Heroic Narratives, Or I Love Champions But...

[Ninja-Bear]

5 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

"Doing a certain move": as in tell the table what you're doing, no die roll required.

Yup. Once I let my son pick up a thug and throw him into another thug. Totally against the rules. (Why? Idk but that seems very Comic bookish right?). So he burnt a Hero point and I allowed him to do it. He felt more like a Super hero. 

[Ninja-Bear]

7 minutes ago, Greywind said:

If you're going to fudge the rolls, does the game layout really matter all that much?

Have you read anything I posted or are you just so against Hero points that you make wild statements? And I LL willing to bet any of your “normal” characters say Batman or Hawkeye types are mechanically no where near they should be by Hero benchmarks. Is that not also fudging? 

[Ninja-Bear]

30 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Why play a game based on the results of die rolls if you can ignore the die roll results on a whim?

No one said on a whim. We have rules of when and how it can be used.

[Greywind]

13 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Have you read anything I posted or are you just so against Hero points that you make wild statements? And I LL willing to bet any of your “normal” characters say Batman or Hawkeye types are mechanically no where near they should be by Hero benchmarks. Is that not also fudging? 

 

Character creation has nothing to do with characters in play. And for the most part I don't do homages.

[Greywind]

2 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

No one said on a whim. We have rules of when and how it can be used.

 

But I'm sure you can burn a hero point and ignore that.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Two different things. I believe we play these games for enjoyment no? So use the method that works best for you.  Btw Duke we’re playing a ROG not Wheel of Fortune so your analogy is wanting really.

 

The Wheel of Fortune analogy was chosen specifically because taking out risk and chance removes those things that provide the motivation for characters; the things that affect the "role playing."  Thus, you might as well be playing something else, as there is nothing against which to react.

 

But I will cede that it doesn't work for you, and offer another:

 

When you get to resolve all actions in precisely the way you want to, without risking something falling outside your control, you are writing a book.  You don't need dice for that, either.

 

Or for one more, perhaps more in keeping with the very inception of roleplaying:

 

Very young children playing cops and robbers, or whatever it is they play now (dealers and muggers?):  You know how it goes:   I got you!  No you didn't!  Yes I did!  Nuh-uhn!

 

Screw the dice.  Who has the most HERO points, because such things end up spending all of them.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, pawsplay said:

Who is saying something against failure?

 

I think that comment was inspired by your own, truthfully:

 

5 hours ago, pawsplay said:

Does it matter or not if you succeed or fail?

 

 

you're not saying something against failure, but I can see where that might be misread you seem like you have.  

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Greywind said:

We learn from our failures.

 

Unless someone is handing out participation trophies.

 

 

You remind me of the one Justifiers "campaign" (something like four sessions) I sat in on.  At that point, "Brownie Points" were a known thing in the community (I have always assumed they came from a magazine article or something, as widely spread as they were), and people were using them to guess what?  Fudge dice rolls.  So this was-- '88, I think?  And people were already concocting ways to ignore the dice.  Don't get me wrong: there _are_ ways to ignore the dice:  put the game down, open the computer, and write a damned book.  Not "game" enough?  Write a book about your character.  There.  Problem solved:  he never fails; he never gets hurt; he never has to improvise; he never has to make a comeback or deal with one of his Robins getting killed, because you can stop it from happening on a whim. 

 

In a huff against roleplaying games completely?  Turn on the Playstation-- carefully; it _is_ possible to lose a lot of those games.  Stick with the LEGO ones; you shouldn't have to ever take any sort of chance.  Skip a rope.  Practice sports ball.  Teach a nineteen-year-old-kid was "Jacks" are.

 

Anyway, at this point, as I am sure most of you are aware, Brownie Points were being dumped to "repair" dice rolls, ensuring that no one had to face a challenge, no matter the sort of challenges he was conceived as facing.  So you had Skills, bonuses, favors, modifiers, situational considerations, and now brownie points.

 

At any rate, we weren't very far into the first game when two of the players began asking about Brownie Points-- how they could earn them; how their last GM handled them; how wonderful they were; but mostly how could they earn them, and quickly.

 

The GM wasn't having it.  After a bit more pestering, he offered a suggestion:

 

Tell you what:  I will let you burn experience to change dice rolls.  

 

he went on about how much experience to make how much a change, and the two people pitching Brownie Points- -and the one player becoming more and more interested in them-- were quite aghast at the idea.

 

 

I thought it was a hilarious counter at the time-- something to stop the pestering.  But honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize I am not entirely opposed to that  (don't get me wrong: I'm still opposed to it personally, but I find the idea a bit more palatable than any other sort of "brownie points" being wedged into a system that was never designed around it)-- burning experience to alter the dice-- as I am to other methods of changing the dice without playing the situation.  

 

Why?  Well if you succeed, it suggests that you have the knowledge and skill needed for that situation: that's what your positive modifiers are for anyway, right?  To demonstrate your skill?   When you throw out something that alters the die roll for no real good reason-- it's not based on your skill.  It's not based on decisions to made / played to actually alter the situation and improve your odds.  It's not based on mistakes or errors your opposition made.  It's not based on cooperation or teamwork.  It's something just disconnected to alter the roll.  Well, to me that suggests it was just something that was super-easy for your character.  You can't even claim it's luck, because this system _already has_ a way to handle luck, and since 5e it has incorporated more and more mechanics and house rules into actual game rules on handling luck for those who can't stand the idea that it's in the hands of the GM.  

 

You want a way to reduce the challenge down to 0.45%.  That is, you can only fail on an 18.  Fine.  For you, this particular skill check is no challenge at all.

 

No challenge = no practice.  No practice = no improvement.  

 

No EPs, in game terms, is very much no improvement.  I am _almost_ good with that: burn your unspent EP to affect the roll, or determine how much future EP you want to sacrifice to make this situation super-easy for yourself. 

 

Rock on.

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke when I use to play W40k (I think 3e) we noticed that Space Marines would routinely would will. (And I had the the luck of usually having the one last marine make his save versus at least 6 Orks in hth.) So I designed a Chapter that was WEAKER than standard Space Marines, basically scout level Armour save and normal human STR.  I did this cause I found the game became more nail biting and more satisfying in the long term. I love playing Battletech 3025. I still play mechs on what’s cool and will accept an ammo explosion from a Machine Gun hit in a Stinger. I have no problems playing in games where dice lie where they lie. I even play an OSR of D&D-Basic fantasy though I do give everyone max hit points instead of rolling for them. And I’ll note that that is a common variation for even OSR fans.  But bottom line is though that there is times or games where the judicial use of Hero Points adds FUN. Which is the reason we play these games right? Hero provides variant rules so you can tailor the game to your liking right? That’s the point. 

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Equals?  No. 

 

The possibility of a bad turn of the dice / happenstance of fate being considered beforehand, and a character / player basing his decisions and actions on that possibility?  Creeping closer to reduce his range penalty; spreading his attack to up his chances; forming a plan of action that includes his comrades for better odds or as a distraction--   now that _is_ role playing.

 

Tactical play is not role playing.  Would an Overconfident and Flamboyent character hide in the shadows to creep closer to the enemy, increasing his odds through a surprise attack?  Does a Paranoid Loner rely on his teammates, filling them in on all of his abilities and weaknesses, to enhance his chances of success?  Does an Impatient, Impulsive character delay his action for a better shot after his teammates set him up?

 

It is very easy for tactical play to trade role playing for roll playing.

 

"So, he won't talk, huh?  Torch to the Groin!"

 

"Your Lawful Good, Honorable Paladin is going to torture the prisoners?"

 

"Well, it's important to get this info, and Torch to the Groin is the best modifier in the game for interrogation rolls."

 

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Setting up everything, doing everything in your power to adjust the odds (in meta terms: reducing your penalties and upping your bonuses) by doing everything your ability and wits let you do in the situation at hand, and failing anyway--

 

And then _dealing with that failure in-character; reacting to and interacting within the world where that failure happened; deciding how to cope and how to move on? 

 

Yes; that's role playing, too.

 

Sure.  But having the player frustrated because their character consistently fails to achieve anything heroic is not "fun role playing".  The role he set out to play has been frustrated by the dice.

 

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Buying all the vowels and consanants and slipping Vanna a fifty to accidentally turn over the only missing letter before guessing the word? 

 

Not so much. 

 

First off, Wheel of Fortune is competitive, not cooperative, so it makes for a poor analogy.  The objective is not for all of the players to have fun, but for one to win a bunch 0of money and two to go home losers.  Second, in WoF, buying all the vowels is permitted by the rules.

 

9 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Then play a game that doesn't require dice if you have an aversion to randomness happening.

 

And as I recall, the slogan was "create the character you want to play", stemming from the predominance of "role your stats" systems at the time. Champions was one of the first point-buy game systems.

 

My recollection is that it was Hero System, some years later, that brought in "create the character you want to play". 

 

Why not roll all Hero successes and failures on pure percentile, rather than 3d6?  The bell curve markedly reduces randomness (notable even compared to d20 systems, much less d%).  Heroic Action Points allow a modifier to the randomness, the same as 3d6 reduces randomness from 1d20.

 

5 hours ago, Greywind said:

It is binary: you either fail or you succeed.

 

With hero points you're sliding the scale, cheating as it were.

 

If the rules include hero points, then using them is no more "cheating" than Dodging, aborting to Dodge (after you see who he is going to attack?  Cheater!) or applying skill levels.

 

3 hours ago, Greywind said:

Why play a game based on the results of die rolls if you can ignore the die roll results on a whim?

 

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

No one said on a whim. We have rules of when and how it can be used.

 

Exactly.  There is a big difference between "on a limited basis, you can smooth out the excesses of pure random chance" and "just pick the results of every roll you make".  In games with HAPs, I do not find them thrown around at random, for trivial tasks.

 

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Have you read anything I posted or are you just so against Hero points that you make wild statements? And I LL willing to bet any of your “normal” characters say Batman or Hawkeye types are mechanically no where near they should be by Hero benchmarks. Is that not also fudging? 

 

I have certainly seen posters over the years suggest that any "normal human" Super with a DEX of 23+ or a SPD over 4 is a "cheater build". 

 

2 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Character creation has nothing to do with characters in play. And for the most part I don't do homages.

 

How do you get those characters into play if they have not been created first?  Would HAP be OK if they were a base stat (1 HAP per scenario) and you could purchase more?  Now it is part of character creation, so all is right with the world?

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

When you get to resolve all actions in precisely the way you want to, without risking something falling outside your control, you are writing a book.  You don't need dice for that, either.

 

Who has suggested a model where anyone has nearly enough resources to dictate the results of every die roll?

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Or for one more, perhaps more in keeping with the very inception of roleplaying:

 

Very young children playing cops and robbers, or whatever it is they play now (dealers and muggers?):  You know how it goes:   I got you!  No you didn't!  Yes I did!  Nuh-uhn!

 

Screw the dice.  Who has the most HERO points, because such things end up spending all of them.

 

You know, there are some gamers who think removing the random chance element of rolling your character is also a "screw the dice" system, and part of the game is "role playing" the character the dice hand you.  And if that means (old Chaosium Stormbringer) your character is a beggar from Nadsakor in a party that otherwise consists of Melniboneans and Pan Tangians, so be it.  Role play what the dice handed you.  If your rolls get you Sweet Sue the Beautiful but Combat Ineffective Romantic Interest to the other players' Superman and Captain America, then you get to role play screaming, being useless in combat and being captured and used as a hostage.  What do you mean, let's try a point buy system?  That would be screwing the dice! 

 

note:  Stormbringer actually allowed you to re-roll the Nadsakor result - if you did not want "the challenge of role playing" such a disadvantaged character.

 

I do recall an old article on Top Secret on a James Bond style system to merge the character types that game allowed.  One of that "class"'es abilities included, once per level in the scenario, to say "that did not happen".  That trap was not sprung, or did not kill the character, for example.  Why?  Because highly skilled and competent characters should not be slaughtered by the random whims of the dice.  Wow, we're going to let players have characters who are competent, even if we violate the dice.

 

HAP do not have to allow a "whoever has the most points gets their way" result.  Options exist.  Just like we have the option to allow that Tarzan character to leap out of the window, scramble up a phone pole and swing across the street without a roll ("because he's effing Tarzan"), or to force that roll (because the dice fall where they may, and if Tarzan rolls an 18, his hands just slide off the vine).

 

At its core, Hero says you succeed on an 11- and fail on a 12+.  We use OCV, DCV, skill levels, characteristics, and on ad infinitum to change those odds, and no one suggests it is "screwing the dice", "poor role playing" or "cheating".  HAP is one more possible modifier to the dice.

[Ninja-Bear]

FWIW the last game I said I used a Hero point, that wasn’t abusive. Apparently having Desolid and Invisible and being able to use it at once (it was a 600 pt game) was abusive. I only used it once to surprise hit on a villain that was thrown in the last second.

[Hugh Neilson]

27 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Tell you what:  I will let you burn experience to change dice rolls.  

 

he went on about how much experience to make how much a change, and the two people pitching Brownie Points- -and the one player becoming more and more interested in them-- were quite aghast at the idea.

 

That was Marvel Super Heroes, albeit in reverse.  MSH had Karma, which was primarily used to alter die rolls.   But you could save it up and use it for character improvement.

 

Otherwise, characters did not improve.  Just like we don't see Superman get tougher and stronger every few issues, your characters have the powers and abilities they started with, and they keep those,  but they don't grow over time.  Absent, no doubt, in-game "Radiation accidents".

 

As I recall, many gamers were unhappy with stagnant characters they could not "win the game" by improving over time.  Having a system geared around playing the characters you were handed by the module, rather than the ones you designed (or rolled) yourself wasn't too popular either, and the character creation system never did really gel.

 

Let's take a step back.  We are discussing Role Playing Games.  The dice are part of the "game" aspect.  We could play with characters who are all identical and have the exact same success and failure chances as everyone else at doing everything.  The dice (or the card, or whatever element of random chance resolves the in-game issues) fall where they may.  Lots of games do that.  Board games, for example.  But we wanted variation - we want to play different roles.  So some characters are better at some things than other characters are, and our chances of success vary.  We want to play Heroes, and not  be eliminated by a bad die roll, or drawing the wrong card from the Adventure Deck.  So we design games where "killed dead instantly", for example, is not the result of a typical attack in an average combat. 

 

Let's see an example of that random failure not being to one player's liking: 

 

So, if we all agree that sucks, and we put those cards to one side when we play, is that "cheating"?  I can tell you that the many Monopoly players who tuck $500 under the free parking space don't seem to think they are cheating.  I also find the Auction rules are often ignored.  Are those guys cheating?

 

Back in Hero, I see a lot of posts by players who figure you can just Push whenever you want to, say opening combat since you'll just get a PS12 right after and get that END back.  But the rules say Pushing is rare, and only allowed in extraordinarily heroic situations.  What if we said the same for Heroic Action Points?  The action you want to use them on must be extraordinary, extra-important and extra-heroic (or "extra-in-character").

 

We could certainly let the dice rule combat - roll 1d6 (or 3d6).  On a 6 (or 11-), you kill/defeat your enemy.  On a 1 (or 12+), your enemy kills/defeats you.  But we want more modifiers.  We want to influence the results in our games.  Hero Points are just one more means of allowing the players to influence the results of their actions.  Does everyone love the mechanic?  No.  Not everyone prefers a bell curve to a straight d20 roll, or characters built by design rather than rolled with random chance, or rolling low for success instead of rolling high.  But all of these are just game mechanics designed to provide a greater or lesser measure of player control over success and failure in the game.

[Scott Ruggels]

On 2/15/2020 at 5:18 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

So you never had dice rolls break the flow? FWIW I’ve played many a game with straight use of dice but at the end of the day the bottom line is what’s more enjoyable for the Players?  If Hero points ruin the game then fine don’t use them however if they enhance the game? By all means use them.

You pull out the dice when the players have a chance to fail.  If the dice rolls break your plan, well so be it, maybe it is someone else’s turn to save the day at that moment. There is a table of other participants than can and should have a try. And a good team will plan for failure as well as success. 

[Hugh Neilson]

A series of bad die rolls resulting in a TPK despite good play, bringing a campaign to a premature end, is not considered the peak of gaming enjoyment by all gamers.  "And the dragon fed well that day" is not the closer to a great game session, much less a great campaign.

[Ninja-Bear]

16 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

You pull out the dice when the players have a chance to fail.  If the dice rolls break your plan, well so be it, maybe it is someone else’s turn to save the day at that moment. There is a table of other participants than can and should have a try. And a good team will plan for failure as well as success. 

True. But also with bad rolls you can have (and I think it’s called) the jelly jar syndrome where the Brute can’t open the jar of jelly but bratty snot nose kid opens it-easily.  How do we balance that out? Idk if there is a 💯 right way to do it. In WEG, I’ve seen players burn through character points and still fail especially skill vs. skill cause someone else is rolling 6’s on the wild die. Exploding dice can be very varied.  Again bottom line is what is the most enjoyable for the group? That has been my point this whole thread.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Apparently having Desolid and Invisible and being able to use it at once (it was a 600 pt game) was abusive. 

 

??  In a 600pt game?  I wouldn't think so myself, but I'm not the GM.  besides: how else are you supposed to be a poltergeist?  

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

That was Marvel Super Heroes, albeit in reverse.  MSH had Karma, which was primarily used to alter die rolls.  

 

Played it a couple of times; hated the color-coded and vague stat system.  But as you point out:  the Hero Points or Karma were built into the game; the "System" (such as TSR was ever really capable of, anyway) was built with them in mind.  Trying to wedge them into something that wasn't built around them is pretty much just adding a saving throw.  Saves exist because they were necessary, since D&D otherwise was "oh neat!  Poison and you're dead!"  and things of that nature.  Jamming in an override to a game that has mechanics in place for the same situations (even if it's just "he's in GM option land") is just not adding value, and serves as-- well, an override to the game.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

  We want to influence the results in our games. 

 

We buy skill levels; we attack from cover; we coordinate, we sneak closer, we stall for time, we bounce our shots, we use complimentary skills---

 

But just to be sure we can only fail on an 18, we'll dump some magic fairy points onto the dice.  And if we don't like failing on an 18 no matter what, we can shoehorn in Saving Throws, too.   

 

 

47 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

True. But also with bad rolls you can have (and I think it’s called) the jelly jar syndrome where the Brute can’t open the jar of jelly but bratty snot nose kid opens it-easily.

 

    Thanks.  I hadn't heard that one before.  I've _lived_ it a time or two, in my own kitchen, but I've never heard it named before.  

 

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

How do we balance that out?

 

My suggestion is kind of like Scott's:

 

 

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

You pull out the dice when the players have a chance to fail.

 

 

If you're GM has ruled that there is a chance Ogre will fail opening the jelly jar, the problem isn't with the dice, I don't think.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Tactical play is not role playing.  Would an Overconfident and Flamboyent character hide in the shadows to creep closer to the enemy, increasing his odds through a surprise attack?  Does a Paranoid Loner rely on his teammates, filling them in on all of his abilities and weaknesses, to enhance his chances of success?  Does an Impatient, Impulsive character delay his action for a better shot after his teammates set him up?

 

It is very easy for tactical play to trade role playing for roll playing.

 

"So, he won't talk, huh?  Torch to the Groin!"

 

"Your Lawful Good, Honorable Paladin is going to torture the prisoners?"

 

"Well, it's important to get this info, and Torch to the Groin is the best modifier in the game for interrogation rolls."

 

 

Sure.  But having the player frustrated because their character consistently fails to achieve anything heroic is not "fun role playing".  The role he set out to play has been frustrated by the dice.

 

 

First off, Wheel of Fortune is competitive, not cooperative, so it makes for a poor analogy.  The objective is not for all of the players to have fun, but for one to win a bunch 0of money and two to go home losers.  Second, in WoF, buying all the vowels is permitted by the rules.

 

-------SNIP---------

 

 

I've got to bow out of this, at least for a bit, as I've got some things I've got to get done today, 

 

but the examples you put up? HERO System.  You built that character the way you wanted that character.  Play it.  No one told you the only sword-slinging bruiser available to you was a lawful good anything.  Your decision.  Suck it up, or change your mind and make a different character.  I'm good either way.

 

To quote  paraphrase Hugh:  You get what you pay for.  I don't see Action Point Die Modifiers anywhere in the 400 pages of things you can buy.  

 

So you get what you pay for and some things that you don't for, but you pay for what you get unless you get things you don't pay for....?

 

Anyway, gotta run-- 

 

you folks enjoy yourselves!  At least more than I will-- game called on account of rain.  

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not against randomness in the game. The question I have is how the Justice League go up against Darkseid and have a chance. Champions is challenging because the math doesn't always work in such a scenario.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

18 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

I'm not against randomness in the game. The question I have is how the Justice League go up against Darkseid and have a chance. Champions is challenging because the math doesn't always work in such a scenario.

Given that the JL seem to have defeated Darkseid before (I assume, never actually read any of those issues), and in a straight up fight (I assume even harder), I don't see the problem.  Clearly this means that Darkseid has a level of power that is greater than any given JLer but not so much greater that teamwork won't win the day. 

So I'm not sure why you suddenly need metacurrency for this one supervillain but not the rest the JL has fought. 

 

Are you worried about over or under powering him, resulting in a unsatisfying fight?  Well, metacurrency just amplifies the power of the JLers so you've got the same problem.  Whoops, Darkseid couldn't handle the accuracy shifting from HAPs, chumped.  Or whoops, Darkseid had too many CSLs to deal with HAPs, they ran out and now he's unhittable.  Exact same problems, just with the new layer of headache that is guessing how much metacurrency your players will wade in with and how they'll spend it. 

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Played it a couple of times; hated the color-coded and vague stat system.  But as you point out:  the Hero Points or Karma were built into the game; the "System" (such as TSR was ever really capable of, anyway) was built with them in mind.

 

Not a fan of the system myself,  but it's the only one I recall where the xp system was baked into a dice modification system, with the result that you effectively had to spend xp to offset unlucky rolls.  Really, though, it was there to offset unlucky rolls, or allow for very unlikely rolls to be made when the chips were down.

 

I always thought they needed another stat - Fantastic -- at the 60 point level.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If you're GM has ruled that there is a chance Ogre will fail opening the jelly jar, the problem isn't with the dice, I don't think.

 

No argument there.

 

Where I find the disconnect is this assumption that Hero Points or similar mechanics cannot be implemented, in any way shape or form, in a manner which is not autosuccess for every action resolution.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

but the examples you put up? HERO System.  You built that character the way you wanted that character.  Play it.  No one told you the only sword-slinging bruiser available to you was a lawful good anything.  Your decision.  Suck it up, or change your mind and make a different character.  I'm good either way.

 

So, only build characters who will exploit every possible tactical advantage, and forget making Characters with character?  Impetuous, Impulsive and Impatient was a lot of fun to play, and no one at the table was complaining when he made tactical decisions that were not 100% optimal.  Role playing that switches off in combat, or whenever playing the role becomes inconvenient, is not role playing at all.

 

Duke, I would not have thought you would not be the one suggesting "so build your character as a ruthless warrior against crime, and now it is OK to murder defeated villains", but that is one avenue for "build to suit the tactics you want to use, not the character that will fit the genre and make the game more fun for everyone" easily leads.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

To quote  paraphrase Hugh:  You get what you pay for.  I don't see Action Point Die Modifiers anywhere in the 400 pages of things you can buy. 

 

I do see Everyman skills, and a lot of combat maneuvers that anyone can use.  Adding Hero Points or a similar mechanic would be one more such everyman ability.

 

And I will ask again:  if everyone got X heroic action points at the start of each scenario (use 'em or lose 'em) by default, and could buy more starting points with CP, would that make it all OK?

[Duke Bushido]

Okay, got the ceiling repaired (I really, really detest working over my head with things that make lots of dust, and being allergic to polyester, I can't tell you what a joy fiberglass insulation is to deal with.  Ugh), I'm working on something else but wanted to take a quick break to check in.  In the words of the immortal James Brown, "Hyuh we go nah!"

 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

That was Marvel Super Heroes, albeit in reverse.  MSH had Karma, which was primarily used to alter die rolls. 

 

 

Thanks.  I had forgotten that.  Admittedly, it was intentional: I did a _lot_ to forget that game.....

 

 

Quote

I can tell you that the many Monopoly players who tuck $500 under the free parking space don't seem to think they are cheating. 

 

I have no idea what that is.

 

I mean, I am familiar with Monotony (sic), but I have no idea what tucking money under free parking does.

 

 

Quote

I also find the Auction rules are often ignored.

 

There are a lot of folks who seem to think "loans" are part of the rules, too.

 

But Monotony is no better a comparison than Wheel of Fortune: Apples to RPGs, if you will.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Back in Hero, I see a lot of posts by players who figure you can just Push whenever you want to, say opening combat since you'll just get a PS12 right after and get that END back.  But the rules say Pushing is rare, and only allowed in extraordinarily heroic situations. 

 

What are the odds these are "legacy players," from the old editions?  The 2e rules for pushing, in their entirety:

 

"Occasionally a character may need to exceed the normal limits of his Powers to perform a heroic action. A character may push the limits of his Power by up to 10 pts. A character must expend 1 extra END for every 1 pt. he Pushes his Power.

 

            [EXAMPLE NOT INCLUDED]

 

Only Powers (and STR) which normally cost END may be pushed. The GM may a1low greater pushes than 10 pts. in unusual circumstances, such as saving the universe, etc."

 

 

 

That's pretty much it.  All three sentences of it.  There's nothing that says it's especially rare, and even the word "occasionally" could be an acknowledgement that the END rules for early editions were pretty brutal, and would likely impose Pushing restrictions all by themselves.

 

At any rate, I am not going to fault someone for failing to adopt something from a newer edition.

 

 

Quote

What if we said the same for Heroic Action Points?  The action you want to use them on must be extraordinary, extra-important and extra-heroic (or "extra-in-character").

 

Look, Hugh:  I _accept_ that these things exist.  That's not the problem.  I _accept_ that people are going to use them.  And I don't think you or anyone else has any problems accepting that they are going to be used _where I am not playing_, and, I suspect, where Scott is not playing.  The problem seems to come entirely from the fact that I refuse to accept them as a "good thing" for HERO, and no amount of lecture or discourse is going to change my mind.  There are who-knows-how-many games out there that have these things baked in.  I don't see the reason to go dickering in my game with them.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Something about a Paladin.

 

Hugh said something about a paladin and smoldering testicles (paraphrased), and I lost it trying to get shed of that video.

 

At any rate, I wanted to reply to that with this:

 

 

https://bigmemes.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Faqs+alignments+the+original+dungeons+dragons+game+created+a_95969d_5089926.jpg

 

 

There was a Brock Samson one that drives the point home better, but it's Chaotic, so.....

 

 

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So, only build characters who will exploit every possible tactical advantage, and forget making Characters with character?  Impetuous, Impulsive and Impatient was a lot of fun to play, and no one at the table was complaining when he made tactical decisions that were not 100% optimal.  Role playing that switches off in combat, or whenever playing the role becomes inconvenient, is not role playing at all.

 

Duke, I would not have thought you would not be the one suggesting "so build your character as a ruthless warrior against crime, and now it is OK to murder defeated villains", but that is one avenue for "build to suit the tactics you want to use, not the character that will fit the genre and make the game more fun for everyone" easily leads.

 

Of course you would not have thought that, because you know you know I'm not suggesting that.  

 

You know that all of these are valid in-game things that give you modifiers.  You know that these are all available, as is something as simple as waiting for a better shot.  I am not suggesting that all of your characters be what I disdainfully refer to as "spandex commandos:"  the research scientist who found himself with superpowers and was suddenly a a brilliant tactician as well....   I detest military fiction as entertainment, and I certainly don't want to play it.  

 

I _am_, however, saying "build the character you want to play."  I am _continuing that line of thought by adding "But understand that if that character is an idiot, or is incompetent, or is brash and short-sighted, then _by God_ be prepared to deal with the results of that!  Understand that if you build a character with no real ability to fight that you've upped the odds of getting your clock cleaned.  _Understand_ that if your character can't solve a mystery stolen from the pages of Encyclopedia Brown or Jigsaw Jones that-- well, he probably isn't going to solve this one, either.  _Understand_ that when you play a character who does stupid things, that-- well, stupid _hurts_, and rightfully so!

 

Want to play Batmunch?  Then toss on things like tactics, and _don't_ take on things like "charges headlong into battle;" don't forget to buy some skills and some levels with INT-skills.

 

Would we be having this discussion _at all_ if the complaint was "every time I got attacked, I got knocked unconscious?"

 

No; of course we wouldn't.  We would all be sitting here saying things like "look at your defenses.  Are they appropriate for the average attacks in your game?  How about your Con?  Will it soak an average amount of damage to make sure you're not con-stunned?"  Things like that.  We would be explicitly telling people that the character they built is not suited for the game they have stuck him in, wouldn't we?

 

Yet "my odds on the dice aren't good enough" is enough to say "then we should add some sort of way to negate the dice rolls!" as opposed to "the character you built isn't suited for what you're trying to do."

 

The difference is _what_, now?  The idea that we can throw a a haystack over the dice and make it all safey-safe for the guy with the six-or-less "Juggle Chainsaws" skill?  I've got 8 or less on Detective Work, but the dice keep rolling 11.5 on average!  

 

Have you considered spending some XP and raising that score a bit?

 

Why can't I just change the dice rolls?!  My character concept is to not be good at Detective Work, but I keep sucking at it!

 

I....   I don't know what to do here.....

 

So again:  Make the character you want.  _Play_ the character you want.  Play him _how_ you want.  Do _not_ expect a disconnect between that character's abilities and actions and the reactions of the world around him.

 

I just finished telling this story to someone else-- well, I haven't yet, because I took a break from composing it to check out this thread.   But I will have just finished telling it, soon. [/spaceballs]

 

I have made a couple of in-character jokes on this board over the years as "Koloth, the Virile."

 

That was my third D&D character.  He was a barbarian I rolled up just before we decided to use Champions for pretty much every game idea we liked (we liked the system better, and at the time-- well, there was just the one book.  D&D couldn't say that).  Koloth rolled up an INT 4 and a WIS 16.  The GM at the time ruled, when we did the conversion, that this would be a Champions INT 3, with some bonuses to his INT roll and his PER rolls.  (he just kind of "got" certain things, even if he didn't fully understand them).  I played that character just like he was-- no; that's not heroic or great or wonderful, or anything else.  I played that character because I was already invested in that character.  And yes, lots of really awful things happened to him, but at no time did I even consider that I was being treated unfairly by the dice when anything that had to do with INT skills came around:  I knew that I was not the optimal character for doing INT-based things.

 

Running with the character I wanted to play was part of roleplaying.  Accepting that awful things happened to unsuitable characters and running with that was also part of roleplaying.  

 

You know the best part about switching to the Champions platform, though?  I didn't have to "level up" and take whatever the book said I got for leveling up.  I could spend EP as I saw fit, when I saw fit.  In no time at all, I was a respectable (barely) INT 8.  My rolls got better (go figure).

 

 

Though as long as we are saying that certain characters -- i.e., the overwrought combat experts, skilled tacticians, and such-- are just not the "norm," there is a metric crapload of olympic-level gymnast librarians, software engineers, and investment bankers walking around; there are a staggering number of STR 20 scientists and geology professors; DEX 18 surgeons and high school drama students-- there are more "genetically perfect limits-of-human-potential" ninjas on any given street than I have ever met in nigh-on sixty years of living, (which, for the record, currently stands at "none")  and absolutely no one seems to bat an eye at any of that, so let's not get into "my line in the sand is better than your line in the sand:"  My line in the sand is where I want it; your line in the sand can be where ever you want it; it's not actually possible for either of ours to affect the other.

 

 

 

Quote

And I will ask again:  if everyone got X heroic action points at the start of each scenario (use 'em or lose 'em) by default, and could buy more starting points with CP, would that make it all OK?

 

No.

 

What are they, other than Luck?  How many different mechanics over the years have been suggested for Luck?  How many of these result into "affect die rolls" or "ignore die rolls"?

 

We have enough; thank you.  We worry about rules bloat, but cram in more rules that do --- well, what the rules already do-- because it's some sort of flavor-of-the-month favorite?

 

No; thanks.  I'm good.

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Yup. Once I let my son pick up a thug and throw him into another thug. Totally against the rules. (Why? Idk but that seems very Comic bookish right?). So he burnt a Hero point and I allowed him to do it. He felt more like a Super hero. 

 

When did throwing someone become against the rules?

[pawsplay]

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

Given that the JL seem to have defeated Darkseid before (I assume, never actually read any of those issues), and in a straight up fight (I assume even harder), I don't see the problem.  Clearly this means that Darkseid has a level of power that is greater than any given JLer but not so much greater that teamwork won't win the day. 

So I'm not sure why you suddenly need metacurrency for this one supervillain but not the rest the JL has fought. 

 

Are you worried about over or under powering him, resulting in a unsatisfying fight?  Well, metacurrency just amplifies the power of the JLers so you've got the same problem.  Whoops, Darkseid couldn't handle the accuracy shifting from HAPs, chumped.  Or whoops, Darkseid had too many CSLs to deal with HAPs, they ran out and now he's unhittable.  Exact same problems, just with the new layer of headache that is guessing how much metacurrency your players will wade in with and how they'll spend it. 

It's not at all the same problem.

The problem is if you run the fight five times in a row in Hero System, you are going to have dead heroes a lot of the time.  The Marvel Cinematic universe can rewind all that and resurrect everybody and run a completely different, winnable battle. But in your home game, people are just dead.

You wouldn't need HAP or anything like that if the game were simply baked in such a way that the odds are stacked in favor of the heroes.

But Champions isn't like that. It's a nuts-and-bolts simulation of superheroes. It doesn't know who is good or who is evil, who is a flawed protagonist or who is a goon. And if you run those scenarios, over and over again, and run them fairly, the result is not a superheroic epic. The last refuge of the overpowered fight, the heroes get captured, is spelled out as something you should not do because the players hate it.

Death and failure are a possibility in DC Heroes (Mayfair Games), but Hero Points substantially mitigate the likelihood things will go that way. Further, the currency is based on fighting threats, rescuing innocents, resolving subplots, and generally roleplaying -- in short, pathos. HAPs give you a little edge but they aren't really a "fair" currency in any sense, your powergamer's murder character could have twice as many as the flawed but interesting telepathic exile.

But on the other hand, DC Heroes is a lot harder to build a versatile energy attack power in, and doesn't have meaningful rules for martial arts styles at all.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 minute ago, pawsplay said:

It's not at all the same problem.

The problem is if you run the fight five times in a row in Hero System, you are going to have dead heroes a lot of the time.  The Marvel Cinematic universe can rewind all that and resurrect everybody and run a completely different, winnable battle. But in your home game, people are just dead.

You wouldn't need HAP or anything like that if the game were simply baked in such a way that the odds are stacked in favor of the heroes.

But Champions isn't like that. It's a nuts-and-bolts simulation of superheroes. It doesn't know who is good or who is evil, who is a flawed protagonist or who is a goon. And if you run those scenarios, over and over again, and run them fairly, the result is not a superheroic epic. The last refuge of the overpowered fight, the heroes get captured, is spelled out as something you should not do because the players hate it.

Death and failure are a possibility in DC Heroes (Mayfair Games), but Hero Points substantially mitigate the likelihood things will go that way. Further, the currency is based on fighting threats, rescuing innocents, resolving subplots, and generally roleplaying -- in short, pathos. HAPs give you a little edge but they aren't really a "fair" currency in any sense, your powergamer's murder character could have twice as many as the flawed but interesting telepathic exile.

But on the other hand, DC Heroes is a lot harder to build a versatile energy attack power in, and doesn't have meaningful rules for martial arts styles at all.

It is exactly the same problem.  If "you are going to have dead heroes a lot of the time" then the GM has made the enemy too strong.  HAPs won't prevent that.  HAPs just make that worse, since they're another variable for the GM to consider. 

And worse, they're a variable that's going to shift wildly based on player usage and the dice.  I've seen people blow their entire stack of per-session metacurrency halfway through a session on a roll to woo the barmaid.  I've seen people blow their entire stack of per-arc metacurrency the instant the first fight starts because they're not willing to let the bad guy escape (he did anyways).  I've seen people sit on a stack of per-session metacurrency with half an hour left in the session during a tense fight.  I've seen people start with full health and a full stack and be low on health and metacurrency at the end of a fight nobody else took damage or spent metacurrency in. 

[pawsplay]

So what I'm hearing is that bad guys just need to be weak most of the time.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

41 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

So what I'm hearing is that bad guys just need to be weak most of the time.

I'm clearly failing to communicate, as that is in no way my position.  Could you please explain how you reached that conclusion, so I know where I miscommunicated?