 would be a .50 caliber sniper rifle).  

 

I'm tending also to assume that if you're paying points for Powers in this setting, you're to some extent focused on those.  My assumption would be that the DC/DEF/Active Point limits for those who pay points for most of their abilities will be a bit higher than for free equipment, but I'm also going to be looking pretty closely at Powers in general.  Assume they all have a warning sign on them, and that any signs they already have are one degree more restrictive.  

 

If I'm going with a campaign less restrictive on points (full Champions), the point budgets and power levels the PCs have access to are already going to be higher than those they can achieve with normal equipment anyway.  A superhero with a 12d6 attack power isn't going to need that 1d6+1 RKA pistol.  8 DEF body armor is meaningless to someone with a 20 PD, 20 ED Force Field.  Normal equipment is also a good bit more breakable, and it all has Real Weapon, Real Armor, etc.  

[PamelaIsley]

I can't make a math case for my opinion, but this exact issue came up frequently in my M&M gaming and it's just frustrating.  You shouldn't make characters pay for equipment that is easily available elsewhere.  Cell phones, flash lights, goggles, binoculars, coats for cold weather, regular automobiles, etc. should just be available whenever people want them.  It's just ludicrous to write up a Superman clone and then include an entry on his sheet for his iPhone or a simple communicator.  If you can buy it on Amazon or at a mall, players should have it.

 

Guns and weapons are more on the line, I guess.  But my players used to make fun of me for trying (early on) to enforce the rule that if they picked up a gun from one of Joker's goons during a fight, they'd have to get rid of it by the end of the session.  Why?  What happened? Magic recall?

 

The rest of your points go more to games that involve superheroes more powerful than my preference.  I wouldn't jack up attacks just because guns are easier to use.  In fact, I'm constantly trying to keep guns and normal humans effective in my super games.  I hate the idea of Silver Age power levels and the idea that just because someone can shoot energy out of their fingers, they can fight at the same level as a jet, tank, or APC.

 

Anyway, my opinion didn't help you much.  I'm just backing up the idea that enforcing equipment rules on superheroes drives many players nuts.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

If we assume that everyone has a smartphone, then everyone's on equal footing.  But if Long Wave wants to buy the power to tap into the cell network with his mind, he shouldn't be paying full price for something he'd already have for free.  If we assume everyone has access to a 2d6 HKA or RKA from mundane equipment, then everyone's on equal footing.  But if Gonedolf wants to buy the power to shoot arrows with his mind, he shouldn't be paying full price for something he'd already have for free  So on and so forth. 

But at the same time, not having the Focus limitation (and Real Weapon, and etc etc) means the power-version is superior to the equipment-version (barring worse limitations on the power version, of course). 

 

The solution is to make players only pay the difference.  If cell phones are free and worth 12 AP with -1 in Limitations, then a cell phone power should cost 6 fewer points.  If 6 DCs of KA with -1 in Limitations can be obtained from equipment for free, then a PC who buys a KA should be paying only to remove those limitations or add DCs. 

[Tjack]

     I would just go with the rule of thumb that any ordinary item that a player sitting at the table would have on them  ie;  a smart phone,  a Leatherman style multi-tool,  a cigarette lighter would be free.  On the other hand something like the aforementioned hand gun. If the player insists that it too should be free, than just make sure that they pay the points for the perk: carry permit/police powers etc.

    Things tend to equal out that way without as many arguments or write up sessions in the middle of a game that kill most of the night.

[Chris Goodwin]

If we assume that everyone has a smartphone, then we should assume that Long Wave also has a smartphone.  But on top of that, his power isn't something that will break if you drop it or fall on it wrong, or get hit in the pocket; it won't run out of battery.  He'll probably have access to all of the networks.  He never has to say "Can you hear me now?"  

 

The point is, if it's normal equipment, it's normal.  Subject to the GM's whim.  If he's paid points for it, then by definition it's special.  No, you don't pay the difference; you shouldn't be paying points for a cell phone, but Long Wave's tap-into-the-cell-network power is better in all respects than a cell phone.  

[Doc Democracy]

Hmm.  So are we saying if players can put their hands easily on a 2D6 killing attack by buying a sword or a gun then a wizard should have access to spells that do 2D6 damage without paying for it either?  These are “common magic”?

 

That means they only need the same kind of knowledge and familiarisation skills.

 

Better stuff requires points.  I would also allow things bought with points to be more reliably available.  For example, if captured and disarmed, your kit just happens to be on a hook near the cell you escape from.  I would also warn players that kit bought with money would be subject to narrative loss and malfunction in a way bought equipment did not.

 

Doc

 

edit: Chris Goodwin beat me to it.  But it bears repeating...

[Chris Goodwin]

3 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hmm.  So are we saying if players can put their hands easily on a 2D6 killing attack by buying a sword or a gun then a wizard should have access to spells that do 2D6 damage without paying for it either?  These are “common magic”?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but that's not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is that while the fighter has a 2d6 killing attack sword, the wizard has a 2d6 Variable Advantage RKA Fire Blast.  If the characters are tied up, the fighter's sword is sitting in an evidence room somewhere or on some noble's belt, while the wizard still has his 2d6 Variable Advantage RKA Fire Blast.  

 

3 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Better stuff requires points.  I would also allow things bought with points to be more reliably available.  For example, if captured and disarmed, your kit just happens to be on a hook near the cell you escape from.  I would also warn players that kit bought with money would be subject to narrative loss and malfunction in a way bought equipment did not.

 

This.  This, for sure.  Bolded part of it for emphasis.

[Ninja-Bear]

RDU Neil for Champions I like that certain equiptment is free. We’ve been playing that commutators are free. Now that also means that the commutators seem to fizz out or disrupted easier than those paid with point. I would in my own game handle certain free equipment as a perk cost. 

 

As to weapons. Serval questions I have about your point. And I take your word that they have gotten more powerful overtime.

 

1) If more powerful and you have an older list why not use the older one? I’m mean just because a certain list says a weapon does X damage, that doesn’t mean you have to accept it right?

 

2) Depending on character background, how are they getting access to military grade weapons?

 

3) Since they are freebies, I would say that guns may not be as available as the player wants them to be.  Or the break easier. I would say that they automatically take x2 Body from Attacks for being broken. 

 

Now to your our point about magic and weapons in fantasy. I think that spells should have some sort of advantage that normal weapons  don’t have. Usually in Fantasy ED is lower than PD so if the spell makes sense, have it versus ED. It gives a small bonus.  I’m not sure but I don’t think any weapons should have Penetrating Advantge so a spell then should as another example. Haven’t got it all worked out but those are some ideas 

[Ninja-Bear]

Speaking of Endurance and weapons, I thought it was odd that weapons are bought as 0 END. I think that the weapons should have an END cost with it. Not saying that sword disappears when you run out of END just you’re too tired to swing it. Hmm that would also perhaps cause the warrior to buy more END so he can swing longer.

Btw the nastier combination is Weapon elements add to martial attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

I see no reason "everyman equipment" cannot be just as universal as "everyman skills".

 

To the increased stats of military hardware, given the Supers are no less powerful in the source material, maybe we should be reducing the power of military hardware.  Superman was invulnerable to a 1940s rifle, and should be just as invulnerable to a 2019 rifle, based on the source material.  Design the gear in comparison to the expected power level of the heroes in comparison to the gear.

 

I think most of us get that a fantasy wizard who spends points to have a no-focus bow RKA is probably not living up to his potential.  But then, my D&D/Pathfinder spellcasters tend to look for spells that do things other than damage.  The rest of the team can do damage.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

22 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

If we assume that everyone has a smartphone, then we should assume that Long Wave also has a smartphone.  But on top of that, his power isn't something that will break if you drop it or fall on it wrong, or get hit in the pocket; it won't run out of battery.  He'll probably have access to all of the networks.  He never has to say "Can you hear me now?"  

 

The point is, if it's normal equipment, it's normal.  Subject to the GM's whim.  If he's paid points for it, then by definition it's special.  No, you don't pay the difference; you shouldn't be paying points for a cell phone, but Long Wave's tap-into-the-cell-network power is better in all respects than a cell phone.  

But the fact that everyone can do it via their cell phones devalues the power.  Possession of the power only matters if the GM fabricates a situation such that it matters, and I can very easily see a GM doing the opposite. 

This is pure anecdote, but I have seen exactly zero instances of a PC's Focus limitation mattering across years of super-TTRPGing with my current group and that's across three GMs.

 

21 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hmm.  So are we saying if players can put their hands easily on a 2D6 killing attack by buying a sword or a gun then a wizard should have access to spells that do 2D6 damage without paying for it either?  These are “common magic”?

 

That means they only need the same kind of knowledge and familiarisation skills.

 

Better stuff requires points.  I would also allow things bought with points to be more reliably available.  For example, if captured and disarmed, your kit just happens to be on a hook near the cell you escape from.  I would also warn players that kit bought with money would be subject to narrative loss and malfunction in a way bought equipment did not.

 

Doc

 

edit: Chris Goodwin beat me to it.  But it bears repeating...

I can't speak for any plural quantity of people, but it's what I'm saying.  If the fighting man gets his 2d6 RKA for free, then the magic user should be able to get his equally-but-differently-limited 2d6 RKA at the exact same price.  If he wants fewer limitations, he should be paying to not have them but not to reinvent the RKA. 

I fully agree that better means costs more.  I don't agree that equivalent means costs more. 

[Doc Democracy]

I also think that in a society where a warrior can purchase a sword and skill levels to enhance it then wizards would not be developing spells to conjure slightly better swords, they would be developing spells to significantly enhance swords (cf Runequest - Bladesharp and Fireblade)

[Chris Goodwin]

5 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

But the fact that everyone can do it via their cell phones devalues the power.  Possession of the power only matters if the GM fabricates a situation such that it matters, and I can very easily see a GM doing the opposite. 

 

I would submit that it overvalues the cell phone.  The EMPeror's electromagnetic pulse attack might give Long Wave a brief headache, but it will fry everyone's normal cell phones.  

 

6 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

This is pure anecdote, but I have seen exactly zero instances of a PC's Focus limitation mattering across years of super-TTRPGing with my current group and that's across three GMs.

 

That's on the GMs.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh I agree with you on the Superman point! That’s what I think too.

[Chris Goodwin]

7 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I can't speak for any plural quantity of people, but it's what I'm saying.  If the fighting man gets his 2d6 RKA for free, then the magic user should be able to get his equally-but-differently-limited 2d6 RKA at the exact same price.  If he wants fewer limitations, he should be paying to not have them but not to reinvent the RKA. 

I fully agree that better means costs more.  I don't agree that equivalent means costs more. 

 

The fighter isn't getting a "2d6 RKA" for free.  The fighter is getting a 2d6 RKA, STR Min 13, 8 Shots, OAF, Real Weapon... for free.  If the wizard is paying points for his 2d6 RKA, it's by definition better.  

[Doc Democracy]

Just now, Chris Goodwin said:

 

The fighter isn't getting a "2d6 RKA" for free.  The fighter is getting a 2d6 RKA, STR Min 13, 8 Shots, OAF, Real Weapon... for free.  If the wizard is paying points for his 2d6 RKA, it's by definition better.  

 

He said (and I meant) “equally but differently limited”.  It might even be close to mechanically identical.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Just now, Chris Goodwin said:

The fighter isn't getting a "2d6 RKA" for free.  The fighter is getting a 2d6 RKA, STR Min 13, 8 Shots, OAF, Real Weapon... for free.  If the wizard is paying points for his 2d6 RKA, it's by definition better.  

Quote

equally-but-differently-limited

 

[Ninja-Bear]

As to better spells, why do you think I buy 1m AoE accurate? ? And maybe no range  modifiers advantage?

[Ninja-Bear]

I also thought (but haven’t used) Alternate Defense. So the spell is versus Power Defense!

[Chris Goodwin]

Just now, Doc Democracy said:

 

He said (and I meant) “equally but differently limited”.  It might even be close to mechanically identical.

 

All right, I'll admit that I missed that.  In that case... why indeed is the wizard paying points for something another character gets for free?  The wizard should be buying something better.

[Chris Goodwin]

3 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

As to better spells, why do you think I buy 1m AoE accurate? ? And maybe no range  modifiers advantage?

 

1 minute ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I also thought (but haven’t used) Alternate Defense. So the spell is versus Power Defense!

 

Indeed.  This is what that wizard should be spending his points on, not the equivalent to the fighter's free rifle.

[Doc Democracy]

Just now, Chris Goodwin said:

 

All right, I'll admit that I missed that.  In that case... why indeed is the wizard paying points for something another character gets for free?  The wizard should be buying something better.

 

I think we are on the same page, the next paragraph essentially states that just as the warrior can buy that level of effect for free, the wizard should be similarly enabled (and buy something better with points). ?

[Chris Goodwin]

19 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think we are on the same page, the next paragraph essentially states that just as the warrior can buy that level of effect for free, the wizard should be similarly enabled (and buy something better with points). ?

 

I would just... point out that my... point is that the... point of paying points for something is that the free stuff is off-the-shelf.  The stuff you buy with points is and should be better.

[Hugh Neilson]

What stops the wizard buying a bow and casting a spell that grants him skill levels with the bow, if that is what he wants?

 

Now he can have the same KA, with the same STR requirement, charges, encumbrance, etc., and a better OCV, DCV and/or DC.

 

Or he can buy a spell that blasts Eldritch Bolts that hit a whole hex, are defended by Power Defense and blind their target in addition to damaging them.

 

Meanwhile the fighter is still peppering them with arrows, which is way easier when they are blind...