How do you run Contacts?

[Spence]

2 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

So maybe I distinguish between the low-grade, casual Contacts with a skill roll, and have a couple of dependable, but more expensive, regular Contacts. The problem I'm running into is that it seems like trying to define these ahead of time is problematic, and may not fit where the game goes. In other words, I'm afraid I'll stick him with a couple of expensive contacts that I'll feel obliged to use in the game, no matter how contrived it gets. Otherwise, why pay any points for a Contact that you never use?

 

 

You can actually have both ways 😁

The PC is a world traveler and has contacts all over the world.  They pre-pay for three contacts.  At this point they are undefined (who and what they do). 

The PC is in Shanghai (1920s) trying to get to the bottom of a smuggling ring.  They cannot find anyone via skill rolls that will risk helping them.  The PC decides to "cash in" one of his Contacts.  He runs into Victor Chang, an old buddy he served with during the Great War whose family just happens to be a powerful family in the Shanghai underworld.  After the immediate session Victor is fully fleshed out and becomes a permanent Contact. 

 

I especially like permanent Contacts because I weave them into the story much like hunteds.  Except not as influential.

 

Now if Victor should die then the points revert to "pre-paid" status. 

 

If you pay points, then there should be a solid benefit.  To me a casual one time minor npc just doesn't need to be paid for in points.

 

Of course YMMV 😉

 

[Killer Shrike]

On 4/30/2019 at 7:55 PM, Brian Stanfield said:

Thanks for the input. Can you give an example? I'm trying to keep things fair with all my players, and they aren't all equally "Well Connected," so the resource pool isn't symmetrical if I do it this way. At least not until I figure out how to do it . . .

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Clarify?

 

Quote

Let me elaborate. I love the Resource Pool rules as they stand, but I also wonder if it would make sense to offer Resource Pools for languages, Area Knowledge, and stuff like that (I suppose under the Miscellaneous category).

 

You could do that if you chose. The main thing w/ resource pools as they are written however is that they represent things _external_ to a character such as gear, vehicles, base, and other people.

 

I also use them for _other things_ to lock in role protection, but I do that at a 1:1 point ratio...for instance Here There Be Monsters, all mystical powers must be bought in a Mystic Resource Pool. Every 1 point in a Mystic Resource Pool costs 1 character point, so there is no point savings. Instead, it prevents people who lack a Mystic Resource Pool from taking mystical abilities. There are other pools for other types of protected role abilities. 

 

Quote

There is some disagreement over this, and I'm still not exactly sure myself. I considered using the Perk or Skill Enhancers (Traveler, Well-Connected, Linguist) as a "buy in" for the Resource Pool, so every character isn't required to have a pool (since some of them don't have long lists of similar-but-little-used skills to worry about). I'm curious to see what you think.

 

I think it could be interesting if it serves a purpose. However, I would recommend you consider Universal Translator as the foil to languages. Similarly, a character could take Area Knowledge: "Places I Reveal I've Been To Before When It Is Relevant To The Plot" 27- and succeed on a 17- even at a -10 penalty. And so on. The point being there is a sort of ballpark # of points for how much it should cost to be categorically covered for the various "soft skills" such as AK, KS, SS, and languages. Similarly, their utility in a given campaign depends entirely upon the GM...the more the GM makes knowing foreign languages and places and applying specific sciences and knowing specific stuff important to the game, the more useful knowing languages and things about places and science and stuff is to a character. 

 

Contacts on the other hand is basically buying an NPC with limitations on how useful they are in general and how frequently they can be useful. In an ideal scenario, they offer a modicum of the narrative control usually monopolized by the GM to a player. Some GM's, the adversarial sort mostly, balk at this and can't or won't allow contacts to be very  useful. Many narrative GM's typically love it when a player takes a more active interest in interacting with _any_ NPC, and thus tend to like contacts and make them perhaps too useful at times. Simulationist GM's will tend to prefer whatever outcome they think "makes sense" per their sensibilities about what is "realistic" to the setting and will often bend / interpret / filter contacts resolution accordingly. Gamist GM's will tend to just follow the game mechanic for when Contacts trigger, and apply whatever guidelines the game sets forth as to how helpful a contact can be. 

 

Knowing which sort of GM you are will help you decide which approach is a natural fit for you. Knowing which sort of GM you are will help your players decide if the taking of contacts at any level is likely to be worth it in your campaign.

 

Quote

Meanwhile, I'm looking at one of your older posts about Resource Pools from the Free Equipment forum.

 

Can you post a link to it for me? After the first thousand posts it gets harder to keep track.  

 

 

[Lucius]

Contact (Contact has access to major institutions, Contact has significant Contacts of his own, Good relationship with Contact), Variable Special Effects (Any SFX; +1/2) (7 Active Points) 11-

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Variable Special Effects. It's a palindromedary right now; next time it can be a black marketeer or a police detective.

[IndianaJoe3]

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

In a normal city-bound game, a PC might have a contact who Is a black marketeer.  He can get just about anything the PC desires, and do so quickly and circumspectly. 

In a globetrotting game, that same PC might have a similar contact.  Except, to handle the greater scope of the campaign the PC now knows a black marketeer in every city.  The point cost and the things this contact can provide haven't changed, it's just that the scope in which the contact can operate has been expanded to match the scope of the game. 

 

I like this line of thought. Usable Contacts shouldn't be more expensive just because the campaign covers a larger area.

[Brian Stanfield]

5 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

Can you post a link to it for me? After the first thousand posts it gets harder to keep track.  

Right here ya go: 

 

5 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

You could do that if you chose. The main thing w/ resource pools as they are written however is that they represent things _external_ to a character such as gear, vehicles, base, and other people.

So, here's what's starting to bake my noodle: you make a good point to remind me that a Resource Pool represents game elements which are external to the character. But whether it's an equipment pool, a vehicle or base pool, or a contacts pool, they all have a game effect. In fact, you could say that contacts are a kind of knowledge based on experience: "I know who to contact in in Shanghai for situations such as this." Which isn't all that different in game effect from "I have knowledge about the area of Shanghai." So an equipment pool, a vehicle/base pool, a contacts pool, and a KS pool, or even a language pool, all have a game effect. Whether its intrinsic or extrinsic matters little. As you point out in the link above, the difference between a pile of equipment and a pile of magical equipment, and a pile of powers just doesn't matter much in game terms. The imbalance occurs when players can stockpile their equipment and don't have to pay a single point for it.

 

The whole point of the Resource Pool in the first place (as far as RAW is concerned in the APG) is to defray the cost of some of the lesser used items like contacts, and also to put a cap of some sort on how much flexibility and wiggle room a player can have in a heroic-level campaign. So maybe KS/PS/SS, and languages can be pooled in a more generic way. @Duke Bushido, this is sort of like you suggest: A sufficiently general skill may also be defined to include a group of more granular skills. I could create a "Super Scientist" character who has a SS for Physics, but create a pool of what is included (quantum, particle, astro, whatever). Or I could just go generic with one skill and narrate the rest of it in game terms when it seems appropriate. 6e errs on the side of overdefinition whereas 3e did not. This, of course, is because there were no "heroic" level games in 2e yet, and 3e was just getting a feel for the issue of not "paying" for equipment in heroic games.

 

Here's why I like my idea for a Language pool, or a Area Knowledge pool: I had two completely new players who've never played the game say "I want to be a linguist," and "I want to be well connected," without ever having looked at the rules. I want to reward them with good, tight character conceptions and give my linguist a nice collection of languages, and I want to give my guy who knows guys a good list of contacts. But the points I sank into their characters for these things, while they helped define a very tight character conception, seem like wasted points since really, how often is my linguist going to need to use Cantonese, Arabic, and German in the same game session?! My contacts guy will have the ability to contact someone on every continent, but we won't be globetrotting quite that much in one game session. The point expenditure seems punitive, whereas my aviatrix will have spent points on aviation, combat flying, mechanics, and a contact at Boeing, which she will use frequently I expect, all for fewer points than the dead weight of languages and contacts that the other players have. They have a great deal of potential use, but really, from game to game, are nothing but dead weight. Meanwhile, they can't afford skill levels and things like that because their points have all been sunk into "useless" stuff.

 

I feel like I have only a few options in order to be fair:

1. Create maybe two contacts or languages: one with more use, and one that is more rudimentary, and then allow the players to shuffle them each game according to what they feel will be appropriate; or

2. Give the players a cost deduction (on top of the Skill/Perk Enhancers) to make the expenditure of each and every Contact or Language or Knowledge Skill more useful; or

3. Charge them nothing for a list of these skills/languages/perks after the first couple, and chalk the discount up to background knowledge for the character. Much like @Lucius suggested, I could tie their use upon a different skill, and simply narrate the differences in-game; or

4. Create a Resource Pool in the Miscellaneous category, and throw only specific kinds of Skills in it (i.e. only KS, Languages, etc., defined in the campaign rules). Anyone who has a good character concept that requires a lot of these things should be given a pool of points to make it workable and fair, without costing too much and becoming punitive.

 

I'm now leaning towards option 4, but I've been learning a lot of good stuff from everyone here, which is why I even bother with the forums in the first place. I'm sorry if I appear to be autistic or something in the way I ask my questions and obsess over answers, but I'm just really curious about all the ways these problems can be solved. Thanks again, to everyone who has indulged me!

[Brian Stanfield]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The only thing limiting the effectiveness of a Contact in a global game is you.  Much like the early days of Skills: _you_ define their scope, which got slowly altered as we began breaking things down into smaller and smaller bits-- got expensive, as each "bit" broke out to cost the same as the Skill from which it was pulled---

 

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Is there something in 6e (asking because I really don't remember and it's a bit late at night to attempt a re-read) that specifies your contact is limited in his area of influence?

 

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

What is the difference between one guy with global influence and a dozen guys who have smaller areas of influence, but are scattered across the globe?   Or, put it the HERO way: what is the "mechanical effect" versus the "Special effect?"

 

Ok, so I agree with you here, which is probably why I'm obsessing over it! I learned Champions the same time you did, back in the '80s with 2e (or maybe 1e, I'm not really sure since it was all taught to me, but he first book I bought was the 2e rules). Things were simpler then, but they were also super heroic, and you payed for everything you wanted your character to do. The heroic level stuff has changed that, and the use of "free" equipment has created a problem about how to balance things that cost character points with things that don't. See the link that I just posted in my response to KillerShrike above. He breaks this down brilliantly. Anyway, my old self would have just created a more expensive Contact and called it "I know a guy for just the right problem," and then probably rolled it over from game to game to be a different guy. 

 

But the rules for the Perk have gotten more complex, and understandably so. There's a big difference between knowing a guy in Carbondale, IL who can fix my car, and randomly knowing a guy in Shanghai who can fix my plane. And there's a difference between knowing a guy who can fix my plane, and knowing the owner of Boeing, who can just lend me a different plane. So the cost varies. This means that a dozen contacts are not actually the same as one who can do it all. The dozen contacts may be two points apiece, while the owner of Boeing may be 12 points (I can't remember the actual cost, but I'll run with your example), but what they actually have access to is vastly different. So the problem I'm running into is finding a balance between specific contacts who are very useful the entire campaign, and a rogues' gallery of random contacts who fit just the right purpose maybe one or two times in a campaign. How many should I have to pay for, since there is a difference in quality and quantity. Of course your point is spot on: why am I asking anyone else since I'm the GM?! I'm just thinking in terms of fairness for the other players who may also want to play a Contact every one in a while, or use their own Language Skill and not defer to the woman who knows 12 languages. 

 

Duke, I know your position on the 6e rules compared to the 3e rules you play. Everything has been adjudicated to very specific and minute detail. I know this frustrates you, or maybe just bemuses you as we get all nitpicky about the minutiae. But I'll contend this: the rules became longer and more inclusive, and more granular, exactly because there are people like us who can debate the rules five times over and find twelve different solutions. I emphasize that not to be argumentative, but to point out that we are the reason the rules have gotten so detailed: we ask detailed questions! Also, people have found lots of increasingly more complex and unfair ways to unbalance games by manipulating the earlier, more vague, rules. In 30 years after the first edition of Champions came out, a lot of things were learned, but only because there were people like us pushing at the edges. There were also people who were hacking away at some of the assumptions of the game to the extent that the rules had to be more tightly and clearly defined. As with all debates, once the terms become more granular and more clearly defined, there is the opportunity for more edge cases to show up which require more adjudication, and on and on and on. And now we have 6e, the most complete set of rules so far to the point of near-absurdity, but nearly all the problems have been considered in those rules. Mostly because, over the years, people like us have been asking questions and pushing at the edges for answers that are fair, balanced, and practical. I look at the 6e rules as basically a collection of all the interesting and relevant forum posts over the years. In other words, the collective wisdom not just of Steve Long, but of everyone who asks challenging questions about the rules. 

 

Anyway, that's not a critique of you, Duke. I've actually considered going back to 3e just for sanity's sake. But I also have an appreciation for the elegance of the 6e rules and what they've done to try to balance all the elements throughout the game. So for now I'm just trying to master those rules before I try anything else. 

 

Thanks for reminding me that I'm creating my own problem for myself! Sometimes I need a boot to the head to sort of reset where my attention is focused.  I need to keep it simple, not just for the new players I'm trying to teach the rules, but for my own damn self! 

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I like this line of thought. Usable Contacts shouldn't be more expensive just because the campaign covers a larger area.

Coverage of a larger area is more useful than coverage of a smaller area.  Thus, a contact who has reach/sway/impact on a smaller area should absolutely be cheaper than one who has reach/sway/impact in a larger area …. within the same campaign.

[Lucius]

KS: Contact information for many helpful people 20-

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a palindromedary in the rolodex

[Spence]

48 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

is to defray the cost of some of the lesser used items like contacts,

 

I think this highlights a major difference in philosophy on Contacts. For me a Contact is never a lesser used item.  They are not the equivalent of a flashlight. Lesser or incidental interaction with NPCs are covered by skills and as has been mentioned, KS's. (I'm using my phone vice a computer so it hard to keep up and find relevant posts) 😕

 

For me a Contact isn't just a resource for the PCs, it is also an indication of what players would like to see in their adventures.  Hunteds, Contacts, Favors, Reputations, Dependent NPCs and so on.  The more details the better.  They all help the GM flavor the adventure with plot points directly keyed into the players characters. 

 

But neither "philosophy" is wrong, and I hope no one reads my posts as a criticism

 

[IndianaJoe3]

22 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Coverage of a larger area is more useful than coverage of a smaller area.  Thus, a contact who has reach/sway/impact on a smaller area should absolutely be cheaper than one who has reach/sway/impact in a larger area …. within the same campaign.

 

"...Within the same campaign" is the important bit here. My argument is that the character shouldn't have to pay more for usable Contacts just because the campaign is set world-wide, instead of being limited to NYC (for example).

[Spence]

19 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

"...Within the same campaign" is the important bit here. My argument is that the character shouldn't have to pay more for usable Contacts just because the campaign is set world-wide, instead of being limited to NYC (for example).

Using CC as my ref, Contact costs do not differentiate by "area" or "location" covered.  Just by how useful.  The NYC Contact may be "Very Useful" while the worldwide Contact may be "Very Useful" with "has extensive Contacts of their own".  Or not.  But that is only +1. 

[Chris Goodwin]

Everyone knows I'm not normally one to suggest a Power, but how about a Summon with the appropriate bits and bobs applied?  Call it something like "I Know A Guy..."

 

Lucius, if you would do the honors?

[Killer Shrike]

On 5/1/2019 at 5:31 AM, Brian Stanfield said:

Right here ya go: 

 

 

Direct link:

 

Quote

So, here's what's starting to bake my noodle: you make a good point to remind me that a Resource Pool represents game elements which are external to the character. But whether it's an equipment pool, a vehicle or base pool, or a contacts pool, they all have a game effect. In fact, you could say that contacts are a kind of knowledge based on experience: "I know who to contact in in Shanghai for situations such as this." Which isn't all that different in game effect from "I have knowledge about the area of Shanghai."

 

That's not accurate. I mean, as the GM you could run it that way, but I wouldn't. 

 

It's not that you "know who to _get in touch with_", it's that you have a relationship with that person and they are more likely to help you or to help you above and beyond what they would do for a stranger.

 

In the abstract if you the GM know there is someone in the area that a) could be helpful and b) might be helpful in the right circumstances, any character could in theory navigate themselves through the soup of the game's narrative to find that person or you the GM could simply present them. Either way, the existence of that person and access to them and what they are willing to do for the PC(s) is gated by you the GM.

 

However the character with Contacts can assert the existence of the contact and their character's access to them and also boundaries on the GM's adjudication as to what the contact can potentially do and what the contact actually will do in a given context onto the plot. This is a form of narrative control; it asserts facts and outcome guidelines onto the GM, but still leaves interpretation to the GM. 

 

This is not just "knowing a guy"; it's "I assert that there IS a guy, and he MIGHT be available, and he MIGHT help me".

 

Quote

So an equipment pool, a vehicle/base pool, a contacts pool, and a KS pool, or even a language pool, all have a game effect. Whether its intrinsic or extrinsic matters little.

 

So, that's a very gamist point of view. 

 

From a simulationist and a narrativist perspective, extrinsic vs intrinsic matters quite a lot.

• Extrinsic abilities attempt to model or simulate discrete items or things separate from a character in an attempt to mimic how similar things exist in the real world.
• Extrinsic abilities can be permanently taken away, intrinsic abilities can not (at least without damaging the character's identity).
• Extrinsic abilities embellish a character, intrinsic abilities define a character.
• Extrinsic abilities might come and go over a long enough plot line, intrinsic abilities only change in extreme circumstances (if at all)..."life changing events"

 

Quote

As you point out in the link above, the difference between a pile of equipment and a pile of magical equipment, and a pile of powers just doesn't matter much in game terms. The imbalance occurs when players can stockpile their equipment and don't have to pay a single point for it.  

 

An imbalance can potentially occur whenever any "balancing mechanic" is used for some comparisons and not for others. If points are being used as the balancing mechanic for a game, but some abilities are not tracked via that balancing mechanic then the opportunity for an imbalance exists. Small things within a margin of error don't create much of a problem depending on the precision of the balancing mechanism, but at a certain tipping point the impact of unaccounted for things destabilizes the balancing mechanic. Economic and game theory both go into these ideas in great detail.

 

Quote

The whole point of the Resource Pool in the first place (as far as RAW is concerned in the APG) is to defray the cost of some of the lesser used items like contacts, and also to put a cap of some sort on how much flexibility and wiggle room a player can have in a heroic-level campaign.

 

Resource Pools kill many birds with one stone. They basically help prop the system up in the awkward point range between gritty reality (low points, high realism) and high fantasy / supers / space opera / unrealistic fiction. The "cinematic realism" space, which the Hero System engine itself is really good at resolving, but which the Hero System pay-for-what-you-get character build economy struggles with. Several things contribute to that awkwardness; in the real world people living in first world countries are very capable and empowered in terms of the sheer amount of commodities they have or can easily acquire and the influence of their social network. However, in heightened circumstances (such as combat, or a whirlwind misadventure) part of the tension of the story often hinges on a character in those situations not having immediate in-the-moment access to that extended capability set. 

 

Resource Pools also do other things, but I've got to get to work and don't have time to get into it. My tl;dr there is you may be approaching Resource Pools in an overly reductive way and thus are not fully appreciating the nuances of its "smoothing effect" on gaps in the Hero System for cinematic play.

 

Quote

So maybe KS/PS/SS, and languages can be pooled in a more generic way.

 

They can be if you want them to be. I commonly allow very broad skill definition in some campaigns. In other's I dial in the granularity and subgroupings for EXTRA granularity. This is a tool you as the GM wield to dial in the feel for a campaign. As long as you are consistent within a given setting for a given skill. I could post links to a bunch of things I've done over the years in this area, but I don't have time to hunt them down currently. What I will recommend is that you check out Ultimate Skill. The takeaway is just like most else in the HS, there are dials and levers and knobs available to twiddle with to achieve a given feel.

 

Quote

  Here's why I like my idea for a Language pool, or a Area Knowledge pool: I had two completely new players who've never played the game say "I want to be a linguist," and "I want to be well connected," without ever having looked at the rules. I want to reward them with good, tight character conceptions and give my linguist a nice collection of languages, and I want to give my guy who knows guys a good list of contacts. But the points I sank into their characters for these things, while they helped define a very tight character conception, seem like wasted points since really, how often is my linguist going to need to use Cantonese, Arabic, and German in the same game session?! My contacts guy will have the ability to contact someone on every continent, but we won't be globetrotting quite that much in one game session. The point expenditure seems punitive, whereas my aviatrix will have spent points on aviation, combat flying, mechanics, and a contact at Boeing, which she will use frequently I expect, all for fewer points than the dead weight of languages and contacts that the other players have. They have a great deal of potential use, but really, from game to game, are nothing but dead weight. Meanwhile, they can't afford skill levels and things like that because their points have all been sunk into "useless" stuff.  

 

I feel like what you are missing here is this:

 

The players are communicating to you WHAT KIND OF GAME THEY WANT YOU TO RUN. By taking a linguist and sinking points into it (or whatever) the player is telling you as part of the player-GM contract, they expect you to run the ensuing game in such a way as to make that important. They may not verbalize it. They may not even realize it consciously. But in their mind they have some idea of how cool it is going to be to play that character and be awesome because they speak Swahili or whatever and it will matter and the other players will go "cool, you are useful, glad you're with us".

 

When you think to yourself "those points are going to be wasted", what you are saying is "I already have an idea of how I'm going to run this campaign based upon what I want to achieve and speaking a lot of languages just isn't relevant so it is not going to matter that this character is awesome at that".

 

I suggest you invert your thinking a bit and either adjust how you run the campaign to accommodate the PC's within it and give them opportunities to apply what the players have said is important to them OR tell the player upfront "that's cool but I don't think it will ever come up in the context of the campaign".

 

This is that "Relevance and Reliability" thing I talk about at times. The character with lots of language ability is RELIABLE at dealing with linguistic stuff, but if you the GM run the game in such a way that it is rarely if ever RELEVANT then that character is going to suck in that campaign. A different GM running a campaign in the same setting might run it in such away to give the character an opportunity to apply their abilities and in that campaign, same setting, the same character would be useful and successful.

 

Having said that, if you really want to do a language pool, or whatever...go for it. Set it up, and run a campaign using it. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. Afterwards, if you feel like it worked well, keep doing it for future campaigns where it seems useful. If it didn't work so well no big deal. Experiment.

 

Just be clear with your players upfront that the custom thing you are doing is not the game as written...this is a thing I'm introducing as a house rule. Otherwise if you bungle something in your home brewed formulation, and a player who didn't know any better then goes on in later years to tell other players "yeah, I tried that Hero System thing, and it sucked...language pools and what not", then you did a disservice to the game and its community

 

 

Quote

I feel like I have only a few options in order to be fair:

1. Create maybe two contacts or languages: one with more use, and one that is more rudimentary, and then allow the players to shuffle them each game according to what they feel will be appropriate; or

2. Give the players a cost deduction (on top of the Skill/Perk Enhancers) to make the expenditure of each and every Contact or Language or Knowledge Skill more useful; or

3. Charge them nothing for a list of these skills/languages/perks after the first couple, and chalk the discount up to background knowledge for the character. Much like @Lucius suggested, I could tie their use upon a different skill, and simply narrate the differences in-game; or

4. Create a Resource Pool in the Miscellaneous category, and throw only specific kinds of Skills in it (i.e. only KS, Languages, etc., defined in the campaign rules). Anyone who has a good character concept that requires a lot of these things should be given a pool of points to make it workable and fair, without costing too much and becoming punitive.  

 

One thing you might adjust your mind to, you're just talking about bags of points. A character is essentially a "resource pool" of character points. They might be a resource pool of resource pools (the Composite pattern..."is a, has many" in OOP speak), but from an external perspective they are a state bag of allocated resources. Some allocations are immutable (don't change, at least not in the context of a game session) and some might be mutable (might change during a game session). If you are internally compartmentalizing some of the resources of the character into "misc pool" and "equip pool" and so forth, presumably you are doing so to encapsulate a subset of the characters state to restrict or to apply variant behavior or to mark those abilities as being special in some way, whether for definition or behavioral reasons..."behavioral structural creational".

 

If you have a reason to do it and it accomplishes something and it doesn't create further imbalances, then go for it. Personally, I follow the rule of thumb that I need three reasons to do anything...and at least two of the reasons must be good ones.

 

Quote

I'm now leaning towards option 4, but I've been learning a lot of good stuff from everyone here, which is why I even bother with the forums in the first place. I'm sorry if I appear to be autistic or something in the way I ask my questions and obsess over answers, but I'm just really curious about all the ways these problems can be solved. Thanks again, to everyone who has indulged me!

 

It's part of your learning process. There is much to be said for static analysis. However, even with thorough static analysis runtime errors can be greatly reduced but can still occur. There is no substitute to actually running games in the realm of learning things. I recommend you iterate rapidly. Make mini campaigns set up with various options, run 1-5 sessions each, recur.

[Brian Stanfield]

2 hours ago, Spence said:

For me a Contact isn't just a resource for the PCs, it is also an indication of what players would like to see in their adventures.  Hunteds, Contacts, Favors, Reputations, Dependent NPCs and so on.  The more details the better.  They all help the GM flavor the adventure with plot points directly keyed into the players characters.

This may be where I'm making the mistake: my players wanted well-rounded character concepts, which involved all kinds of as-yet unnamed Contacts just to make sure they had their bases covered. They had no real story for the Contacts, just for their character concepts. So I think what I'm thinking of as a character conception issue (how many contacts does one really need), others on this forum are looking at them as NPC-types who will add specific elements to the campaign. 

 

This actually helps me clarify in my head what I'm expecting at this point. As simple as your comment is, it really has helped me get myself focused. Thank you much!

[Brian Stanfield]

13 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

It's part of your learning process. There is much to be said for static analysis. However, even with thorough static analysis runtime errors can be greatly reduced but can still occur. There is no substitute to actually running games in the realm of learning things. I recommend you iterate rapidly. Make mini campaigns set up with various options, run 1-5 sessions each, recur.

I've run out of "likes" for the day again, so I'll say here, "Thanks." This whole post helps a lot! Thank you for reminding me to put the players' interests up front. Since I'm making pre-gens for beginning players, I've been obsessing on how best to model this, that, and the other, and lost track of the things they told me they wanted to do.

 

Ok, BIG DEEP BREATH. I feel a lot better now. Thanks to everyone who has added to the discussion. This is awesome stuff! 

 

Again, 

[Killer Shrike]

2 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

I've run out of "likes" for the day again, so I'll say here, "Thanks." This whole post helps a lot! Thank you for reminding me to put the players' interests up front. Since I'm making pre-gens for beginning players, I've been obsessing on how best to model this, that, and the other, and lost track of the things they told me they wanted to do.

 

Ok, BIG DEEP BREATH. I feel a lot better now. Thanks to everyone who has added to the discussion. This is awesome stuff! 

 

Again, 

 

This is a thing I once wrote up as a tool for running play by post or online games with the GM using the HS as a backing engine for resolutions but presenting it as something much simpler to the players. However, it may actually help you as a character modeling tool to first abstract and then apply. It might be a useful exercise for you to reduce your player's concepts into the trait model I describe as one step, and then as a second step build characters to broadly satisfy the "contract" of what the players indicated is important to them.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx

[Duke Bushido]

Man, Brian:

 

You typed all that out on a phone?! 

 

Give yourself a couple EP there, Sir.  

 

Loved everything you said.  Tiny quibble:  Heroic first came to be in 2e, not 3.  The title was Espionage; it was the forerunner of 3e's Danger International. 

 

Still: lots of great thoughts you've put up there. 

[dsatow]

I think this relates.  A 0 pt contact is like the friend and a 1+ pt contact is like the best friend.

 

[Lucius]

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Everyone knows I'm not normally one to suggest a Power, but how about a Summon with the appropriate bits and bobs applied?  Call it something like "I Know A Guy..."

 

Lucius, if you would do the honors?

 

Crossposted from something I posted long ago in another thread:

 

My Minions!: (Total: 144 Active Cost, 30 Real Cost) Summon 16 25-point creatures, Expanded Class of Beings (Very Limited Group; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates, Misfire; +1/2), Slavishly Devoted (x4 as many tasks; +1 1/2), Time Limit (1 Day; +2) (144 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Week, Only to Activate, -2 1/4), Summoned Being Must Inhabit Locale (-1/2), Arrives Under Own Power (-1/2), Physical Manifestation (-1/4), IIF Expendable (Easy to obtain new Focus; Money - have to pay them in advance; -1/4) (Real Cost: 30)

 

You'll still have to write up each minion, or at least each minion type (Sneak, Grabber, Repairman, etc.) The Extra Time and Focus represents the recruiting process, but Trigger and Physical Manifestation represent the fact that they then stick around until given the first important order ("task") and can be attacked, restrained, etc. Time Limit: 1 Day is because even after expending all tasks they hang around and can be relatively effortlessly "re-summoned" if offered more money. "Misfire" is because minions can misunderstand orders or sometimes act prematurely.

 

Another way

 

A Minion: (Total: 8 Active Cost, 2 Real Cost) Some Given Skill , Persistent (+1/4), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates, Misfire, Trigger can expire (it has a time limit), Two activation conditions apply simultaneously; +1/2), Ranged (+1/2) (8 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Week, Only to Activate, -2 1/4), Physical Manifestation (-1/4), Time Limit (1 Week; -0) (Real Cost: 2)

 

Another Minion: (Total: 41 Active Cost, 12 Real Cost) Some Given Skill Set , Persistent (+1/4), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates, Misfire, Trigger can expire (it has a time limit), Two activation conditions apply simultaneously; +1/2), Ranged (+1/2) (41 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Week, Only to Activate, -2 1/4), Physical Manifestation (-1/4), Time Limit (1 Week; -0) (Real Cost: 12)

 

 

In the long run, this might be more expensive as each Skill or set of Skills would be bought seperately

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The boss told me to change the palindromedary tagline so I did

[Brian Stanfield]

4 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

This is a thing I once wrote up as a tool for running play by post or online games with the GM using the HS as a backing engine for resolutions but presenting it as something much simpler to the players. However, it may actually help you as a character modeling tool to first abstract and then apply. It might be a useful exercise for you to reduce your player's concepts into the trait model I describe as one step, and then as a second step build characters to broadly satisfy the "contract" of what the players indicated is important to them.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx

I love it! Thank you. It’s sorta what I did with my players, but only a couple were really into it. They didn’t describe anything in game terms because they don’t know anything about the game yet. So they have, not coincidentally, the best characters. You’re process streamlines what I was trying to do. 

[Brian Stanfield]

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

You typed all that out on a phone?! 

 

Give yourself a couple EP there, Sir.  

I hate to give up perfectly good EP, but I was on my computer, not a phone. As far as I know, you’re the only person who composes long essays on his phone. You’re at legendary status when it comes to thumb-typing those posts!

[Brian Stanfield]

Just to keep everyone posted, I decided to just keep everything where I had it, with the long lists of skills and perks for 175 point characters. I’ll let them shuffle their contacts, languages and area knowledges as they desire from game to game. But to make up for the point suck, I’m going to bump them up tp 200 points and let them decide where they want to tweak things. Seems like a fair solution while I figure out how they plan on using their contacts, languages, and such. 

[RDU Neil]

22 hours ago, Spence said:

For me a Contact isn't just a resource for the PCs, it is also an indication of what players would like to see in their adventures.  Hunteds, Contacts, Favors, Reputations, Dependent NPCs and so on.  The more details the better.  They all help the GM flavor the adventure with plot points directly keyed into the players characters.

 

This this this!  Contacts, for me, are the player spending some points to put an NPC into the world who has a generally positive impact on the PC. It is way more than simply a resource... it is an indication of something important to be part of the story.