Jump to content

Whatever happened to Package Deal bonuses?


Brian Stanfield

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering if anyone knows why package deals used to garner a bonus of 3 points (on average?) in the older editions, but are no longer in 6e? I can think of the obvious rationale: even if a player is forced to take certain skills with a professional template or whatever, they'll probably get used, and not only do you get what you pay for, you also pay for what you get. But I always thought it was at least a nice incentive to steer players towards using the templates. Does anyone have any idea of the history behind this change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were just free points for having a concept, which is something every character should have anyway. Also, the discount varied; it wasn't even a consistent value. 

 

As the GM you can still allow characters to have a custom "Enhancer" similar to Scholar, arbitrarily defined, to reduce the cost of skills, which is pretty similar to a Package Deal.

 

Of course, as the GM you can also still allow a Package Deal bonus in 6e if you like. In Hero Designer, just apply a custom Adder to a list and give it a negative value such as -3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw them from the GM side of things: they were an incentive to go with certain restrictions and abilities in a package to better represent concepts in the game world.  All elves are like this, you wanna be an elf, you do this, but its a few points off to compensate for being locked into this concept.

 

Instead now I put stat bases and maximums on races, and if a stat starts or has a max lower than baseline humans, then you get a few points for that (1 per point below starting and ½ point per max below human).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

They were just free points for having a concept, which is something every character should have anyway.

 

I never liked package deals just for that reason.

 

"Here's my concept, give me some points"

 

"That's not a real concept, no points for you!"

 

What do you mean 'that's not a concept'?

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concept

 

concept - An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language.

 

I can guarantee you that my character is a distinct entity and that those are his essential features: he was a fighter pilot in the war who is now a daredevil stuntman working for a Hollywood private investigation firm....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to respectfully disagree, in that I loved the old Package deals, in fact it's one of the reasons I am running the Solar System Campaign using the DI- Espionage rules.  The switch is that I write the package deals, not the players, so that they will have a few to pick and choose from and it keeps things "tidy", at least for me. But then I am not a math nerd and sometimes hand wave  the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

They were just free points for having a concept, which is something every character should have anyway. 

Never saw it this way. Whose concept are we talking about? The GM’s concept of course. Package Deals are a way to tell players what a certain race should have or what a particular profession should have in skills. Also Package Deals force  players to take required disadvantages. Many package deals also have flavor skills required to take. So are those points really free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Never saw it this way. Whose concept are we talking about? The GM’s concept of course. Package Deals are a way to tell players what a certain race should have or what a particular profession should have in skills. Also Package Deals force  players to take required disadvantages.

 

Templates still do this, functioning exactly the same way as a Package Deal except no points knocked off the cost.

 

Quote

Many package deals also have flavor skills required to take.

 

...to model a concept. Unless the GM makes players take one or more Templates for their characters (which is a GM's decision, not the rules mandating it), then a player is free to not take Templates with abilities they don't want.

 

If a GM is requiring one or more Templates to be taken (such as Race Templates in some heroic campaign settings), then the GM presumably deliberately chose to put the things in the Templates they are forcing players to take, and are mindfully controlling the prices of those Templates to tax or not tax characters with needless abilities as serves some larger purpose of the GM's. 

 

Quote

So are those points really free?

 

Yes. Free points are free points. 

 

Some GM's may be fine with handing out free points, and are still as free to do that in 6e as in earlier editions if they want to.

 

If you as the GM want players to take sets of grouped abilities and offer them an incentive to do so, you can still do that.

 

If you as the GM think that players should take certain abilities for background / concept reasons and also think those abilities are useless / not worth points, then you as the GM can make them useful, or make them "free", or just handwave them away as unnecessary and allow characters to do minor things that fit their backstory, or anything in between.  

 

If you want to get right down to brass tacks, as the GM you ultimately decide how many points characters have to make their characters with in the first place. The GM has complete control over cp allocation at character creation and xp issuance as the campaign progresses. Given that level of complete control, package deal discounts are an unnecessary tool for the GM. If you want each player to spend a certain # of points modeling their character's background, then you can stipulate that requirement on the base points you allow...you can set aside or grant some number of extra base points only for background relevant PS's, KS's, SS's, FAM's and/or perks, if you like. 

 

But from a systemic perspective assigning randomly valued discounts to various bundles, such that Package Deal A is -1 points, Package Deal B is -2 points, Package Deal C is -3 points, as so on is just mathematically perverse, difficult to balance, and makes the style of accelerated character creation via combining two or more templates awkward to math out systemically due to the arbitrariness of the "bonuses".

 

Again, GM's are free to continue to allow such a free point discount in 6e, but removing it from the RAW is a cleaner, more consistent, and more mathematically defensible approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I would have to respectfully disagree, in that I loved the old Package deals, in fact it's one of the reasons I am running the Solar System Campaign using the DI- Espionage rules.  The switch is that I write the package deals, not the players, so that they will have a few to pick and choose from and it keeps things "tidy", at least for me. But then I am not a math nerd and sometimes hand wave  the numbers.

 

"Package Deals" still exist...they are just called Templates. They are the same as Package Deals in previous versions, except there is no -1 to -5 point discount slapped on to undermine the entire idea of a character point based game.

 

The organizational "tidiness" of Templates exceeds that of "Package Deals with arbitrary discounts" because they don't carry the added untidiness of math irregularities. 

 

As you claim to be math averse, and to hand wave numbers, then it seems like you would prefer having fewer line items and less mathematical complexity and thus would prefer the mathematically simpler Templates.

 

6ev1 p36 Character Creation Basics

 

TEMPLATES
A Template is a framework for building a
character. It contains the set of Skills, Complications,
restrictions, and bonuses a character would
acquire from membership in an organization,
profession, or race. Or it could represent the
minimum requirements necessary to belong to
one of those groups.


Templates have advantages for both the player
and the GM. For the player, they make it easier to
build characters, since Templates provide guidelines
for the abilities and Complications certain
types of characters should have. The GM, in turn,
gets a better idea of the character’s background
and more information about where he comes
from. He can also create Templates specifically for
his campaign so that players design appropriate
characters for the game.


Creating Templates
The GM should create (or carefully scrutinize)
all Templates. Since Templates relate to important
groups in the GM’s campaign, he controls them.
When constructing Templates, you should
first decide what benefits the Template provides.
Do members of an organization all have a certain
skill, or knowledge of a certain subject? If so, the
Template should include the appropriate Skill(s).
For example, all members of a Thieves’ Guild
might know how to pick pockets, so the Guild
Template would have the Sleight Of Hand Skill.
Similarly, are any Complications associated with
the job? Hunteds and Negative Reputations are
common Template Complications, as are Distinctive
Features (uniforms and the like).


You shouldn’t include too many Skills and
Perks in a Template, since this diminishes character
individuality. Don’t include Powers and
Talents in Templates except in special cases. Most
Templates should cost the character between 3
and 10 points, with 15 being the usual maximum
(though some highly-trained types of characters,
such as elite soldiers, may have much more expensive
Templates). Templates should just provide a
basic framework for character development; they
don’t need to encompass everything a member of
that group can do.


In addition, each Template should include
Skills that round characters out but aren’t necessarily
useful in combat, such as Background Skills.
The GM should disallow Templates that include
nothing but combat-related abilities a character
would buy anyway.


When you note a Template on your character
sheet, put any points from Complications in the
Complication section (they’re part of your character’s
Matching Complication amount), and write
down the Skills in the Skills section. You should
also write down the name(s) of the Template(s)
your character has.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

and not only do you get what you pay for, you also pay for what you get.

My appologies, Brian, somehow I cut off your actual question.  If you will allow me to attemot repairs:

 

 

BRIAN STANFIELD: "What happened to package deals?" 

 

As near as I can tell, they became two decks of cards. 

 

Now as to bit of quote I did _not_ mangle:

 

That corollary, while nicely-axiomatic and in keeping with the oft-espoused goals of balance, dose not exist, neither in the  character creation methodology of the rules nor in the hearts of the players using them. 

 

Were there actually a "you pay for what you get" principle involved, there would be no power frameworks at all: they are essentially "free points"  in their more common usages, such as the famous "movement multipower" or the arrow quiver of gimmick arrows. 

 

Further, there would be no "breakpoints for rounding and never would there have been a " school of cost effectiveness."

 

This is a quibble of unknown size, I am afraid, and it's only mine, I think, so it's not one upon which to waste much thought.  I simply wanted to point out that, while we demand a perceived full-value for every point we spend, we will put a little work into finding as much value as we can find from the points we don't spend, too. 

 It doesn't seem to be enough of a problem to worry about, so if you will excuse me, I've got a multipower and a couple of power pools to finish off real quick-like so I can work on my post about the importance of mathematical balance.  I need just a couple more points though: I have got to finish buying everything up to nice Prime numbers to improved the rounding efficiency. 

 

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

The switch is that I write the package deals, not the players, so that they will have a few to pick and choose from and it keeps things "tidy",

 

We will never know for sure, but I think this was a large part of the idea behind them in the first place: to help the GM establish the fit and finish of his world, ensure certain skill sets or disadvantages were in play, guide fantasy and alien races into a, if you will pardon the expression, "uniform set of differences" to help them feel more like "a people" as opposed to "a person." 

 

I suspect they also prevented a lot of minor disagreements about what X should or should not be by drawing attention to the GM's concept in an "I didn't bash it in the campaign guidelines," oh-cool-a-handy-chart;-I-like-those kind of way.  And it was all made a bit more appealing to the players because of the tiny bit of two-flavored bait:  there was the crunchy, healthy and important "well that's a lot of work already done and GM-approved" kibble _and_ the so tasty, ultra-meaty "I can't believe he just left those three points just sitting there-- right there where I mean, just _anyone_ could walk by and like, just _pick the up_!" Bits that we are always on the lookout for so we can buy our movements up to the next odd number. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Duke Bushido

 

Frameworks other than Elemental Controls (which were removed in 6e) do not grant "free points". They are accounting schemes based upon the idea of setting aside a reserve of cp to allocate to a variable set of potential powers. The accounting scheme and finite / infiniteness of the available potential powers differ between MP and VPP, but the reserve of both is paid for outright, and a premium is paid on top of that for abilities that the reserve can be allocated to. 

 

You do make a valid point that the round-in-the-character's-favor model of the Hero System does result in a non-zero bias and it is indeed mathematically unstable in the technical sense. This is somewhat unfortunate; a more stable rounding scheme such as "banker's rounding" would be better mathematically. However, it is at least consistent systemically and thus is not biased at the individual character level in theory.

 

Of course, some players exploit the rounding rules more egregiously than others to "milk" free points, and some GM's let it fly. Unfortunately this is baked into the fundamental foundation of the game system.

 

To repair the rounding bias and its free point generation capability as far as it can be fixed would be as simple as replacing the current rounding guidance in the RAW with some variation of the following:

 

Quote

 

Round half to even
A tie-breaking rule without positive/negative bias and without bias toward/away from zero is round half to even. By this convention, if the fractional part of x is 0.5, then y is the even integer nearest to x. Thus, for example, +23.5 becomes +24, as does +24.5; while −23.5 becomes −24, as does −24.5. This function minimizes the expected error when summing over rounded figures, even when the inputs are mostly positive or mostly negative.

 

This variant of the round-to-nearest method is also called convergent rounding, statistician's rounding, Dutch rounding, Gaussian rounding, odd–even rounding, or bankers' rounding.

 

 

HD or similar character creation software could easily just switch its rounding style from "round to nearest, in character's favor" to "round to nearest, ties to even"...in some runtimes that's actually the default rounding behavior. Unfortunately, real life people would struggle to be consistent about this and the long tradition of the Hero System "round up" would be difficult to untrain people from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

But from a systemic perspective assigning randomly valued discounts to various bundles, such that Package Deal A is -1 points, Package Deal B is -2 points, Package Deal C is -3 points, as so on is just mathematically perverse, difficult to balance, and makes the style of accelerated character creation via combining two or more templates awkward to math out systemically due to the arbitrariness of the "bonuses".

 

Again, GM's are free to continue to allow such a free point discount in 6e, but removing it from the RAW is a cleaner, more consistent, and more mathematically defensible approach.

 

I'd like to make it clear that I don't mind the GM giving away free points.

 

It's just when it becomes arbitrary that I have a problem with it. If everyone gets 3 point to put toward skills which reflect their background, cool. When Hank gets three points, Tony gets two points, Steve gets three points and Diana gets one point, that's when I start to have a problem especially when each player has to convince the GM that their character deserves the points.

 

One character is a private investigator in Hollywood and gets a three point package deal bonus for being a P.I.

 

The next character grew up on the back lots of Hollywood, was a fighter pilot in the war, now works as a stuntman, and does inside the film industry work for his private investigator buddy. And he gets no bonus or a lesser bonus because his skill set is split across the various aspects of his character's more extensive backstory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or even, the next character grew up on the back lots of Hollywood, was a fighter pilot in the war, now works as a stuntman, and does inside the film industry work for his private investigator buddy. He takes three package deals: "hollywood crew", "fighter pilot", "private investigator in training" and gets free points from three package "bonuses". On a heroic point budget, no less. Also, this is pre-6e, and his stuntman and pilot skills benefit from STR, CON, and DEX, so he gets to milk the free point recursions from figureds as well. 

 

Meanwhile the PI with his one package deal "bonus" and reliance on intellect and social skills that gain no benefit from figured recursions is feeling a little unloved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

@Duke Bushido

 

Frameworks other than Elemental Controls (which were removed in 6e) do not grant "free points". 

 

 

As stated in one of my absolute favorite scenes from Futurama, you are the best kind of correct.  

 

However, other than for slot/control cost imbalance, I have never seen anyone reject a movement multipower.  So what is the point of this framework?   Is it a built-in limitation scheme of some sort?  I have always assumed so,  seeing as how I have used them to simulate "a limited amount of power from which to use any of the following things" sort of builds, and ultras flat-out state "i can only do one of these at any given time." 

 

Sounds like they are intended to be sort of akin to "Limitation: Power is in a rotisserie." 

But have you ever seen a Movement Multipower shot down?   Are they not today as standard as they ever were (for characters with multiple forms of movement)?    - - side note-- I think this is what the newer Advantage: usable as othe movement-- actually stems from, and I have issues with it as well (though fewer) for similar reasons. 

 

A movement multipower offers substantial savings (any multipower does) for the idea that you are going to suffer the inconvenience of not also having access to whatever else is in that multi.   So here is your rebate of X points for having to endure the hardship of not being able to run while you are flying or tunnel while your teleporting or swim while you are FTL.  With luck, you will find some way to cope that will still allow you travel successfully.   We wish you the best, of course. 

 

A rebate for a Limitation.  A rebate for a Limitation that does not _effectively_ limit.  Yes, it still _technically_ limits, but not in any reasonable way for the vast majority of actual campaigns.  I would love to say "any" campaign, but there's always that theoretical or possible-to-imagine campaign that exists long enough to prove a counterpoint (which is completely valid, of course: we are talking theory anyway, at this point) and then vanishes. 

 

If we built these as disadvantaged powers:  Swimming: cannot use while flying FTL, what sort of deep discount are we looking at? 

Running: cannot use while Teleporting? 

 

Teleporting: cannot use while Tunneling? 

 

Movement whatever: cannot use while using some other movement _power_?  (to go ahead and dismiss the "you could drown I the three seconds it would take a SPD 4 character to switch from Flight to swimming!". It's mathematically possible, without life support, but not mathematically _likely_, but let's leave you access to your "normal guy" swimming, running, and Leaping and put only the _powers_ in the MP.) 

 

After exhaustive review, I find it hard to justify - 1/8, but accept that there might be a GM that thinks it could be worth a - 1/8, so in the interest of peace, I will let that slide. 

 

Does the multipower reflect a savings roughly equivalent to that?  Or to - 1/4?

 

 

No.  It most certainly does not. 

 

So...  Free points. 

 

No, not _technically_ free, but in overall effect?  And given that the phrasing of multipower has shifted over the years to continue to include the limiting elements (small L) and downplay the similarity to Limitations (big L, and which I do not claim it ever specifically was, but it was) we have in our possession a framework that can be used to generate _effectively free_ points: the same thing we hated about EC and Package Bonuses. 

 

The difference: this one _can_ be used to model a variety of Limitations.  I was once foolish enough to use it that way myself.  EC couldn't, until 4e, anyway. 

 

And of course, "package bonus" was a package "bonus;" not a handicap in anyway.  It was something of a bribe you the player took as a sign that you agreed to make the GMs life a little easier by  taking a pre-approved chunk of character and working off of that.  The only close to limited there was a slight reduction in your own creative input.  Not really mandatory, and extremely meta. 

 

Power Pool on the other hand, is awesome.  You get a massive discount for taking every possible power, talent, skill, Characteristic, or what-have-you.  Seriously: only the GM limits - -  mind you, _pre_-limits, before you buy-- what you can't have.  Anything else you can sneak in later?  It's yours.  You get every single power ever for what is quite possibly the deepest discount in the game.  Or the worst.  It's impossible to calculate because you can toss in and out whatever modifiers you need, as you need them--  it gets nutty. 

 

And all you have to do is agree to not use more than X points worth at a time. 

 

So, for a control cost and the price of a single slot, you get  multipower with unlimited ultras-- seriously: unlimited.  If you think of it and get enough modifiers on it to fit that slot, boom!  It's yours! And at Zero additional slot cost. 

 

So there are no _technically_ free points here either, but an effective amount that is nigh-impossibly to calculate, and varies depending on the foresight of the GM prior to allowing this construct.  Or, put another way, how much math he was willing to do, and how much he was wling to give away. 

 

 

 

Yes; you are completely correct:  we all know that there are no free points out there.  There are, however, and we all know that, too. 

 

I am curious, though, why the ones that appeal to the story guys were blasted and the ones that appeal to the AMGs were given a pass.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2019 at 5:17 AM, Duke Bushido said:

 

As stated in one of my absolute favorite scenes from Futurama, you are the best kind of correct.  

 

However, other than for slot/control cost imbalance, I have never seen anyone reject a movement multipower. 

 

Try to float a framework past me without being able to explain why it makes sense to your character concept / sfx and you'll see rejections flying faster than a 'Murica's Got 'Talent' qualifier.

 

Quote

So what is the point of this framework?   Is it a built-in limitation scheme of some sort?  I have always assumed so,  seeing as how I have used them to simulate "a limited amount of power from which to use any of the following things" sort of builds, and ultras flat-out state "i can only do one of these at any given time." 

 

Sounds like they are intended to be sort of akin to "Limitation: Power is in a rotisserie." 

 

Perhaps a "linear array" (a data structure consisting of a collection of indexable elements) rather than a rotisserie (a cooking appliance with a rotating spit for roasting and barbecuing meat)

 

Quote

But have you ever seen a Movement Multipower shot down?   

 

Um, yes. Having shot them down myself, I have seen them sprout flame from their tail feathers and plummet comet-like to a fiery doom upon the rocky crags of Mount Min-Max.

 

Quote

Are they not today as standard as they ever were (for characters with multiple forms of movement)?    - - side note-- I think this is what the newer Advantage: usable as othe movement-- actually stems from, and I have issues with it as well (though fewer) for similar reasons. 

 

A rebate for a Limitation.  A rebate for a Limitation that does not _effectively_ limit.  Yes, it still _technically_ limits, but not in any reasonable way for the vast majority of actual campaigns.  I would love to say "any" campaign, but there's always that theoretical or possible-to-imagine campaign that exists long enough to prove a counterpoint (which is completely valid, of course: we are talking theory anyway, at this point) and then vanishes. 

 

If we built these as disadvantaged powers:  Swimming: cannot use while flying FTL, what sort of deep discount are we looking at? 

Running: cannot use while Teleporting?  Teleporting: cannot use while Tunneling? 

 

Movement whatever: cannot use while using some other movement _power_?  (to go ahead and dismiss the "you could drown I the three seconds it would take a SPD 4 character to switch from Flight to swimming!". It's mathematically possible, without life support, but not mathematically _likely_, but let's leave you access to your "normal guy" swimming, running, and Leaping and put only the _powers_ in the MP.) 

 

After exhaustive review, I find it hard to justify - 1/8, but accept that there might be a GM that thinks it could be worth a - 1/8, so in the interest of peace, I will let that slide. 

 

Does the multipower reflect a savings roughly equivalent to that?  Or to - 1/4?

 

No.  It most certainly does not. 

 

So...  Free points. 

 

No, not _technically_ free, but in overall effect? 

 

You are mixing terms. Something either is free or it is a savings. If you want to have a semantic argument, which is the angle you are pursuing here, you can't weeble wobble between the poles of meaning. Arguing "it's free but it isn't free" is a non starter. If you instead want to have a relativistic or existential argument, well then lets do that, but commit to a stance please.

 

You can certainly make the case that MP fixed slots are deeply discounted, but while 90% would be a hell of a sale it still isn't "free"

 

You are seemingly trying to say package deal "bonuses" were alright because Multipowers allow cheap slots. Which is kind of like saying stealing a few bucks from the office coffee fund is ok because corporate financial instruments sometimes have a high yield. It's a needless rationalization and a baseless argument. 

 

Quote

And given that the phrasing of multipower has shifted over the years to continue to include the limiting elements (small L) and downplay the similarity to Limitations (big L, and which I do not claim it ever specifically was, but it was) we have in our possession a framework that can be used to generate _effectively free_ points: the same thing we hated about EC and Package Bonuses. 

 

The "Usable as...other form of movement" construct and Movement MP's are a kludge, IMO.

 

Generally speaking, if a common workaround becomes tolerated en masse, the workaround is revealing a flaw...the thing being worked around. Whenever feasible it is better to identify the root cause and remove the flaw rather than tolerate the workaround at the earliest possible convenience. The Movement multipower you are stuck on and the "Usable as..." modifier are workarounds to a flaw in the way travel over X units of game distance is decentralized into special little snowflakes in the Hero System.

 

The root problem is there should only be one Movement power in the Hero System, which at its base definition is just defined as units of movement with no turn mode, no NCM, no acceleration or gravity penalty, nothing but x'' of distance traveled per Segment. What a given character's movement looks like would just be SFX.  

 

It would cost 5 points per 1''.

 

Modifiers (mostly Limitations) could be applied to it in order to dial in specific modes of movement; for instance, applying a stall speed, or minimum take off velocity, or a limited turn mode, and gravity penalties to model realistic flight would result in a reduced cost. Applying only in contact with a surface and a basic turn mode to model running...and so on.

 

Tunneling is a bit interesting, in that it also damages / bores through material by default. This is actually a limited KA linked to  movement. (so called "tunneling" that doesn't actually tunnel out the material passed through is really just desolid or teleport).

 

The "does not move through intervening space" element of teleport is an advantage.

 

FTL is megascale. 

 

Etc.

 

Bundles of specific modifiers used by default for common modes of movement could be provided, such that "Standard Flight (-X)" or "Standard Running (-X)" could be provided for sake of convention, convenience, and common usage but a character could still mix and match modifiers to dial in a custom movement mode. All of the current modes of movement (Running, Leaping, Swimming, Flying, Teleport, Swinging, etc) would be modelable, but a character who wanted multiple modes of movement would no longer feel compelled to want a movement MP or slap an awkward "Foo; Usable As Bar" construct onto their sheet; they would just take a bespoke version of the singular Movement power dialed in exactly the way they wanted it or even just bought as is.

 

Quote

A movement multipower offers substantial savings (any multipower does) for the idea that you are going to suffer the inconvenience of not also having access to whatever else is in that multi.   So here is your rebate of X points for having to endure the hardship of not being able to run while you are flying or tunnel while your teleporting or swim while you are FTL.  With luck, you will find some way to cope that will still allow you travel successfully.   We wish you the best, of course. 

 

So, one of two things is true here...

 

A) having flying and tunneling, t-port, FTL, swim, etc are all in concept for that character

 

OR

 

B ) they are not in concept for that character

 

If B, then the character should not have those abilities as they are not in concept.

 

If A, then the character should have those abilities as they are in concept. It does not make sense, necessarily, for the character to pay for those modes of movement separately as their usage is somewhat redundant. For instance, if the character had 3 modes of movement  F, R, S and the maximum # distance of those three abilities was 20, the next was 15, and the least was 10, the maximum distance the character could move in a phase would still be 20, not 45.

-------------------20>

--------------15>

---------10>

 

Would it make sense for this character to pay the same cp as a character with 45'' of movement with one form of movement?

--------------------------------------------45>

 

Current "Hero logic" says" no! Get a Movement MP! More total movement and more modes for nearly the same price! 

 

Keeping the math simple, lets assume 3-Modes-Of-Movement-Man takes a 45 point reserve MP with their 3 modes of movement in 3 fixed slots for 4 points each...if this character were to be allowed such an MP they would pay 57 points (baring Lims to get the points down), while the character with one movement power might be paying 45 points to move 45''. 

 

The Movement MP character paid 12 extra points for 2 more movement modes. The real question would then be...are the two extra modes of movement worth 12 points?  Probably.  Were they free? No. Were they deeply discounted? Yes. Do I agree with this practice? Not really, no. 

 

However, in terms of effect, both characters move no more than 45'' in a given phase, one of them paid 57 points and the other paid 45 points. 

 

--------------------------------------------45> 

--------------------------------------------45>

 

In the situations where the character with 3 modes of movement did not need two of their three modes of movement, they are at a 12 point disadvantage compared to the character with one mode of movement.

 

In the situations where a mode of movement the first character has and the second character lacks is required to be effective, the character with only one mode of movement is at a 33 point disadvantage to the character with 3 modes of movement. 

 

If the second situation happens less than approximately 36% of the time, then the one-movement-mode character is actually doing alright. If the second situation happens approximately 36% of the time or more, the one-movement-mode character is behind the curve.

 

Pretty recently I talked about being more concerned about characters with multiple vectors of the same kind of ability than characters with big values in one vector of ability. Within mobility options, each separate kind of movement is a different vector. This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to as raising red flags for me.

 

Quote

The difference: this one _can_ be used to model a variety of Limitations.  I was once foolish enough to use it that way myself.  EC couldn't, until 4e, anyway. 

 

And of course, "package bonus" was a package "bonus;" not a handicap in anyway.  It was something of a bribe you the player took as a sign that you agreed to make the GMs life a little easier by  taking a pre-approved chunk of character and working off of that.  The only close to limited there was a slight reduction in your own creative input.  Not really mandatory, and extremely meta. 

 

By showing up to play in the GM's campaign, presumably with other players at the table as well, you are agreeing to participate in the shared experience and to yield some amount of creative control to the service of the campaign and whatever setting and tone is in effect. 

 

By the logic you are forwarding here, if the GM wants to run a Fantasy campaign, by agreeing to limit your character concept to genre appropriate concepts you should get extra points. But every other player is also agreeing to limit their character concept to genre appropriate concepts, or else they are not playing in the campaign. 

 

Further by extension, unless the GM is running a "0 point" game where characters start with 0 character points, each player and their respective characters are already getting "free points" as a "bribe" to make a character appropriate to the campaign setting. "Good news guys, if you agree to make a SciFi character for my upcoming SciFi campaign, you'll get a package bonus of 150 points...which will really help since you get 0 points to make your non-SciFi character for my upcoming SciFi campaign.".

 

Quote

Power Pool on the other hand, is awesome.  You get a massive discount for taking every possible power, talent, skill, Characteristic, or what-have-you.  Seriously: only the GM limits - -  mind you, _pre_-limits, before you buy-- what you can't have.  Anything else you can sneak in later?  It's yours.  You get every single power ever for what is quite possibly the deepest discount in the game.  Or the worst.  It's impossible to calculate because you can toss in and out whatever modifiers you need, as you need them--  it gets nutty. 

 

And all you have to do is agree to not use more than X points worth at a time. 

 

So, for a control cost and the price of a single slot, you get  multipower with unlimited ultras-- seriously: unlimited.  If you think of it and get enough modifiers on it to fit that slot, boom!  It's yours! And at Zero additional slot cost. 

 

That's absolutely not how VPP's work. 

 

Quote

So there are no _technically_ free points here either, but an effective amount that is nigh-impossibly to calculate, and varies depending on the foresight of the GM prior to allowing this construct.  Or, put another way, how much math he was willing to do, and how much he was willing to give away. 

 

I'm not sure how you've been running VPP's all these years, but all I can say is that your apparent takeaway from VPP's and my takeaway from VPP's do not match up at all.

 

Quote

Yes; you are completely correct:  we all know that there are no free points out there.  There are, however, and we all know that, too. 

 

I'm not really sure how we got to this point from discussion of the removal of the 1 to 5 points per Package Deal "bonus" and your attempt to tie that somehow to "free points from frameworks". 

 

By your apparent reasoning, discount everything. If your measuring stick is "abused Multipowers make every other point shaving totally ok because nothing can compete with fixed slots for efficiency", then just eliminate frameworks altogether and discount everything else by 90% across the board. Divide all powers and talent RC by 10, drop the total character points down commensurately.  

 

Quote

I am curious, though, why the ones that appeal to the story guys were blasted and the ones that appeal to the AMGs were given a pass.... 

 

What does AMG stand for?

 

Why does a handful of points discounted on a bundle of abilities appeal to a "story guy"? Surely a real "story guy" doesn't care about something so gauche as points? Surely a true blue "story guy" would be willing to pay whatever cost to realize their concept?

 

Why this false dichotomy of mechanics guy vs story guy? Surely someone can be both? Such as myself, for instance. I want the mechanics to support the story. Good mechanics do that, bad mechanics do not. Proliferating exploitable and irregular mechanics reward min maxing and metagaming, not story and concept. Why would a "story guy" find appeal in a mechanic that rewarded min maxers more than the "story guy" themselves?

 

I am curious why people that claim to not be math oriented or care about math or mechanics nevertheless will argue passionately for the inclusion or retention of a glorified accounting mechanism? Particularly when it is totally within their power if they are the GM to just wave their hand and grant whatever discount, or extra points they like to any or all players and characters in their own group? 

 

I'm curious why people who claim to dislike math feel compelled to try to argue from a numbers position with people who do like math? Why not argue from a different position better suited to your looser stance on numbers? 

 

For instance, a non-mathic GM saying something like "I see the value of points in a point based system as a way to incentivize players to make characters that better fit my desired tone and setting, therefore I grant price discounts on setting appropriate templates, which I still call "package deals" because I rock it old school", cannot be argued against. Boom, done; people might disagree with the practice, but no one can claim that to be "wrong". It's a perfect example of toolkitting, adapting the system to serve your own needs as a GM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For what it's worth..

 

Package Deal Bonuses have been gone for a while, but to the best of my memory they

 

were

 

not

 

"arbitrary" numbers randomly assigned. They were derived from a formula accounting for the value of elements in the "deal" that were deemed "less useful" and how much less useful they were considered to be.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Rider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew! Long answers for a short question! I love how these forums work. Seriously, it’s great fun. 

 

As as a spillover from the 6e forum that ran its course (thanks for moderating that, KillerShrike: I loved it and learned so much), I have to admit that when I first learned Champions 2e, coming from years of D&D, I felt like I was getting away with something once I learned the trick about the rounding rules and figured characteristics. I think we all felt that way a little bit, if we’re honest with ourselves. It virtually insists that I min/max those points. When the original Fantasy HERO came out I was all over that, and never looked back at D&D again. The lack of classes and levels was exactly what I was looking for, let alone the far superior combat system. But then there were these package deals that helped shape certain types of characters. Not only was I getting free stuff for the figureds, I was now getting free stuff to go with a package deal. In a point build system, it was the equivalent of going through all of the D&D weapons charts and picking out every “best” weapon based on its damage and speed, etc. I can be anything I want, but if I start with the rogue package, I get a “deal”!

 

I didn’t play HERO again until 6e came out. I missed all the intervening editions, so didn’t grow into the more complex developments of the rules. Imagine what it was like to find 6e (ten years late I might add, in two huge volumes which I couldn’t actually get physical copies of) and try to absorb all the changes. I read reviews, etc., about the new edition, and the most common complaint was about dropping the figured characteristics. I’ll admit, I was a little bit disappointed that they were dropped because I felt like I was losing out on that game-within-the-game of milking points for the primaries and figureds. 

 

After some one time to read the rules and let it all soak in, I had to admit that the new edition makes a great deal of sense and I appreciate its continuity. I got over feeling like I was being cheated of my “free” points from the figureds, and in fact now look back at it as a bit of an impediment to my character creation before 6e. 

 

I got got a copy of Fantasy HERO 6e and found the templates for all the different types of professions and backgrounds. I thought, “Ok, now here’s where I can make up some of those free points I lost from the decoupled characteristics.” No dice. They had me figured out! Mr. Min-maxer got headed off at the pass. Again, I was a bit miffed and felt cheated of all the devious joy of milking points for free from my pre-6e days. And then I got a grip and saw the logic behind dropping the package deal bonus. As KillerShrike wrote above, there is just no real reason for the free points in the context of playing according to campaign guidelines that everyone should be following anyway. I don’t need to play a dwarf, but if I do, then this is how he should be at the most basic level. In fact, I realize that the package deals are an excellent way to set campaign guidelines without creating an endless document trying to define every little detail. 

 

Anyway, the “free point” debate is an interesting one. But personally, while I see that there are some ways that the game mechanics account for points that allow for a little abuse if left unchecked, I’m not all that worried about it. It’s the arbitrary “free points” of package deals that I actually understand eliminating. Same goes for the figureds, but that issue has been beaten to death so I won’t talk about it (although, @Killer Shrike, I don’t think you ever gave your final manifesto against figureds, and I was looking forward to that. Could you message me a rundown of your argument if you don’t post it?).

 

As for he history of the change, the original point of my question, I'm just curious if anyone actually knows why the change was made, other than the obvious continuity that we’ve already discussed. Any historians out there? @Hugh Neilson @Chris Goodwin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lucius said:

For what it's worth..

 

Package Deal Bonuses have been gone for a while, but to the best of my memory they

 

were

 

not

 

"arbitrary" numbers randomly assigned. They were derived from a formula accounting for the value of elements in the "deal" that were deemed "less useful" and how much less useful they were considered to be.

 

Any idea what the formula was? When did the package deal bonuses go away? Are they in 5e? I haven't checked yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they were gone in 5e, but I do not recall for sure.  They morphed into template.  I could see leaving out some element of a package deal based on this particular character's concept (would a foundling dwarf raised in another culture have the same weapon familiarities, knowledges, hatreds and prejudices?).

 

I think the "formula" may have been "points spent on less useful things divided by 5, or maybe 3", but I do not recall for sure.

 

I prefer the 6e model that, if it will have no value in the game, it should be free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Package Deals are a way to tell players what a certain race should have or what a particular profession should have in skills. Also Package Deals force  players to take required disadvantages.

 

I agree, the GM is setting up their world and restricting player choices within that world and the package deals were a way of compensating people for voluntarily taking limitations to fit that concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Duke Bushido @Killer Shrike

Consider the following alternative to a movement MP: Running n", Variable Advantages +1/4 (+1/2).  This allows the Running to be Usable [As Second Mode of Movement] for any mode of movement, or to be half endurance, or any other desirable +1/4 advantage. 

Is this "free points"?  Would you disallow this?  Why? 

 

I feel it's only fair to demand a player buy their movement modes "raw" if the GM is also willing to let a player use both to full potential in the same half-phase move action.  Otherwise there's cost overlap and that leads down the road of "I only have one movement power ever because more is far too expensive". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

For what it's worth..

 

Package Deal Bonuses have been gone for a while, but to the best of my memory they were not "arbitrary" numbers randomly assigned. They were derived from a formula accounting for the value of elements in the "deal" that were deemed "less useful" and how much less useful they were considered to be.

 

 

1) This "deeming" was done by a GM, in my experience. The bonus doesn't come from the players having equal access to getting the points like the other aspects of character building.

 

2) It was also done during character creation, many times before the campaign started. How useful various skills turn out to be in the campaign might vary drastically from what the GM foresaw during character creation.

 

 

This one aspect of character creation, the GM doling out package deal bonuses or not, depends on having a GM who ties to be fair, understands what "fair" means, and can accurately see the future of how his campaign will unfold (which as many of us can attest, is very much a hit and miss thing at best).

 

The formula is there to help an aspiring GM to attempt to be fair if he wants to. Whether the GM ends up being fair depends on factors which are out of the players' control.

 

Character creation, regardless of the edition, is the one part of the game where the player is supposed to be in control. I'll freely admit that the idea of having the GM dole out extra points during character creation to some players but not others has always rubbed me the wrong way.

 

As for the argument between power frameworks and package bonuses:

 

I don't have a problem with the GM shooting down any power frameworks he doesn't want in his game. Yes, this limits the player during character creation because the character chose something and the GM says "no". But the fix to that is built into the rules: the player gets those points back and can spend them as he sees fit on other powers and skills from the RAW.

 

With a rejected package bonus, the player doesn't get back those points to spend on something else. There's no RAW that the player can look at to definitively figure out how to "earn" those points either because those points explicitly depend on factors that exist only in the mind of the GM (that whole "deeming" business). It is just messy.

 

In my opinion, if the GM wants to give someone extra points for a player having a tight character concept, give it out during play in the first few sessions when the player roleplays having a great character concept rather than having the GM dole out extra points during character creation to some players but not others. That just creates a "feel bad" at the one point in the game when the player is supposed to be in control.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Package Deal "formula" in 4e was supposed to be based on points spent on Skills and Perks,  over 5. Characteristics and Disadvantages were not factored. This lead to oddities where -CHAR applied to a package often outweighed the impact of the Package Bonus.

 

And Disadvantages were just kind of tacked on, having no direct impact on the Package cost due to the fact that they don't REALLY subtract from the cost, but do fill up a character's Disadvantage requirement. However the Package Deal totals DID show the "cost" of the Package with the Disadvantages subtracted from the cost of abilities which was misleading and confusing for a lot of players.

 

The free points granted were, per the designer's stated intent, an incentive to players to take a Package, and predicated on the idea that "not all the Skills are equally useful". Often, in practice, Packages were used to include CSL's and combat-relevant skills that a character was going to take anyway, and particularly in the 4e era where non-combat skills tended to be less developed this created a perception that non-combat skills were not very useful. 

 

In practice, either accidentally or intentionally, some GM's and IIRC even some printed packages (but I don't care enough to go scour books to prove it) sometimes disregarded the formula or miscalculated or just eyeballed the "bonus".

 

PACKAGE BONUS
This is the most important part of a Package Deal. The
intent behind a Package Bonus is to encourage a character
to take the Package
, by giving a "bargain price". The
Package Bonus also serves to compensate the character
for the fact that not all of the Skills in the Package will be
equally useful
. To determine the Package Bonus, the GM
should total the Character Point value of all the Skills and
Perks in the package. This should be done before any
Disadvantages are applied. The total is then compared to
the following chart.


PACKAGE BONUS
Total Points Package Bonus
1-4 No Bonus
5-9 +1 Point
10-14 +2 Points
15+ +3 Points

 

 

In 5th edition the focus of Package Deals was shifted to nothing more than an organizational framework. The idea of incentivizing a player to take a Package is gone; a GM's using them to define campaign concepts can either mandate their use, or allow them to be optional as the see fit...no incentivizing necessary. Additionally, in 5e non-combat skills got more in depth treatment and became generally more useful across the board...particularly and noticeably so if using the Ultimate Skill. And the Package Deal guidance indicated that combat skills were not the point of a Package Deal (though that last bit tended to get disregarded in practice, IME).

 

The annotation of Package Deals was also changed to independently show cost of abilities and total Disadvantages which is accurate and correct, rather than the misleading annotation of 4e.

 

Package Deals should just provide a
basic framework for character development
; they
don’t need to encompass everything a member of
that group can do.


In addition, each Package Deal should include
Skills that round characters out but aren’t necessarily
useful in combat
, such as Knowledge Skills,
Professional Skills, and Sciences. The GM should
disallow Packages that simply include combat skills
the character would buy anyway
.

 

6e basically copies and pastes the 5e Package Deals section, and changed the name to Template as "Package Deal" had become a misnomer (false name) as there was no "deal". Template better expresses the idea, and takes less space in print, and just makes more sense IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...