I like when a player adds to the campaign world. If that's in the form of NPCs I'm cool with that.
But yes, it's possible for someone to oversaturate the campaign with their NPCs. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to how many is too many. But I'll know it when I see it.
I do think there's a difference between Hunteds and DNPCs on the one hand, and general supporting cast on the other. All characters should have supporting cast. These are the NPCs who ground them in the game world. They are the depth and richness that comes from having known and (somewhat) developed characters in the game world.
I wouldn't want to see more than 1 DNPC per character. I mean, I could be talked into allowing it, but generally 1 is enough. That one may be a group, say the orphans of St. Mary's, but they always come as a single group.
Hunteds can come in larger numbers. But if a player chooses to have a bunch of hunteds they have to accept that sometimes this will lead to a Sinister 6 scenario - all the hunteds showing up at once.
Other times I'll skip a hunted showing up if a single character's background has been coming up more than others. All the players should get equal chance to have their time in the limelight.
I agree, and I hope to maybe get to at least one further step in that in coming years with a project to give GMs and players a whole campaign with info on how to build characters, etc. The tentative name is Champions One (for the beginning), and would be a followup to Champions Begins.
Sure, Champions needs adventures and promotion, but it also needs more support for GMs and players new to the system. The game would benefit from less specificity and more guidelines, advice, and examples of play, IMO.
Champions Begins is a good start that deserves to be built upon with more about what I'd call the "philosophy of play" and a broader examination of successful strategies for running HERO in different ways to support specific campaign types, playstyles, etc.
I wonder if we could pull some of the great stuff from Champions Now, Strikeforce, old issues of AC/Haymaker/Digital Hero, the existing advice in the various core rulesets, etc. and assemble a reasonable guide for running the game that would help out those new to it.
How to make a gritty street campaign feel like a gritty street campaign. How to do the same for golden age, silver age, bronze age, underground, indie, etc. campaigns.
"How I learned to stop wearing out the rulebook at the table and rediscovered the joy of running a great session for my friends."
"One weird trick to shrink those unsightly two-page character statblocks down to a georgeous index card that's ready for sun and fun at the beach!"
Or, for a more modern take, "One weird trick that lets you slim your character down to a single phone screen, ready to adventure anywhere!"
Sure, Champions needs adventures and promotion, but it also needs more support for GMs and players new to the system. The game would benefit from less specificity and more guidelines, advice, and examples of play, IMO.
Champions Begins is a good start that deserves to be built upon with more about what I'd call the "philosophy of play" and a broader examination of successful strategies for running HERO in different ways to support specific campaign types, playstyles, etc.
I wonder if we could pull some of the great stuff from Champions Now, Strikeforce, old issues of AC/Haymaker/Digital Hero, the existing advice in the various core rulesets, etc. and assemble a reasonable guide for running the game that would help out those new to it.
How to make a gritty street campaign feel like a gritty street campaign. How to do the same for golden age, silver age, bronze age, underground, indie, etc. campaigns.
"How I learned to stop wearing out the rulebook at the table and rediscovered the joy of running a great session for my friends."
"One weird trick to shrink those unsightly two-page character statblocks down to a georgeous index card that's ready for sun and fun at the beach!"
Or, for a more modern take, "One weird trick that lets you slim your character down to a single phone screen, ready to adventure anywhere!"
Okay, folks- back in action. Sorry; the phone had to go to the doctor, where I again had to listen to all the spiel about why I want a new phone. The problem here is that.. Well, I don't. The worst part is it is always the same,spiel: acvording to phone people. The onky phones that exist are iphones (fooey) nd Samsung, who will never get abother dollar from me again anyway (though I love listening to my J the older swear at his every time he wants it to something relatively simple).
It is quite late here, and as promised, I just don't have it in me to Perdue every question raised by my post, etc, except Thais one:
Yes; Scott. You signed up for a master's class. Remember that last con you went to, and that game your name disnt get pulled for? This was the consolation prize. There was also a ticket for the community swimming pool, but it didn't have that "reserved for the no peeing section" stamp on it, so we didn't think you'd want it.
Okay, the thing that seems,to have met with the most resistsnce was the comment that the rules are a complete mess.
I stand by that. I should also note that _they always have been_. This has not stopped me from enjoying the game, not one bit. There are two kinds of "normal" damage, then there are special damages like mental powers, and there are drains which can damage normally-not-manageable characteristics, and there is transformation 'damage' and undefendable damage and cumulative damage- and probably some others. Then players can choose to self-limit or upgrade their powers, etc, on and on, and that is just damage!
I dont think there is any need to go into the problems with the skill systems, at least not with this group.
There are lots of things contributing to over-complication and confusion, but just like with the expansion of power modifiers and its almost-now-necessary list of will can't must absolutes, I have a favorite example here, too.
There is a rule that says the most expensive way to do the thing is the right way. But we have punch damage and martial damage. For a couple of points I can pick a martial maneuver and increase my STR damage- cheaper than buying +5STR. Thus, the martial maneuver violates that rule.
We have Minor Transform and Major Transform. Minor Transform violates the rule. Moreover, it grew from just one power: Transform. In keepong with the most expensive rule, whoever split that power was in violation of the rule.
In fact, Transform should be the only power that does Damage: it is far less expensive to deal 5 BODY to the bad guy in a single phase via a 12d6 Energy Blast than it is to Transform: health bad guy to bad guy who has suffered 5 BODY. Now that the STUN lotto has been "fixed" on killing attack (I agree that this power was _semantically_ broken-- it was clearly _stunning_ attack-- was it really broken mechanically? Just the mechanics, I mean. Or was this "repair" yet another attempt to force yet another mathematical equality into a game that doesnt seem,to have ever wanted to have one?)-
Anyway, now that Killing Attack has been 'fixed,' it seems more apparent that it, too, shoukd be replaced by Transform. VPP is the least expensive way to buy every power in rhe game. it has got to go; it is in violation of the cost rule. Power Frameworks- even power limitations- are in violation, because it costs more to not use them. Multiform I discussed before: buildba charcter with a -1/4 or a -4...... One of those is foing toncost a lot more....
I am going to quit right there, because hopefully I have sufficiently belabored the point. If you want mathematical equality, you are going to have to fold all offenses into a single power and all defenses into a single power, then roll to hit. 11 Or less? No. 10.5 or less (though the rules do say round in the character's favor, so..)
Anyway, you should have two abilities, and they should be called "Affect Universe" and "Resist Universe." They should have the same cost, and equal amounts should be equally effective against each other. If you roll your affect universe roll successfully, I deduct my resist universe from your affect universe, and record the damage by removing it from my resist universe.
Or we could do a Tri Stat thing and have "affected by universe" for tracking damage, with healing determined by your own affect universe, since you are part of that universe.
There: the only builds availabke are the most expensive ones, the costs are truly mathematically balanced, and everyone is happy. Well, everyone except for me and Scott, who are not foing to be happy with the hours of narration on how I affected and resisted the universe.
Or you just save a fortune and record xoin flips all afternoon. It is also mathematically balanced, and if everyone brings their own nickel, it should cost the same, too.
The second thing I want to adress is some confusion- in spite of my significant disclaimer- that I was blaming Steve for the problems with the game. No; I was using him as an,example of us because- well, because, even though it has been around since at least 4e that I know of, he wrote the last couple of sets of rules, meaning he was both the ultimate rules official and the last guy to write "the most expensive is correct rule," and violates it anyway.
Tunne)inf to break down walls? Enough STR and advantages to do it is more expensive, generally, in the past, he hs used Desolid to simulate invulnerabilities to things when a few hundred points of resistant hardened defenses is clearly more expensive. What SPD would you say the Flash has? I have seen TV episodes where he lives out. What seems like _days_ just wandering around, doing his angst stuff, then snapoing back and making us realize he has been superspeeding to make time to,squeeze a few hours of angst into his schedule. It has only been seconds for,the normal world.
So does he have SPD1200 or so? Or was it considerably cheaper to buy EDM and "enter the speedzone?"
And again, that are more examples, but let me,be clear: this is not commentary against Steve! Out of all the possible examples,that could,be chosen for "the most expensive is the most correct," though, seeinf _the guy who wrote the rules_ violate them the same way that the rest of us do is simply the best possible example anyone could select, I think.
At any rate, I propose a far more accurate rule;
Make sure that your players are paying a reasonable amount for extremely powerful abilities. With practice and familiarity, it becomes easy to make overwhelming abikities for very little points. Never forget that this can steal the thunder- and thr dun- from other players less familiar with the system.
It can go right next to "some people will get a bit more than they pay for; some people will get a bit less. However, no one gets anything that they do not pay for, unless the GM rukes it to be a unique, in-the-moment perk of their SFX.
There.
Going to bed now, bur havinf been gone for a couple of days, I wanted to comment my appreciation for how civil this thread has remained.
I really think an intro campaign of Champions (Champions One is this type of thing I believe) and one for a Hero game would be great. Even a Champaign version built more like a non-universal system, where powers and ability exist and are described and costed. Teach people how to play, and then say, "hey, if you like this, we can show you how to do this and so much more!"
Can I borrow your notes? I was late for Professor Bushido's class and missed almost the whole thing.
I did something similar on Facebook, but was a "Which superhero game do you play" poll. Champions came out on top, followed by V&V and M&M. I was a bit surprised.
I'm changing my above answer. One of my goals over the next few years is to play/run more Hero... Champions in particular. I have two campaigns that I'm going to start working on, and a slew of characters to convert. But I'm going to run it, and maybe make Hero my "go-to" system once again.
From what I remember, yes it was a player centric movement, but it wasn't so much about Cruel GM's as it was a reaction against Cruel Dice, and the ubiquity of dice based resolutions. The first system I remember coming out was Amber Diceless. It seems to be a reaction against bad due rolls ruining their character's star moment. IT was also against the disposability of characters in early D&D in low levels. (Uncharitably, is was a reaction from whiney actor types that didn't get or like the mechanics, which led to minimalism).
A lot of people want less variance in their games. Less emphasis on dice can do this. One of the things that keeps me from wanting to run one of the narrative games is that there isn't much in the way of a solid bases to make rules decisions. I like system gives me a wide variety of tools to cover most situations and I can go from there, instead of the narrative take of, "meh just make it work". It gives the players a concrete sense of what to expect.
Fate's vague power system makes my eyes roll when I can just build the power in Hero and it does what I want with wiggle room for creative uses of the power. That said, even after 35 years of gaming, I'm not above learning new tricks and using cool ideas from other games, they have some really good ideas in them. Certainly not for everybody, but they're fun (for a lot of players) and with a solid foundation like hero to fall back on, they kind of sing.
I am not a huge fan of the more heavily narrative systems but I do get frustrated by the 40 year-old game skeleton of the HERO System. There are things to learn from what has happened in the gaming world in those decades.
In Spectaculars there are environmental elements that need to be addressed. powers work narratively some if the time and not in others - for example, SpiderGuy can (narratively) swing down and gum up all the CCTV with his webshooters but looking to hinder BigBadMonster needs (more gamist) engagement with the mechanics. There were disconnects in the system for me but I hit a more heavily superheroic "feel" to the game more often than I do playing Champions.
HERO has focused so heavily in balancing the power system in character creation, it has neglected making those powers feel more superheroic during play. I have ideas and trying to put them into words, and when they are good enough, I will share them.
Rules for escaping from a building fire, if they were written by some of the AD&D parties I ran campaigns for back in the early 80s.
https://universeodon.com/@UncleDuke1969/109847699322241496
We finished S1 of a couple of different HBOMax series last night.
Oh Hell: This German dark comedy is about a young woman whose life is unstable at least partly because she uses lies as her main method for building relationships with other people. It's funny and sad and hilarious and horrifying. I hope they make a season 2 for it.
Avenue 5: This comedy is set on a space cruise-ship that ends up having to take its vacationing passengers the long way around our solar system. It works pretty well at times as social commentary (sometimes light -- the big complainer is named Karen -- and sometimes more serious -- everyone in charge seems to be a fraud and the masses are being lied to constantly), but mostly it works really well as a straight-up comedy with some truly absurd (but somehow realistic) situations. I'm looking forward to starting season 2 next week.
Rules for escaping from a building fire, if they were written by some of the AD&D parties I ran campaigns for back in the early 80s.
https://universeodon.com/@UncleDuke1969/109847699322241496
That's the brilliance at the core of Champions - you don't buy what you do or how you do it, but what you accomplish.
Flying across town, whether eagle form or jet pack or self-TK, is just flight.
If some other aspect of to the special effect is something you want - like rending talons or TKing someone else - you buy those things, too, or they're glossed over, ignored or explained away.
And that was, like, 1981. Other games were all "should armor deflect or reduce damage? How can multiclassing work better? Classes or skills? Can I play a Balrog?" And Champions just casually cracked how to do a universal system.
All Things Considered reports the latest on the shoot-downs of the latest three "objects". All three reporters express disappointment at the government statement that there was nothing extraterrestrial about the objects. Mostly it's just that people loft a lot of stuff into the stratosphere, and now NORAD is looking for it.
http://m1.npr.org/2023/02/13/1156610134/the-latest-on-u-s-fighter-jets-shooting-objects-out-of-the-sky
Personally, I would be *so* tempted to troll the conspiranoids: "There is no evidence the objects were in any way extraterrestrial. They were unpowered and drifting. No energy discharges were detected, either directed or broadcast, on any frequencies, including those of human brain-waves. Remember that it is not possible, through electro-radionic technology, to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, or otherwise subvert the human will. There is no cause for alarm, no matter what you may see in the skies. Your government remains vigilant, trustworthy, and in Earthling -- I mean, human -- American-- hands."
Rules for escaping from a building fire, if they were written by some of the AD&D parties I ran campaigns for back in the early 80s.
https://universeodon.com/@UncleDuke1969/109847699322241496
What I like about those systems is that they often have fun rules that can work with lots of systems (due to their loosely goosey nature), and I steal them! 😁 Flashbacks are a really cool idea for Heists, Clocks give my players a way of seeing the narrative process in an entertaining way, and "fate Points" seems to engage my players in individual scenes in interesting ways.
As a GM though I still want the concrete nature of Hero System to under pin those things. I have run rules lite hero, it's possible and fun, too.
Okay, I am going to make a stab at doing this via phone. I feel like a time traveller, just outside of reality, knowing that I am seeing and speaking to you folks right now, but you will have no perception of my communication, possibly for days....
we had a rather lengthy thread on this some months back, and I was actually _delighted_ by how civil it was, considering the staunch defense of opposing positions, and by how informative it was for both positions.
you know the technological handicaps under which I currently labor, so please forgive me for not touching on every possible point and skipping straight to what I see as the core problems that lead to both the rules bloat and the ever-increasing oppression of "must, can't, always, and never," which become increasingly common as the rules continue to expand.
Math.
No; I do not think math in itself- particularly with it being the key to all science- is the problem or even _a_ problem. In fact, I would like to take a moment to point out that when from time to time you hear me state "that doesn't make science," it is _not_ a typo. It _is_ a pun though, and you are just going to have to live that...
Champions is _full_ of math. One of the contributing factors is the belief that the math is significant; that the math is a fundamental part of the underlying framework that actually holds the game together-- that it is as equally important as the mechanics themselves. This is line of thinking is easy to understand: the mechanics are by and large mathematical functions, after all.
The Math _does_ have a purpose: it serves the same purpose that clocks serve in the real world: it measures the dwindling of a limiting resource. I did not say a limited resource: time will go on forever. However, everything that happens or must happens uses time: it could take ne all weekend to finish this post, for example. So this amount of time will be spent on this task, and any other task will require not just a different amount of time, but different time altogether: I cannot spend this particular scoop of time swimming down at the river. I have poured it onto the creating of this post. I must return to the time poke, ooen it, and scoop out a fresh batch of time to pour into my next task.
When the poke is empty, I have no more time. It is not limited, however; to refill it, all i need to do is live longer, and my little poke of time will continue to refill.
_I_ am limited. I will only live so long. Time will go on forever, and I can keep scooping and pouring time onto various tasks, but ultimately, I will only get so many things done. Clocks measure the time I have used, and I can roughly extrapolate the time I have remaining. We make a big deal out of clocks (which is wierd, as none of truly want to know precisely how much time we have left), but they really don't do much. The clock is not neither the limiting factor nor the enabler. On the same clock, with the same scoop of time, Usain Bolt would use far less of the scoop than I would to run a quarter mile. Time,is theblimiting factor. Time prevents me from doing everything, and the rules of time- one scoop per task- prevent from doing more than a few things all at once.
The Math in Champions is similar. It does nothing but measure a limiting resource. That resource is character points. They are not limited: characters may continue to earn them. Some characters- Superman, Spiderman, Sherlock Holmes, Conan, Buck Roger, Long John Silver- they will earn points even after their creators have run completely out of time.
However, the points are limiting. Like a poke full of time, there are only so many points available at once. All the elements upon which points can be spent have a finite cost. Points are dispensed one scoop at a time. Points mean that no one can buy everything. Eventually, the poke will,be empty, and nothing else can be purchased until that poke is refilled. Points serve as a means of ensuring that no two characters will be the same, because no one can buy everything.
At least, they couldn't until the Multipower of Everythi-- I mean, VPP- was given validity. Even then, though....
There is another limiting factor, though that even VPP cannot completely overcome: levels. Plus one. Blocks. All the points-based elements of Champions are purchased in increments. Energy Blast is bought one die at a time. Running is bought one inch at a time. Armor is bought one bit at a time.
This means there are degrees of things. Each degree has a cost. There is no enforced upper limit by the rules as presented. With the limiting factor of points cost, we have both a temptation-- how much of this characteristic would you like to purchase? How much od this power would you like your character to wield?
We have the limiting factor of the initial,scoop of points: what will you forego so that you may spend enough points to ger the level of this ability that you hope to have?
Obviously there is some math there: I must subtract the fifty points I spent from the 150 I was allowed, so that I can guide my selections as I continue through the creation progress.
That's it. That is the purpose of the math. The red herrings- in my completely and totally unprofessional opinion, mind you- come from the modifiers.
Once the points in our scoop start to run low, we can make some decisions about what we are buying. I may want to be able to fly a bit faster than I can afford to buy. What options do I have? I do not see my character patrolling the city from the skies, so perhaps I will agree to give up some not-so-good-in-combat aspect of the power. I can voluntarily relinquish the NCN that is part of the power and thus earn a sort of "discount" on the cost of this now-less-expensive version of the power. Alternatively, one could tweak their power upwards a bit: they could reduce the Endurance cost. They could declare that their power was able to better penetrate through armor.
For a lot of people, this was a sign that the math was the most important part of the game- not just damage calculation and cost tracking, but everything- the scam of the powers, the facr that they are bought in increments, the fact that there are several different kinds of powers and characteristics to buy, the fact that they could be incrementally modified-- all of these things required math, and for a lot of people, this was more significant than it should be-- well, more appropriately, they felt that it indicated something that it can't: a mathematical balance; a way to ensure that characters are "even" purely by the math.
The fact that "active points" is a thing that is tracked could be taken as some kind of proof. If the active points spent are the same, the characters are some sort of "even," right? In spite of the fact that this has _never_ held up to any kind of scrutiny, there are still a lot of Champions players that continue to either believe it true, or cling to the idea that with enough tweaking, fudging, and reformulating, it can be made to become true.
No matter what tweaks are made, Energy Blast, Flight, Force Field, and Life Support will never, ever be even. If I am falling from the skies, Flight will be the only power on that list that is remotely useful; all others are wasted points, at least in that moment. If I am tied to a ship's anchor about to be dropped into the frigid black depths of the ocean, Life Support will be king! Perhaps an Energy Blast would prevent me from getring into that situation, but here I am. I can only assume it did not help.
Even moving away from the obvious examples of completely different types of powers, we can see problems with assuming a mathematical equality. If someone is trapped behind a barrier with 10 DEF and he has used 25 of his points to buy 5d6 of Energy Blast, he is trapped there forever. Another character who has used 25 of his points to buy 2d6 of Energy Blast with Armor Piercing x3 will eventually be able to escape, and without much difficulty. Alternatively, he could have spent 23 points for 3d6 with APx2 and have escaped eventually. For less points, this character is free to fight the food fight all over again. Still spends less points than the first guy, but he isnt trapped. By the same,token, however, under the modern rules, he,could have spent 20 points on 2d6 at Zero Endurance and been able to blast away all day long, but he would have been trapped behind a mere 6DEF wall.
So this is one example, and one example only, which is easy to cherry pick, I know, but what is faster? 10 inches of flight with its NCM, or 3" of flight with enough NCM to spend equal points? If you have to race across town to stop a bomb, which is better?
50 inches of flight, or 15 inches with zero endurance cost? If you have to race across _Wisconsin_ to stop a bomb.... Well l, the cheaper, slower build will work out better for most folks.
Two charcters have a 12d6 Energy Blast. One has spent 10 more points for an additional point of Speed; the other has put those same 10 points into Endurance. Are they evenly matched? If the faster one then puts 10 more points into Skill Levels and the puts ten more into Recovery, they become even more lop-sided.
This goes on forever, of course, and needs to be brought up every now and again as a reminder that points do not and cannot Crete or enforcw balance.
But it continues to be believed that it can, even in subtle ways; the "you get what you pay for" mantra. It implies that you can spend your way to ultimate power. To use a military analogy I first heard during Desert Storm and found pretty amusing:
Multi-million dollar tanks,being taken out by barefoot goat herders with five hundred dollar rockets. We can do this all day long with Champions, if only because each charaacter concept has a strength, and owing to the inability to evrything (barring VPP), every charactyer is foing to end up particulalrly vulnerable to something else, even if it was not by design.
Then sometimes something is so skewed that everyone picks up on it. Remember the 4e Trifecta of Cobble? Couldn't find a power that did exactly what you wanted it to do? Well, most likely there was some tweaking of Transform, Desolidification, and Extradimensional Movement that could set you right up!
Want to be as invulnerable as Superman but don't have the points to buy up every kind of defense up to over the campaign limit, or dont have a GM,who has set a campaign limit? No sweat! Desolidification: only versus Damage! Desolidification only versus Mind Control! That's pretty sweet.
I will let you in on a secret: you will recall that I have said numerous times that I have backported a few things from newer editions? Forty-point Desolidification was one of them. I didnt own 3e until until the twenty-oughts, and to this day I cant tell you if 40 pt Desolid was a 3e or a 4e thing, but in 1 and 2e, Desolid was a movement power. It was some of the late-run abuses of Desolid that convinced me to abandon that and return it to a movement power. Now don't misunderstand: I had no issue with using it for a very tight sort of invulnerability, at least initially: the king of the fire elementals probably _should_ be immune to fire-- that sort of thing. But using it to let a normal human ninja "Dodge" a 40-hex AoE Autofire attack of any SFX and still be in the same hex at full CV right after was a bit much, I think.... Of course, your mileage may vary, and if that works in your campaigns, then I encourage you to do it; if your having fun- if the whole group is having fun- then you are doing it right, no matter what you are doing.
Interesringly, such builds were endorsed by the guy who wrote the last couple of rules sets, in spite of also writing that the most expensive option is the correct option. Going to points equals balance: if there are two options to do one thing and the costs are significantly different, how do points enforce balance?
Another one from the Trifecta, and also endorsed by the current rules custodian, was Extradimensional Movement. Why buy any powers at all When you can stand before Takofanes and shift to the dimension where you just fisnished kicking his butt? It is _definitely_ less expensive than buying other powers that could be used to defeat him. Problematically, it means that all of your friends are out of the game as they are now NPC copies,of themselves (and What do you so about the version of you that just took out Takofanes? Arm wrestle to see who gets to stay and be you? For some reason, though, such builds solve these problems by refusing to adress them at all.
Essentially, these are endorsed rules that in one way or the other violate at least the spirit of the rules, and all-too-often, the letter of the rules in those editions that state you must use the most expensive possibility (which is most often doing it with Major Transform: Major Transform from super villain to supervillains who has taken 3d6 normal damage, and that power itself bought through a VPP, but no; we dont enforce that, either.
Well, if nothing else, we demonstrated that 40 pts of expenditure for Desolid can negate 200 pts of an attack. Points do not translate to balance.
We have also established that the rules are kind of a mess, and that adding lots of new rules and mandates hasnt really helped that.
But given that there is math, and points to use it upon, and formulae with which to calculate discounts and additional charges for various custom builds.... Well, with all of that, and with so many people who enjoy math for its own sake... Well, it is inevitable that some folks should reach the conclusion that somehow, this proves there is a mathematical balance within this game.
But let's look at those things from a different perspective.
Points are a way to prevent any one character from starting with everything. If a campaign runs long enough, he may earn enough points to dabble in every possible power, but as most people don't want their character totally eclipsed by people who have a greater amount of some ability, a player is not likely to spread out too far beyond where he started; most will pick up another power or ability they really wanted for the concept but could not, without an unacceptable sacrifice elsewhere, purchase during character generation. For the most part, they will continue to focus on what they percieve as core traits for this character, and,even "non-core" elements will be increased more slowly than the core items.
This changes a bit with VPP: a character now _can_ start with every single possible power. (This is one of the reasons I find VPP to be something of a step backwards for the core rules) Still, he is limited in quantity by the amount of points he has available, as all abilities are bough in small increments. (Except for the changes to size powers, which are now bought in large-step "templates," and which I also find to be a step backwards- or at least out-of-synch- with the core rules. One does not buy "super amazingly strong!," but instead buys a quantified amount of Strength, which may be greater or lesser than the amount bought by someone else. This leads me think the credo should be "you get what you paid for, and not one single thing else." Unless, of course, you have a VPP, but even then: you only have X much of every possible thing.
So it is possible that the points only exist to impose a limit on what you can buy at any given moment; it is possible they were never reslly intended to balance characters with each other, but to ensure that those characters were finite in all things, and thus able to be challenged.
It is possible that the math imposed by power modifiers was created because it seemd just that a less-effective version of the power should not cost as much, or that a more effwcrive version of the power should cost more. It may well be that this, too, has nothing to do with mathematical value, but as something of a means to reinforce the idea that the characters should be finite, and thus challengeable. A character wanting an edge to his power must choose between that edge or the things he could,but with the points that must now be spent for his upgrade. A character choosing to self-limit himself by purchasing a weaker version of the power four himswlf with a few points available to spend elsewhere. Self-imposed limits are rewarded; increasingly power up abilities are penalized. While many folks see this as further proof that mathematical balance is possible, or was an original intention, it can equally prove the hypothesis that all the math and numbers do is to ensure that characters are limited in some way, to encourage self-limiting, and to allow for increased efficiency without discouraging it, but while ensuring that it would be limited by reducing the amount that could be purchased at any given time.
A lot is said about Active Points, and how Active Points are the key to mathematical balance. However, it is also possible that Active Points are necessary-- that they even exist at all- exclusively because they are necessary for the formulae of the various Power Modifiers. Take the basic cost (initisl active points) and multiply by (1+total,advantages 'costs') and you get the new active points. You need this number to then apply limitations and get the final cost.
Suppose that is all it is? A unique name for a term that you need every time your character tweaks his powers or spends some XP? Do you remember that power level comparison that was publsihed years and years ago? I can't remember if it was from a magazine or an,update or from GSVC at the moment, but every single person who remembers it remembers using it, and I am willing to bet that my group was not the only group that had fun skewring its validity by "proving" that out equivalent of someone like Leroy was an even match for someone like our equivalent of Doctor Doom. When it was published, we already had a few years of using Champions for other genres as well, and we had great fun proving "mathematical equality" between Doc Holliday and Mechanon and things like that.
And I bet you that some of the very same people who did that themselves are in the "points can be used to determine balance" camp today.
Yes; we were talking about power modifiers and,the infinite branching. Still, it was important to explain that points have yet to be proven to be what a large portion of the fandom wants them to, and that this may well be because they never were that thing, regardless of what any original intentions were, but that there is a thing that they always have been, and may well have always been.
So we have taken a brief look at Math and Champions as a possible contributor to rules bloat. How so? If you recall, the original rules way back when suggested building custom limitations by looking at extant limitations and find one that seems to limit in the same way or to a similar extent. This can go two ways: do what the rules suggested, and model off the limitation that _feels_ similar in limitation, _or_, as seems to have been what happened, try to mathematically,determine what percentage of possible uses for the power are limited, and what percentage of possible uses your proposed limitation will prevent, and price the value of that limitation accordinf to the results of that math.
Now I feel that it is important to say that I understand that. It is both understandable against the existence of all the math already in the game, and it is verifiably "fair," at least in a mathematical sense. It also completely ignores two things: which one _seems_ right, and what is the nature of the campaign?
Every edition (I think; I only read 6e once and do not specifically remember this about that rules,set) has paid some kind of lip service to the idea that assumptiins about the specific campaign _will_ change the value of some power modifiers. Then it proceeds to give no useful detail. We do the same,thing on this board: I have seen people ask for suggstions on the value of a proposed custom modifier and I have seen dozens of people suggest answers. I almost never see someone ask for the leasr bit of information about the game in which rhe limitation s to be used. (Hugh tends to be better about this than the rest of us are. Yes: "us." I am as guilty as anyone else. Except Hugh. He doesnt do it all the time, but he does it more rhan the rest of us).
Why does this matter? It shapes thinking. It keeps at the rop of the mind the fact that power modifiers are _flexible_.. They sont have to be exactly what they say they are. Better Still, you can apply that to both ends of the modifier!
And That brings us to the next issue.
Semantics.
This is also something that we have discussed before, but since it is not math, and since it is subject to a hundred interpretations, it gets quickly tossed aside in favor of quantifiable, reliable, repeatable math. The same math that demonstrates regularly that it is not the key to the game.
My favorite example- and no; I am not opening up this topic for yet another rehash- is Only in HERO Identity. Going by the semantic rule of custom modifiers, we find that our desired new custom limitation "only in X identity." It seems equally as limited: the character will have to assume some other identity to access any power with this limitation. The Semantics part of the rules- the "feels" rules, have been satisfied. The Math part of the rules says 'well, how difficult is it to assume that form? How often will he not be able to assume that form? How does that compare to the frequency of being unable to assume his HERO Identity?
The problem with semantics is they arent math. For whatever reason, Champions draws in the math crowd, and the fandom reinforces the over-exaggerated importance of the math (there is a lot of false evidence that supports this, as we discussed above) and the equally-important semantics part of the rules are lost, and pushed further and further from the core with each subsequent edition.
Don't believe me? In six linear editions, we have fone from "change anything you want to suit your games" to "don't change the things I changed already" in the latest edition. In the interest of accuracy, it is _try_ not to change the things that I changed, but given that I disagree with pretty much all of those changes, it's just best for me not to use it all, and to revignize that any subsequent editions have already moved away from my interest, fanboy or not.
So how does that lead to rules bloat?
In our earlier discussion on the semantics portion of the rules and their importance, and especially their relevance to to power modifiers, we discussed the fact that not everyone is going to interpret a specific bit of language the same way. We estsblished the fact that this lack of sameness makes some people uncomfortable. Interestingly, I find it wonderful. I _love_ seeing an interpretation that differs from my own. It is both inspirational ("how did I not see that?!") and introspective (do I still think my interpretation is valid in light of this viewpoint?" Note 'valid' as opposed to 'the one correct solution'.). I love it as both an opporrunity to learn more- or gain more insight into- the game and as a means to customize individual campaigns just by slanting the understanding a certain way. (That one is a bit harder to explain, and it is off-topic enough that at this point- my third day wroking on this single post- that I am not foing to go into that right now.)
So how does that lead to rules bloat? Going back to my,favorite example power modifier: only in her ID is, essentially, only in X ID. For example, I have Ghost Rider who has all of his powers as Only in HERO ID, but the Wildman has "only in werewolf form. The fact is that not everyone will make this leap- will not realize that this is the same limitation. Still others may realize that this _is_ the same limitation, but in spite of the rule saying "it's Okay to roll your own," they just can't bring themselves to use anything that doesn't have Marlboro on the box. (Do they still make Salems, or have Newports completely eclipsed them? I don't smoke, so I haven't paid much attention.) So a minority is unable to see possible off-brand uses for this medication, whike a larger minority- or perhaps even a majority- aren't comfortable,usinf something that isn't specifically for the treatment of their particular illness. They can either focus on the math, sinve it _should_ be the same from person to person, or they can ask for more rules.
Remember that "only in HERO ID" took a single sentence to explain initially; three or four in 2e (where they felt it necessary to point out that this means the character has two identities and must change between them, and that something might be able to prevent him,from assuming his other identity).
Whatever the reason, the general lack of interest or ability to apply this limitation in a slightly different way led to Multiform. We went from a very short paragraph of rules to a page and a half of rules that do the same thing. Now dont get me wrong: I don't blame those uncomfortable with the semantics exclusively; to some point, I blame the minmax guys a bit for this one, too. They knew good and well what the rebate was for Only,in X ID, and somehow convinced the powers that be that it should be pushed up to a -4 Limitation. That is what Multiform boiled down to, at least in the 4e incarnation: one point for 5 is a -4 Limitation. We Now find a newer rule that violates the "most expensive" rule, and Dude, it _destroys_ it.
Something that does not recieve enough attention, likely because it isn't math, and therefore is not interesting to large portion of the fans then or now: Multiform _proved_ something suggested by Only in HERO ID.
There was no additional charge for having a brand new form. The character paid only for the powers and abilities that form granted him. A crippled doctor (in Champions, a Skilled normal, with a physical Limitation) became a Norse God- big, tall, beautiful, not crippled- for _zero_ cost. Multiform was identical in that respect: your new form cost _nothing_. You paid only for the abilities that form granted you. In the examples,given in the 4e text was a character who changed into different animals- he literally became a hawk (or an eagle- it was a bird of some kind) and ... Was it a dinosaur? It was something big. And doing this cost him _nothing_. He paid (at substantial discount) only for the powers he gained in that form- you know: the powers he had _only in that identity_.
The reason Only,in HERO ID is my favorite example is,because of just how far this cognitive split has run in the history of the game. The examples given for OIHID in the original works implied there was no charge for a new form in and of itself: Ghost Rider doesn't pay to be a flaming skeleton; he pays for the boost to his Presence.
This makes sense. When you make your character, you dont pay to be an alien or a human or a particular ethnicity or a cyborg or a rock monster or a being of living electricity or a robot. You pay only for the in-game abilities you gain in that form. Just because,your character is a robot doesnt mean that you must buy imortality or need not breathe; you only pay for what you intend to use in-game. But again, that is a different conversation.
Still, there were people who were either unable to make the leap, or who were not comfortable with assuming the connection they saw was valid. Still others were not comfortable bevause the connection was not made with math. Because of all of these things, and possibly more, Champions III introduced the second-most convoluted rules for shapeshift ever published under the HERO imprint. For the first time, you had to pay for what you were, even before any abilities were bought to go with that form /shape / whatever you would care to name it.
I would like to point out two things at this point:
1) those rules sis _not_ make it into 4e. I do not think they made,it into 3e (like 6e, I read it once, after buying it, but that was it). I susoect they didn't simply because the bulk of the membership here seems,to have discovered the game during the 3e era and were excited when 5e "finally introduced" rules for shapeshift.
I have to wonder about some things at this point. See, for _decades_ we used "only in appropriate ID" to build shapeshifters. It was based on OIHID, and, as per the semantics portion of the modifiers rules, we would vary the cost according to the number of "shapes" that could access the power and how difficult it might be to access or be prevented from assuming that shape.
Here's a ludicrous example:
A Transformer, in car form, has stopped to pick up two humans stranded,in the combat zone. As he accelerates away to speed them to safety, he is ambushed! So he has a choice: does he remain a car and try his best to escape, or does he twist, bend, and unfold himself into his humanoid combat-monster form and counter attack, knowing that the transformation process will crush to death the squishy humans he carries inside? Or does he eject them and leave them to their own devices, trapped between two Decepticons and their very large feet so that he can turn and fight?
It could happen. Something could prevent him from assuming his alternate form. (Slightly-related sidenote: this was the greatest Champions /Robot Warriors hybrid campaign in which I ever played!).
2) what would have happened if....
Back in the heyday of the RPG hobby, there we're _lots_ of third-party gaming magazines. There were lots of house mouthpieces as well, but the third party ones were my favorite. While it was frustrating to sift through three or four issues to find even a word about your favorite games, they also exposed you to games that you might not have otherwise heard about. That's how I discovered SpaceMaster, actually. For those who arent familiar with it, it was the sci-fi version of RoleMaster, which was the fantasy game that introduced their house system, which I have lovingly come to call "ChartMaster."
These magazines also provided other people exposure to the games,_I_ loved, and most oublishers happily took advantage of that.
During the 2e era of Champions, George McD and Steve Perrin- names that I do not think need explaining to this crows, in spite of what is likely some horrible misspellings- published an article in Different Worlds magazine- one of the many third party magazines, and one that I had a particular fondness for (it oublished more non-DnD adventure scenarios that any other third party book, and is in fact the source for the Star Devourer adventure that has been bootlegged all over the net for thirty years now. That article was a series of Champions write-ups for the New Teen Titans. This team had a shapeshifter, one who could turn into any sort of animal. This was accomplished by purchasing several powers and several "+X" amounts of characteristics, all with the limitailtion "only in appropriate form."
That was it, no charge for the individual forms, just foe the powers they granted. I recall a long time back posrinf an excerpt of that write-up to this board surinf yet another Shapeshift declaration. I say declaration, because they havent been discusssions in a long time: it is two sides, each telling thebother why they are the right side-- and guess what?! They are basing that argument on math! Or at least numbers. On the idea that you _must_ pay for the SFX of being in a given form. In spite of the fact that no other power requires that you pay for the SFX. In spite of the fact that from character generation to OHID to Multiform, no one has ever had to pay for their forms, even if they had more than one.. In spite of the fact that two of the original creators demonstrated that you do not.
And that's what I wonder: if that article had been publsihed in Adventurers Club, or White Dwarf, or Dragon, or better!- a special supplement or a crossover adventure module! The Guardians meet the New Teen Titans! Some place other than a consistently-good but under-circulated third-party magazine; some place that more then- and future-players would have seen it, what would have happened? Would we even have Multiform? Would we have than most convoluted rules for shapeshift ever published under the HERO imprint? Would it have done anything other than delighted the Thirteen Ghosts (the unofficial name that Straight John gave to our gaming group) by showing us that we were doing it "the official way?"
We will never know, of course, because it didnt happen, unless we EDM to the dimension where it did.
Instead, we slowly moved the focus of the rules away from the semantic more and more, and into the math. At some point, someone declared "you get what you pay for," and the focus has been numbers-first ever since. (For the record, though: do you get what you pay for? If you pay for 12d6 RKA, Autofire x5, zero END, AoE: Cone so that you can take out wave after wave of opponents, you have paid _a lot_ to get that. You are Der Stuka; you are the God of Death. You can do this in any edition, actually. And in 2e, you can be completely useless against a character with ten points of Desolidification. In later editions, that cost rises to to 40 points, but it is still significantly less than you paid to be the grim reaper. Did you have enough points left to stave off the beating you are about to get? You paid to not have to deal with a melee-style butt whoopin', but you didnt get that.
We focus more and more on points and we accept rule after rule intended to bring closer and enforce something that objectively never existed and subjectively seems to have never even been the point of the numbers to begin with, and we move further and further away from what _feels_ like the original goal. It gets easier to do with every step we take away from the semantic: we are making it less important with each new stab at the numbers.
We have more and more modifiers for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the,creeoing inclusion of "will must only" that at one time did not exist. This works,_against_ the semantic portion of the rules- the part that says "find something that seems appropriate and model your idea on that." More and more we see "only this" and,"only that" and this mandates that. Well, if we want to model something new and similar but not quite the same, seeing "this can only" is going to have a larger impact on those mentioned above: those who are shaky on their interpretations or who are not comfortable intuiting from an existing pattern. They are eddectively being more shut out; the creative process is being discouraged and replaced with more math: split modifiers each have their own values, established for you, and the rules now say "change anythinf you want, but try not to change the new changes." I can only come,up with onw statement more discouraging for the uncertain, but we will have to wait foe the seventh edition to,see it print, I think.
I do not want to seem uncharitable about the ever-growing list of modifiers: I am in favor of snything that helps those less comfortable with doing something without guidance. Realistically, it is entirely possible- in would go so far as today _equally possible_ that someone not comfortable acting without any sort of guidance to arrive at a limitation vakue of -2 when someone else arrives at -1/2.
So on the one hand, a slew of new modifiers may make it _easier_ for a player to create his own custom,modifier; the odds are better that he can,find somethinf similar to what he has in mind- he may even find _exactly_ what he has in mind. I cannot find fault with this. The inclusion of "can't only must" in so much of the material, though, is a bit discouraging of tinkering, and ultimately I think it creates its own need for even _more_ ultra-specific modifiers, which will no doubt arrive with their own extensive pages of can't only must.
Each bit of that- each bit of can't only must serves to move the focus away feom individual creativity and simultaneously creates a need for even more specific rules to replace the lost abilities once held by flexing the existing ones just a bit. A lot of us old guys routinely point out that Champions is so old that it's wargame roots are still visible. If we keep cutting creativity and forcing specific usage and interpretations, we will go full circle and end up right back there, with no need- or at least no room- for creativity anywhere outside of tactics. It was only- what? Two days ago that Old Man suggested board games powered by HERO? I won t lie: I was sort of excited by the idea, having used an old Judge's Guild module to build a Super Agents board game once. I was quite happy with how it came out, but I missed the RP elements.
in summation:
math has inflexible rules and every permutation of math is covered by its set of rules as well as the rules of how numbers will interact with each other. The more we stress The math of HERO, the more inflexibke rules we need for the game to make sure the math works out. I would be fine with this, if I had ever bought,into the idea that mathematical balance determining game balance was ever the point of the math, actually possible, or remotrly desirable.
okay.
three days, to include the best possible proofreading I could inflict considering the interface I am forced to use.
do feel free to tear it to shreds, but be kind enough to keep in mind that it is presented as nothing more than an opinion piece, and an honest attempt to address,Ninja-Bear's question.
Why all the effort? To insult or smear the direction the game has gone?
No, and,I would think that "obviously not" would be a free one conclusion. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I might disagree with a lot of what Stebe has done, but he did the thing that none of the rest of us could, amd made HERO viable again, at least for a while. I have too much respect for someone who would do that (even those who would but could not) to simply dump on them. That is not what any of this was about, and if that is all you got,from it, well, that says more about you than I ever could.
All of this effort was for one reason, and,one reason alone: in spite of the number of times,we have disagreed, I _like_ Ninja-Bear, and I respect him and his contributions to this forum. I wanted to give him rhe best potential answer (remember I am no more privy to official thinking than most of the rest of you are) that I could.
I hope I have done that, and I hope you are all abke to apprexiate that I did my best to answer potential questions that might be raised, and that I am not interested remotely in composing this much via this interface ever again, and so will liekly not reply to any in-depth questions about this post. I am sorry, but this was tedious and exhausting, and it is going to take a week for my eyes to uncross.
I always assumed it was because the game,was released in 1980, and that was just knid of par,for the course. And of course, because the focus was meant to be superpowers, and the onlt skills originally,offered were all very "Batman has these skills"
Yes, but I need to point out for rhose who dont want to read that thread that I usually do it for opposed rolls.
I find,it saves a bit of time, and that players are happier rolling they dice than they are when the GM rolls them.
That last sentence is worth its wait in gold. It took me _years_ to figure that out: players would rather have to take an extra couole of whacks at a beefier, tougher opponent than to miss him with every third attack roll.
Joe Walsh reacted to drunkonduty in How many Player-related NPCs?
Joe Walsh got a reaction from Steve in Is Hero still your "go-to" rpg system?
Joe Walsh got a reaction from Duke Bushido in Is Hero still your "go-to" rpg system?
Joe Walsh got a reaction from Lawnmower Boy in Funny Pics II: The Revenge
Joe Walsh got a reaction from Starlord in What Have You Watched Recently?
Joe Walsh got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Funny Pics II: The Revenge
