hero 6e Lower Maximum Characteristic Values

[Gauntlet]

2 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

The Normal Characteristics Maxima Disadantage should be limited to Superhero Level characters, 200 Points and up, since they actually have the points to far exceed those levels and other characters who don't take it would have a major advantage.

 

But as I asked before, would you want to play a character who has the following Characteristic Maximums without getting anything for it.

 

Reduced Characteristic Maxima: STR 7, CON 15, PD
4, ED 4, REC 8, END 30, BODY 8, STUN 30, Running 12m,
Swimming 2m

[Ninja-Bear]

Gauntlet I’m also curious do they have a skill maxima in place? I’ve seen that as a variation. Say 13- is maxima so skills 14-16 are doubled.

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

So you would be okay if I said your stat maximums were as follows while everyone else's was normal?

 

STR Max: 5

STR Max: 5
DEX Max: 5
CON Max: 5
INT Max: 5
EGO Max: 5
PRE Max: 5

OCV Max: 2

DCV Max: 2

OMCV Max: 2

DMCV Max: 2

SPEED Max: 2

PD Max: 2

ED Max: 2

REC Max: 2

END Max: 5

BODY Max: 5

STUN Max: 5

Any characteristic bought over these maximums are at double cost.

 

Tell you what, build a character on 175 points (Standard Heroic) under that model.  If we give you 25 points for those maxima (maximum points per complication for Standard Heroic), or even 50 (total complications for Standard Heroic), will that make it a playable character?

 

He has already saved 85 points by selling his stats back to those starting levels.  I guess he'll need a spell or magic item to restore his stats (at least those he relies on in play). 

 

What actually happens in real games is that players look at the stats they want the character to have.  Unless all, or virtually all, will be under the NCM limit they can take as a complication, they do not take that complication.

 

5 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

But as I asked before, would you want to play a character who has the following Characteristic Maximums without getting anything for it.

 

Reduced Characteristic Maxima: STR 7, CON 15, PD
4, ED 4, REC 8, END 30, BODY 8, STUN 30, Running 12m,
Swimming 2m

 

I am speculating that this template comes with some offsetting advantages.  However, an elderly Wizard who attacks and defends with magic spells could be quite all right within these parameters.  So, to flip it around, how many points should that Wizard get for free because his character design already fits within those parameters (and has saved him 5 points from selling back 3 STR and 2m Swimming already)?

[Gauntlet]

7 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Gauntlet I’m also curious do they have a skill maxima in place? I’ve seen that as a variation. Say 13- is maxima so skills 14-16 are doubled.

 

I am not sure. I will have to check that.

[Gauntlet]

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Tell you what, build a character on 175 points (Standard Heroic) under that model.  If we give you 25 points for those maxima (maximum points per complication for Standard Heroic), or even 50 (total complications for Standard Heroic), will that make it a playable character?

 

He has already saved 85 points by selling his stats back to those starting levels.  I guess he'll need a spell or magic item to restore his stats (at least those he relies on in play). 

 

What actually happens in real games is that players look at the stats they want the character to have.  Unless all, or virtually all, will be under the NCM limit they can take as a complication, they do not take that complication.

 

 

I am speculating that this template comes with some offsetting advantages.  However, an elderly Wizard who attacks and defends with magic spells could be quite all right within these parameters.  So, to flip it around, how many points should that Wizard get for free because his character design already fits within those parameters (and has saved him 5 points from selling back 3 STR and 2m Swimming already)?

 

I guess I can see your point.

[Ninja-Bear]

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Unless all, or virtually all, will be under the NCM limit they can take as a complication, they do not take the complication.

Since when? If (or in some games when it was mandatory) you were charged double the price if you wanted a characteristic past the maxima. It didn’t matter how many or even if they were above or below the maxima you got the points for the disadvantage. (Unless off course it was a zero point disadvantage.) Therefore unless something else is being done Narosia, if a player takes the above maxima then he is entitled to the Complication.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 2/22/2020 at 11:45 AM, Duke Bushido said:

It's been my experience that the player wishing to get points for this "handicap" has never had any intention of building this particular character beyond that, anyway.  If he were building a run-of-the-mill high school history teacher for an Attack of the Mutants revival game (don't judge me, dammit!     ), he might decide to take NCM, but then the only stat he increases is INT, and only to twelve.

 

He's getting points for a limitation that doesn't actually limit anything about the character.  😕.

First of all it is limiting. Either he must keep the values under or at maxima or suffers the doubling in price. 
 

Second so a player is playing his concept no? So you want to penalize him (by denying the points) because he choose a certain build that he was going to build anyways?

 

Thirdly, did it really adversely affect the game?

[Hugh Neilson]

Where a base level of NCM is imposed, and other levels can be taken as a complication, the characters I have seen take such complications have no, or very few, stats above their revised "maximum".  The Age complication was the big one historically, often taken by spellcasters to have a higher INT limit and lower physical stat limits (which they rarely if ever exceeded).

 

Have you seen PCs with the 5 or 10 point Age complication spending 5-10 points on doubled stat costs to exceed their NCM limit?

[Duke Bushido]

8 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

  However, an elderly Wizard who attacks and defends with magic spells could be quite all right within these parameters.  So, to flip it around, how many points should that Wizard get for free because his character design already fits within those parameters (and has saved him 5 points from selling back 3 STR and 2m Swimming already)?

 

And that nicely sums up my "meta-game" problem with NCM / RCM.  The best solution I've found is that when it is appropriate, it applies to _all_ player characters, and is a zero-point "way the world works" kind of thing.  Though to be honest, I don't use it much.  Too much headache owing to repeated arguments from players that are akin to what Ninja Bear posted:

 

(Not picking on you, N-B.  Not even remotely.  It's just such a perfect example of why I don't usually use it)

 

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Since when? If (or in some games when it was mandatory) you were charged double the price if you wanted a characteristic past the maxima. It didn’t matter how many or even if they were above or below the maxima you got the points for the disadvantage. (Unless off course it was a zero point disadvantage.) Therefore unless something else is being done Narosia, if a player takes the above maxima then he is entitled to the Complication.

 

Let's take the idea that a player wants to make some kind of "small race" character-- halfling or some such, and make him an acrobat or a thief or something along those lines.  He decides he wants NCM / RCM at 25 pts worth, but wants to buy his DEX up a bit because of his agility and sleight of hand skills.  So he decides to spend 6 points to bump his DEX up from his Reduced Maximum of10 to a 13, then spends ten more points to move it up to a DEX 15.

 

The player is _fine_ with the other reduced Characteristics; they do not impeded his plans for the character or the development he plans for that character in any way.  it will never come up in game play, as it's not a recurring problem or a Hunted or a reputation or anything like that: if he has an STR 8 with a racial RCM cap of 15, that's not a handicap.  It's no more a handicap that having a superhero with a 15d6 Blast trying to take a Limitation that it costs double to increase that Blast beyond 25d6.  It's not something the player wants to do anyway.

 

But with our halfling acrobat, he gets 250 points because he's decided he doesn't want high characteristics save Dex.  He spent sixteen of those twenty-five to raise his DEX, and now has nine character points "extra" to either raise his characteristics or buy his acrobatics abilities with.    He's not only "not really limited" in this case, he's coming out ahead: he got effectively-free points to dump into his characteristics.

 

 

There's a meta-game problem here, at least for me.   If you don't see it, well-- that's fine.  Seriously.  I discovered this years ago: there are some things that have been problematic for me in the past that a large majority of the community just doesn't see as a problem; there are things that the community espouses to be a problem that have just never come up in my games.  It happens.

 

 

But for my money, I'd rather make NCM (on the rare occasion that I use it) be a zero-point everyman complication, and just build "racial templates" for each race-- well, let's face it:  Package deals-- to avoid all the problems that RCM causes me.

 

Different takes, I suppose. 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 minute ago, Ninja-Bear said:

First of all it is limiting. Either he must keep the values under or at maxima or suffers the doubling in price. 
 

Second so a player is playing his concept no? So you want to penalize him (by denying the points) because he choose a certain build that he was going to build anyways?

 

Thirdly, did it really adversely affect the game?

 

So how many points should my Fighter get for "double cost to buy spells"?  Those spells are outside his concept, so he should be rewarded by sticking to it, right?

And my Wizard will never buy is massively handicapped by a double cost for any Martial Arts he buys.  How many points is that worth?

Actually, they want to stay even more in concept - how many more points for those abilities costing 3x, 4x or 5x the normal cost if they should decide to invest in them?

Oh, and how much does it cost to remove the NCM limit entirely (and not have to pay double for anything)?  How much to just bump the limit by 50% (to 30 Primary Stats)?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

So, how many GMs in a 5e or 4e game would allow my Archer Elf*?  He spends 90 points on a 30 DEX.  10 OCV and DCV, and 4 SPD, out of the gate.  He has 60 points left for weapon familiarities, some other stats skills, etc. and maybe an Archery Trick or two.  He can boost a lot of those with xp later, of course.

 

Or Halfling.  Or, for Duke, anthropomorphic tree frog.

 

Actually, forget it - he'll have a 20 DEX naturally, +10 DEX, No Figured (-1/2), not if he ceases to venerate the Great God of Elven Archers/Elvish Slingers/ Tree Frogs (-0 limitation).  Since limited characteristics don't attract NCM, he only pays 60.  He can invest 10 into +1 SPD to get that 4 SPD back.  That leaves 20 more to spend as he sees fit. Maybe another +2 SPD, not if he ceases to venerate the Great God of Elven Archers (-0 limitation)?

 

Nope, no problems with the NCM rules...

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

First of all it is limiting. Either he must keep the values under or at maxima or suffers the doubling in price. 

 

Captain Combustion buys a 30d6 AoE: Cone Energy Blast, defined as white-hot jets of flame.   He also asks me how many points he gets for the Limitation that this power costs double to raise above 50d6.

 

"Ned, how far do you see this character growing?"

"What do you mean?"

"How far do you see him developing that fire blast of his?"

"Oh, I'm pretty happy with it where it is.  I mean, the campaign cap is..  what?  40 dice?"

"it's 20 to start, but you asked for special dispensation since you only had one other power and no super characteristics, so I let you have it."

"What's it going to top out at?"

"Well, I am hoping for a short campaign this time, so I don't really see anyone getting an offense too far above 30 to 35 DC.  Where do you see your character going?"

"Well, I want to branch out his fire powers: learn to fly, maybe, and up his force field.  And I think it might be cool get a couple of other fire-schticks like making walls of fire and stuff.  That's where I want to take the character, I think."

"So what's the limitation all about?"

"Well if I buy the Cone of Fire up above 50 dice, it costs double."

"And do you intend to do that at some point?"

"God, no!  I'm already twice as powerful as the other two blasters, and you just said the campaign limit is probably around 35."

"So why do you think that's worth something?"

"Well because it's my _concept_!  It's going to really take something special from him to create that much fire!"

"Which you never intend to do?"

"No; I don't really plan on it, but it _is_ part of the concept!  Picture this:  We're up against an invading armada of space aliens, and all looks lost, but as the main battleship moves in, I dump all my unspent EP and reach deep inside me---"

"That's not going to happen."

"Yeah-- I get it:  no aliens, we're the first supers on earth, and the campaign limit, but the concept I have includes it being harder for him to advance his power above 50 dice--"

"No, Ned.  No value."

"What?!"

"You can still have it, if you want, but you don't get points for it."

 

 

 

Quote

 

Second so a player is playing his concept no? So you want to penalize him (by denying the points) because he choose a certain build that he was going to build anyways?

 

That's the tell-tale, right there.   if he is playing to concept, why is the denial of points a penalty?  If his concept is _already_ low characteristics, with _ZERO_ intention of raising them enough to bump into that penalty, then _how_ is it a penalty?

 

Disadvantages that don't limit, etc.  If we are giving away points for _potential_ problems, then all characters should get points for things like "mortal" and "not as powerful as certain potential opponents" and other things we don't think twice about.   NCM was a bad idea when it came about, and frankly, 5e went a long way toward getting rid of bad ideas (primarily with ideas like "if your character is stupidly large, don't buy growth: zero END, persistent, Always On, but instead take the complication "stupidly large."  This nicely fixed the issue of players trying to jigger the system so as to gain a point or two of characteristic or power under the guise of the power being "disadvantageous."    I was sort of surprised to see NCM still surviving into the sixth rules set, honestly.

 

 

Quote

Thirdly, did it really adversely affect the game?

 

 

Did the halfling getting enough Character Points to buy his DEX up to 18 and still have nine points left over, with absolutely _no_ limitation to his ability to build to his concept really adversely affect the game?  I suppose it depends on if you were the halfling's player, one of the other players who thought "Hell yeah; hand me that eraser!" after seeing it, or the GM who had to rule on wether or not to allow all these points from effectively nowhere ride or not ride.

 

More importantly:  did allowing or denying the points affect the character concept?  Did it effect it in any way at all?  Was the player still able to build the low-characteristic character he wanted to build?  Should have have gotten _more_ points because he spent less?

 

If six players decide "I'm only going to spend fifteen points on characteristics," yet one of them decides "I'm going to play a character from a race that cannot spend more than sixty points on characteristics, so I should get some points back" while everyone else is playing a race with no penalties on high stats, and all characters are operating under the same campaign maximums, was one of them more limited than the other?

 

"Playing to concept" is, in my book, the absolute most important thing a player can do.  I won't bother you with a lengthy list of links of my stating this, and my defending that position in even the most hopeless of arguments-- against math, against science, and against common sense!  I won't do that because you were _here_ for most of them, N-B, and you _know_ that there is no greater champion of the playing to concept anywhere in HEROdom.  Certainly, I have many, many peers, but none are more vehement on this point than I.  

 

But I also know a loophole when I see one.  Further, I know when I hear complaints that "we're not using that option in this game" and someone who wants a STR 13 character screams because he doesn't get points for having to pay double to make it greater than 20 or 25 or wherever you've set it for your race / campaign-- that is, a player who is screaming because he can't get points for a "concept" that in no way provides hindrance in building or playing the character he has conceived--

 

is playing to loophole.

[Duke Bushido]

18 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So, how many GMs in a 5e or 4e game would allow my Archer Elf? 

 

Not this one, but honestly, I only had to read this far on the sheet to know I was booting you out.
 

 

[Duke Bushido]

33 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE-POST.   PLEASE IGNORE THIS BOX AND CONTINUE READING

 

There's a more simple way to point out the problem.

 

Let's go small-scale:

 

Everyone gets 75 points to build their character.

 

Jimbo wants to build an STR 25 Warrior.

 

Ted wants to build an STR 25 Gladiator.

 

Jimbo spends 15 points and he's done.  He's got 60 points left to spend elsewhere.

 

Ted decides to take NCM as a limitation; the GM has decreed that this limit is 25 on STR, and is worth 25 points.  Ted dumps 15 of these points into STR and he's done.  He's got 70 points left to spend somewhere else.

 

The GM decides this is wonky, and sets the NCM limit to 20.  Ted dumps 10 points into STR to bring it to 20, then dumps in ten more bring it to 25.  He's done.  He's got 65 points to spend elsewhere.

 

Clearly, Ted is extremely limited by his concept.

[Shoug]

On February 22, 2020 at 6:06 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m not sure why he would.  characteristics Maxima has always been confusing. Max 20 doesn’t mean That a human  is limited to  29 but rather if he buys say 25 pt, the 5 over 20 is double in cost. Note, you can make 20 be the human limit if you want but by default human limit is 30.

20 is way closer to the limit for humans, but that shouldn't affect your fantasy games.

 

On February 22, 2020 at 7:46 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

That's an absurd strawman. 

It's not a strawman, it's a Reductio Ad Absurdum. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

2 minutes ago, Shoug said:

It's not a strawman, it's a Reductio Ad Absurdum. 

In order to be Reductio Ad Absurdum he'd have to be basing what he said off my position instead of a distortion of my position that makes it easy to argue against.  He applied Reductio Ad Absurdum to a strawman, hence me calling it an "absurd strawman". 

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Not this one, but honestly, I only had to read this far on the sheet to know I was booting you out.

 

You know, it does beg the question why I chose an elf - anyone could make the same DEX and SPD purchases.

 

Modified the post koffracistkoff

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Modified the post koffracistkoff

 

 

"speciesist," Sir. 

 

It's a personal flaw I am doing nothing about.  I have no idea what to call my dislike of people who put clothes on dogs.... 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

"speciesist," Sir. 

 

It's a personal flaw I am doing nothing about.  I have no idea what to call my dislike of people who put clothes on dogs.... 

 

"speciesist" - humans can't produce offspring with dogs

[Gauntlet]

On 2/24/2020 at 12:06 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

"speciesist" - humans can't produce offspring with dogs

 

Not true! My neighbor has done it! TWICE!

[Tech]

On 2/23/2020 at 5:05 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Captain Combustion buys a 30d6 AoE: Cone Energy Blast, defined as white-hot jets of flame.   He also asks me how many points he gets for the Limitation that this power costs double to raise above 50d6.

 

"Ned, how far do you see this character growing?"

"What do you mean?"

"How far do you see him developing that fire blast of his?"

"Oh, I'm pretty happy with it where it is.  I mean, the campaign cap is..  what?  40 dice?"

"it's 20 to start, but you asked for special dispensation since you only had one other power and no super characteristics, so I let you have it."

"What's it going to top out at?"

"Well, I am hoping for a short campaign this time, so I don't really see anyone getting an offense too far above 30 to 35 DC.  Where do you see your character going?"

"Well, I want to branch out his fire powers: learn to fly, maybe, and up his force field.  And I think it might be cool get a couple of other fire-schticks like making walls of fire and stuff.  That's where I want to take the character, I think."

"So what's the limitation all about?"

"Well if I buy the Cone of Fire up above 50 dice, it costs double."

"And do you intend to do that at some point?"

"God, no!  I'm already twice as powerful as the other two blasters, and you just said the campaign limit is probably around 35."

"So why do you think that's worth something?"

"Well because it's my _concept_!  It's going to really take something special from him to create that much fire!"

"Which you never intend to do?"

"No; I don't really plan on it, but it _is_ part of the concept!  Picture this:  We're up against an invading armada of space aliens, and all looks lost, but as the main battleship moves in, I dump all my unspent EP and reach deep inside me---"

"That's not going to happen."

"Yeah-- I get it:  no aliens, we're the first supers on earth, and the campaign limit, but the concept I have includes it being harder for him to advance his power above 50 dice--"

"No, Ned.  No value."

"What?!"

"You can still have it, if you want, but you don't get points for it."

 

I'm only looking at logic here. The entire conversation is about statistics, not powers. The 'disadvantage NCM' is about statistics only, never powers. Why is this example about powers?

[Duke Bushido]

Because the examples with characteristics aren't getting through.  Analogy time. 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 2/23/2020 at 6:08 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

There's a more simple way to point out the problem.

 

Let's go small-scale:

 

Everyone gets 75 points to build their character.

 

Jimbo wants to build an STR 25 Warrior.

 

Ted wants to build an STR 25 Gladiator.

 

Jimbo spends 15 points and he's done.  He's got 60 points left to spend elsewhere.

 

Ted decides to take NCM as a limitation; the GM has decreed that this limit is 25 on STR, and is worth 25 points.  Ted dumps 15 of these points into STR and he's done.  He's got 70 points left to spend somewhere else.

 

The GM decides this is wonky, and sets the NCM limit to 20.  Ted dumps 10 points into STR to bring it to 20, then dumps in ten more bring it to 25.  He's done.  He's got 65 points to spend elsewhere.

 

Clearly, Ted is extremely limited by his concept.

And neither one spent more points on anything else? Jimbo didn’t take a 20 pt disadvantage for 20 points?  So name something in Hero that if you wanted to could abuse? 

[Duke Bushido]

Let's look at what the limitation itself represents:  a restriction on how high the characters stats can go.  Yet if the player has no intention of exceeding that limitation to begin with, or only exceeding it "tactically," that is: gaining points for not being able to buy characteristics as high as he would allegedly like them, it rolls over to being extra points he spends to get exactly the characteristics he wants.  All he has to do is claim he wanted them higher. 

 

But again, this is just one of those rhings: either you see it or you don't, and no amount of discussion is going to bring about an "aha" moment.  It took me a couple of years of seeing it on play to have my own.  I still use  NCM and RCM (rarely, though), but they are now campaign rules with equal applicability and are "how the world works" O-pointers. 

 

But like I said: either you see it or you don't.  Remember: I'm the guy who freely admitted to taking the same algebra class three years running; I totally understand something "not clicking" until it does, and I know that repeating the same, tired things over and over again does _nothing_ to make it click.  All that being the case, I am going to drop this completely, because arguing for concession of a point the other side the other POV just straight-up doesn't see is _never_ worth alienating people you respect. 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 2/23/2020 at 5:47 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

So, how many GMs in a 5e or 4e game would allow my Archer Elf*?  He spends 90 points on a 30 DEX.  10 OCV and DCV, and 4 SPD, out of the gate.  He has 60 points left for weapon familiarities, some other stats skills, etc. and maybe an Archery Trick or two.  He can boost a lot of those with xp later, of course.

 

Or Halfling.  Or, for Duke, anthropomorphic tree frog.

 

Actually, forget it - he'll have a 20 DEX naturally, +10 DEX, No Figured (-1/2), not if he ceases to venerate the Great God of Elven Archers/Elvish Slingers/ Tree Frogs (-0 limitation).  Since limited characteristics don't attract NCM, he only pays 60.  He can invest 10 into +1 SPD to get that 4 SPD back.  That leaves 20 more to spend as he sees fit. Maybe another +2 SPD, not if he ceases to venerate the Great God of Elven Archers (-0 limitation)?

 

Nope, no problems with the NCM rules...

You do understand that even if a build is legal if it violates the sprint of the rules it’s still wrong? Let’s be honest this isn’t a real build in a real game. It’s a theoretical “character” designed specifically to thwart a rule.  

Do you know if any published character that breaks wildly the NCM or any character in your group?