Level With Me

[Hugh Neilson]

7 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

 

Hmm.  Maybe.  I mean, just because someone has Bureaucratics on their character sheet, on the basis that the character is an Administration Assistant by day and a Caped Crusader by night doesn't mean that there should be a bit of plot in there somewhere that turns on filing a tax return.

 

 

I subscribe to the 6e methodology that, if it will not be valuable in game, then Bureaucratics should be on the character sheet with "0 points" written next to it.

 

Limitations must limit, and complications must complicate, to be worth points.  The same should apply to things characters pay for - either the character benefits, or it is free. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Just now, Sean Waters said:

Generally, as most characters elevate most characteristics, skills will be assigned to characteristics but if you want a character who is not particularly naturally gifted but works hard then buy all your skills as Background Skills, you might want to not bother increasing your characteristics but buy lots of skills and Background Skill Levels.

 

So if I plan to  buy lots of skills., they should be Background Skills so I can enhance them all with the same skill levels, not have to pay extra for skill levels that enhance multiple characteristic rolls.  Especially if we remove PER, PRE attacks and Initiative from INT, PRE and DEX.

[Sean Waters]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

At present, each stat does two things, so my bias is to allow separate purchases, priced appropriately, rather than increase the already significant number of characteristics.

 

I was not advocating a 'Reactions' stat, or I did not mean to - rather removing the exclusivity that DEX has in determining combat order and allow the highest of INT, PRE or DEX to determine the combat order, so they all get to chip in and none is more important than another for that particular aspect of the game.

[Sean Waters]

1 minute ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So if I plan to  buy lots of skills., they should be Background Skills so I can enhance them all with the same skill levels, not have to pay extra for skill levels that enhance multiple characteristic rolls.  Especially if we remove PER, PRE attacks and Initiative from INT, PRE and DEX.

 

Well, yes, but then you might also want skill levels with Characteristic Rolls, because that will happen sometimes, characteristic bonuses to skills can be used for all skills you use in a phase, INT, PRE and DEX would (under the suggested amendments) all be able to determine combat order and some characters are not going to want a range of skills so might be better off putting points in one characteristic or another to indicate a base levels of competence with the majority of their abilites.

[Sean Waters]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I subscribe to the 6e methodology that, if it will not be valuable in game, then Bureaucratics should be on the character sheet with "0 points" written next to it.

 

Limitations must limit, and complications must complicate, to be worth points.  The same should apply to things characters pay for - either the character benefits, or it is free. 

 

 

Again, hmmm...I agree, in principle, but...

 

Sometimes I buy LS: Immortal for a character because it makes sense given the concept.  I do not think it has ever actually had an in-game effect, but I still do it occasionally and that is fine.  It is only a few points and it makes me feel better knowing I have got it.

 

The other side of it is that you just don't know.  If a character has Bureaucratics then it might come up at some point, maybe more than once.  If you have written '0 points' next to it does it not then work, or it it effectively a freebie?

 

I've played characters where they have a DNPC and the first session the GM whisks us off into space, where the majority of the game takes place, leaving the other half back on Earth.  I did not know that was going to happen when I built the character, and the GM is hardly likely to spell it out because you would guess what is coming.  no one minded.  It was all done in good faith.  Another one is Hunteds.  Frankly they are a pain when I am GMing because I have normally written the plot well before the characters are created and, unless I am creating the characters (which I sometimes do), having to crowbar in a whole range of other NPCs to an already crowded game is a nightmare and I just don't do it.  Again, no one gets particularly upset or make people re-write their Complications.

 

This is way off topic, but I think that Complications that have an effect in combat should be worth a lot more than they are as they are almost bound to come up, and regularly.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I subscribe to the 6e methodology that, if it will not be valuable in game, then Bureaucratics should be on the character sheet with "0 points" written next to it.

 

Limitations must limit, and complications must complicate, to be worth points.  The same should apply to things characters pay for - either the character benefits, or it is free. 

My opinion is that a player should ask the GM "Hey, I want [thing] but doubt it'll matter.  Should I pay for it?".  And if the GM says "Yes" and [thing] never seems to come up, the player should raise the point again with the GM, saying "Hey, remember when I asked about [thing]?  It hasn't seemed to come up, can I get a discount since I'm not getting what I paid for?". 

And from there it'll go the way of the lazy player, the arse GM, the friendly GM, or the reactive GM. 

[Sean Waters]

..or the drunk GM.

 

Of course, you can my friend.  You're my best friend.  I love you.

I NEVER SAID THAT!  I hate you.  You're attacked by rabid chickens

What?  What?  Who said that?

God, I need a kebab...

[BoloOfEarth]

I have yet to have a player say, "Hey, I paid points for [thing] but it's never come into play."  Then again, I also haven't ever had a player complain, "I got points for [Complication] but it's never come into play." 

 

As GM I do try to work in various odd bits that characters have paid for.  (For example, Circe the mentalist has KS: Fashion, so I had her interact with a supervillain - who worked as a male model before getting his powers - having a relatively long discussion about superhero / supervillain fashions in the middle of a fight, rather than actually, y'know, fighting.)

 

Sometimes, it's up to the player to find ways to use the things he paid for.  If a character has Bureaucratics and the team is investigating an office building they suspect is owned by VIPER, there's nothing stopping that hero from going down to City Hall and finding a way to get the building's blueprints, or tracking down the building's ownership, or whatever else might be useful.

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, Sean Waters said:

I've played characters where they have a DNPC and the first session the GM whisks us off into space, where the majority of the game takes place, leaving the other half back on Earth.  I did not know that was going to happen when I built the character, and the GM is hardly likely to spell it out because you would guess what is coming.  no one minded.  It was all done in good faith.  Another one is Hunteds.  Frankly they are a pain when I am GMing because I have normally written the plot well before the characters are created and, unless I am creating the characters (which I sometimes do), having to crowbar in a whole range of other NPCs to an already crowded game is a nightmare and I just don't do it.  Again, no one gets particularly upset or make people re-write their Complications.

 

This is way off topic, but I think that Complications that have an effect in combat should be worth a lot more than they are as they are almost bound to come up, and regularly.

 

RE: useless complications due to GM's game plans, if the GM doesn't want to forbid those up front, I'd say that he/she should say something after whisking the heroes off-world, like "Okay, over the next few sessions you'll meet various NPCs and make a few enemies along the way.  Those of you with DNPCs left behind, I'll want you to find an NPC you like and we'll replace your existing DNPC with that one, at least until you get back to Earth.  Those with Hunteds, you can either pick one of the ones you meet, or I can create an arch-nemesis for you.  Or you can simply replace the Complication with something else.  Your call."

 

IMO, simply ignoring useless complications is a good way for savvy players to get points for free.  ("Hey, [GM] never does anything with Hunteds, so I should just max out the points there.  Better that, than taking a Vulnerability or Susceptibility.")

[Chris Goodwin]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

 

Ah, now I do appreciate that, but the problem there is that skill levels with INT based Skills do not add to Background Skills based on INT, which, well, makes very limited sense, if any.

 

There's something somewhere in one of the books... it might be on that same page, written in invisible ink, but I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere... something about GM permission?

[Lucius]

4 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

 

Right.  PRE.  I'd be happy for PRE attacks to go entirely too.  They are a mechanic that has been around since the beginning (I think) in HERO, but nothing quite like them exists in other games, that I can think of, and , if there is a need for something like that, it can be accomplished through role playing and social skills

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I would say the allure of PRE attacks is that they are a mechanic, not a GM judgment call.  This comes back to the age-old debate of what the point of buying any form of social skill/impressiveness stat is if the GM decides we will resolve all these issues through "role playing" such that the results are dictated by player social skills and GM biases rather than game mechanics.  Hero was among the first to add such mechanics.  Other games followed (d20 now having mechanics for diplomacy, intimidation, bluffing, etc.).

 

 

Charisma was part of D&D from the beginning. And the wargames that the first role playing games evolved from had morale mechanics.

 

This is neither something unique to Hero, nor a Hero innovation. We're talking about a kind of mechanic that not only predates Hero System, it PREDATES ROLE PLAYING GAMES.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

and a palindromedary providing morale support

[Ninja-Bear]

Perhaps what we need is a new methodology for creating characters. Say X amount of points spent regularly for Powers, Skills and what not then an additional  Y points  say 20 CP total and these are spent for only minor abilities or lease likely to be used skills and such. (Trust me I’m pulling some of this outta my head as I text). My experience is that with Characters that I was told to build with a nice budget but kept everything else reasonable, I started to buy things that defined the character but not necessarily were “get what you pay for”. An example was for my Martial Artist in a Pulp game (anyone really surprised?). I bought extra Body only to defend against Disable Element. I knew that the GM (who had enough on his plate) probably wasn’t going to use Disable Element for Martial Maneuvers however I had the points, I thought it was a neat concept and it fleshed out the Character. (He’s really good at joint locks and this can defend against them.)

[Sean Waters]

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

There's something somewhere in one of the books... it might be on that same page, written in invisible ink, but I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere... something about GM permission?

 

Do not get me started, Chris...

[Sean Waters]

2 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

 

Charisma was part of D&D from the beginning. And the wargames that the first role playing games evolved from had morale mechanics.

 

This is neither something unique to Hero, nor a Hero innovation. We're talking about a kind of mechanic that not only predates Hero System, it PREDATES ROLE PLAYING GAMES.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

and a palindromedary providing morale support

 

Good point, well made and maybe that is where they got the idea, but morale rules are for armies and units.  Sure, individuals have morale but that is why Role Playing developed, so we didn't have a mechanical system for determining what actions characters took next.  Maybe PCs should run away from the Terrifying Terror from Tulsa, and the players should probably be praised for deciding that a strategic retreat is in order to, you know, change underwear and that, but in my experience they don't like being told they have to.

[RDU Neil]

28 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Perhaps what we need is a new methodology for creating characters. Say X amount of points spent regularly for Powers, Skills and what not then an additional  Y points  say 20 CP total and these are spent for only minor abilities or lease likely to be used skills and such. (Trust me I’m pulling some of this outta my head as I text). My experience is that with Characters that I was told to build with a nice budget but kept everything else reasonable, I started to buy things that defined the character but not necessarily were “get what you pay for”. An example was for my Martial Artist in a Pulp game (anyone really surprised?). I bought extra Body only to defend against Disable Element. I knew that the GM (who had enough on his plate) probably wasn’t going to use Disable Element for Martial Maneuvers however I had the points, I thought it was a neat concept and it fleshed out the Character. (He’s really good at joint locks and this can defend against them.)

 

I tend to do this. As GM I say, "Build your character as you feel they should be viable, critical CSP (Characteristics Skills Powers) that define the character. Don't worry about background skills or nice-to-haves. Use 400 pts (or whatever)." Then once those characters come in and we review them for group balance, I say, "OK, everyone now has 20 points for background skills, flavor contacts, etc. that may or may not be relevant to play but are nice to have written down as fleshing out the character.)

 

Been doing that for years.

[Ninja-Bear]

That’s cool RDU Neil. 

[Sean Waters]

4 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

RE: useless complications due to GM's game plans, if the GM doesn't want to forbid those up front, I'd say that he/she should say something after whisking the heroes off-world, like "Okay, over the next few sessions you'll meet various NPCs and make a few enemies along the way.  Those of you with DNPCs left behind, I'll want you to find an NPC you like and we'll replace your existing DNPC with that one, at least until you get back to Earth.  Those with Hunteds, you can either pick one of the ones you meet, or I can create an arch-nemesis for you.  Or you can simply replace the Complication with something else.  Your call."

 

IMO, simply ignoring useless complications is a good way for savvy players to get points for free.  ("Hey, [GM] never does anything with Hunteds, so I should just max out the points there.  Better that, than taking a Vulnerability or Susceptibility.")

 

OK. Mega Man, you have been away from your wife for nearly a fortnight,  You are now in love with Velatrix the Space Fox.  Carry on.

 

What we should probably do, in practice, is have a certain number of Complication points that directly relate to the character and how the character is played, like Susceptibility, Vulnerability, (most) Psychological and Physical Complications, Accidental Change, Unluck and Dependence - stuff they take with them where ever they go, and leave the DNPCs, Hunteds, Reputations and Rivalries for the GM to assign (perhaps at your suggestion) as they come up in the game you are actually playing.

 

You can have family in your background write-up, but it should be up to the GM whether they actually form part of the story.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

I've been pondering something similar for once I have enough free time to run a HERO game. 

Tell the players it's 350 points base, everyone has Code of the Hero, CvK, etc and needs another 50 points of psylims, soclims, physlims on top of that.  Then say you can add another 5 disads and each one you add is 5 CP for things from a short list of flavor abilities. 

 

 

With regards to the setting shift cough sudden ruining of backstories and plot hooks cough I'd have just told the players to take half as many disads but not to take dfs, soclims, hunteds, or DNPCs. 

[Steve]

Regarding 0-point skills, I add them to my character sheet at a basic level (8- or 11-), since they will likely never matter except to me as background color for my character. If one of them suddenly becomes useful in a scenario, I just put a check mark next to it and note it down as an XP debt to be paid back later.

 

I once gamed with a group that built characters with most skills bought as familiarities, then only adding more points to them if they started getting useful.

[Christopher]

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

You and I are on the same page on placing little value on going first, but I see this in both Hero and d20 players, so ours is not the only viewpoint.  In a WIld West game (high lethality and low defenses), going first seems a lot more important.  If we can buy DEX for 2 points each,, or DEX without initiative for 1 point (effectively, +1 to all DEX rolls for +5 points, and +5 initiative for +5 points), we can exercise our preferences, as can those who value going first. 

Going first can be very important.

 

Indeed the optional combat maneuver Hipshoot (6E2 87) exists for that purpose.

Then APG I 169 has the Optional Hurry maneuver.

And APG II 67 has the optional "Showdown" rule if you want to resolve the Gunslinger duel in even more detail.

 

At that much special rules, it is save to say some players prefer acting first. There is even a chance that the "I do not care" only comes from not having those optional rules in play/in memory. I tend to not value things I get no active decision for as well.

[Lucius]

2 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

Good point, well made and maybe that is where they got the idea, but morale rules are for armies and units.  Sure, individuals have morale but that is why Role Playing developed, so we didn't have a mechanical system for determining what actions characters took next.  Maybe PCs should run away from the Terrifying Terror from Tulsa, and the players should probably be praised for deciding that a strategic retreat is in order to, you know, change underwear and that, but in my experience they don't like being told they have to.

 

I can't speak to your experience, but I haven't seen major pushback against using PRE attaks.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary hasn't even seen captain pushback

[Sean Waters]

1 minute ago, Lucius said:

 

I can't speak to your experience, but I haven't seen major pushback against using PRE attaks.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary hasn't even seen captain pushback

 

Drop one on the players at some point that is big enough to make them faint with fear and see how they feel about it.  Describe in detail how they come back to their senses some time later in chains and urine soaked underwear.  It's all fun and games when it is happening to someone else.

[Lucius]

7 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

 

Drop one on the players at some point that is big enough to make them faint with fear and see how they feel about it.  Describe in detail how they come back to their senses some time later in chains and urine soaked underwear.  It's all fun and games when it is happening to someone else.

 

If that's how you habitually use PREsence attacks, no wonder your players don't like them.

 

If their only exposure to Martial Arts were guys who outclass their Combat Values by 4 or 5, and stun with every hit, they wouldn't like Martial Arts either.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If every time I put a palindromedary in a tagline I hit you over the head with it, you probably wouldn't like palindromedaries either

 

 

[BoloOfEarth]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

OK. Mega Man, you have been away from your wife for nearly a fortnight,  You are now in love with Velatrix the Space Fox.  Carry on.

 

Hey, what happens on New Vegas Colony, stays on New Vegas Colony. 

[Steve]

23 hours ago, Lucius said:

I suggest that a Skill Level usable with more than one Skill at a time should cost +1.

 

 

I disagree, purely from a cost POV.

 

Buying a skill level with all INT-based skills in 6E costs four points, so making it cost five just encourages people to keep buying up their INT until they hit the campaign's characteristic maxima first. Since they're not getting any PER bonus from having this level, even at four points, it is already feeling too overpriced next to just buying more INT.

 

The same goes for DEX levels costing six points each. I could just buy five points of DEX at a cost of ten character points, which is a one point price break compared to buying a DEX level and five points of Lightning Reflexes.

 

As things stand, levels only become acceptable price-wise once a characteristic maxima is reached, if there is one.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to encourage skill level purchases rather than characteristic inflation, but maybe that's just my GMing preference.

 

If buying five points of INT gets me a +1 to ALL of my INT-based skills at once AND a +1 to PER on top of that, then a better cost model for such a level would seem to be making it a point lower rather than higher, maybe setting it at three points instead of four, or maybe even down to two. I also think a level in a single skill is better priced at one point.

 

The cost of levels seems out of whack when compared to buying characteristics straight up, so this is why I've been rethinking the cost structures and also allowing a skill level to affect all skills it applies to at once rather than having a player allocate them. I sincerely doubt it would break the system to make skill levels cheaper.