Vurbal

Re: What Do Active Points Represent To You?

Waaaaaay to much work, for very little utility.

 

AP, RP, Advantages and Limitations are one of the big fundamentals. You can't play with one without playing with all the rest. You would be better off to start from scratch and develop your own hero-type game.

That certainly occured to me, and I should probably mention that I see this as more of a theoretical issue since it's only worth putting so much work into. I also wouldn't worry about it for superheroic games because a couple of points here and there (either active or real) don't make all that much difference. I'm primarily looking at it from the POV of someone who mostly plays heroic level, where a little bit of added granularity can make a big difference.

In reality it wouldn't necessarily require a complete rewrite of the system, but it would probably require something of a reverse engineering to come up with more basic components to build powers from. The big problem is that attack powers in particular would need to have a base cost built from scratch using a system that more or less results in the same values the system currently uses (which I find to be generally as balanced as you can get).

I'll have to think on the subject more, which is fine since that's the kind of thing I normally do to clear my head out at work.

One of my favorite things about Hero is the differentiation between active and real points. To me active points represent the maximum potential of a power. The one place I see a problem with this model is when you completely remove part of a power's mechanical effect. When you do that, assuming my model of active points as maximum capability, it would seem to make more sense to apply a limitation to the base points before applying advantages.

For example, let's say you build a fairly straight forward Energy Blast with the No Range limitation. No matter what circumstances you use this power in it will never be usable at range, but it will have the same active points as if it were. Compare that to an EB with a limitation like OIHID that won't be available all the time, but when it is available will be every bit as effective as if it didn't have the limitation.

On one hand active points don't make as much difference to me as they once did since I haven't played in a game that used AP limits to balance characters in years. OTOH they still make a difference with respect to frameworks. And of course the END is an issue as well. The No Range EB from the example above costs just as much END as one that's ranged. Assuming you're putting advantages on you'll also have a difference in real points.

I can see why the system works the way it does - for the sake of simplicity, but simplicity isn't everything. If it was we wouldn't have active points at all. I also realize that not every example of this would be equally simple to modify. If you apply the No Range limitation to the base cost of an EB it's a nice, clean 3 AP per die. OTOH maybe you want an EB that isn't ranged and also doesn't do BODY. Applying a 3/4 limitation still gets you a base cost of 3 AP per die, whereas it would give you a bigger difference in real cost if applied normally. In fact you could get some very strange results if you consider the following:

The Normal column indicates real cost after a -3/4 limitation and the second indicates the real cost for adjusting the base EB cost by -3/4. Half dice are assumed to be 2 AP.

        Normal | Base Adj
       --------+----------
1/2d6      2    |     2
1d6        3    |     3
1 1/2d6    4    |     5
2d6        6    |     6
2 1/2d6    7    |     8
3d6        8    |     9

You could fix it by making it 5 AP per 2d6, but that doesn't really feel right because you spend a different number of points for another die, depending on whether you currently have an odd or even number and it adds even more complexity:

        Normal | Base Adj
       --------+----------
1/2d6      2    |     2
1d6        3    |     3
1 1/2d6    4    |     4
2d6        6    |     5
2 1/2d6    7    |     7
3d6        8    |     8

So do you think this is too much work for too little reward? Is it even worth worrying about? If so, is this the best solution or is there a better way to handle it?

Edit: Another thought is that this is simply a side effect of powers having multiple effects and there's no good way to deal with it unless you break the system down into smaller building blocks. Normal attack powers in particular have basic characteristics of being ranged or not and adding to STR or not. Logically, a ranged attack should require a bigger END expenditure than an attack with no range, but in Hero terms it doesn't. In 4th Ed this works out fine for hand attacks because they're only 3 AP per die, but STR damage is still at the full 5 AP per die. Since that also gets into the issue of whether STR is underpriced (which I'm not really trying to get into here) I won't follow that line of reasoning any further.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

I'm Qualified To Satisfy You - The Dirtbombs

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

Water - The Who (from Live At The Isle Of Wight Festival 1970)

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

It'll Be A Long Time - The Offspring

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

Liberation - Chicago Transit Authority

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

Mach 1 - Ronnie Montrose

I love that song - and in fact the entire Speed Of Sound album.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

The Duelists - Iron Maiden

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

The Attitude Song by Steve Vai just ended. Now Lily, Rosemary, and The Jack of Hearts by Bob Dylan is on.

Re: Characteristic power NCM

Are you naming them after the Seven Dwarves?

Perhaps after Star Trek characters? (8^D)

As amusing as that would be the boss might not approve. But my home network has a Simpsons theme.

Re: Characteristic power NCM

Precisely, and since the rules state that NCM doubles that cost, and Von D-Man won't allow someone to purchase the normal stat to that doubling value, thus, he has changed the value of NCM. House Rule.

 

But again, it doesn't matter whether one considers it a House Rule or not, it doesn't change how GM's will run NCM in thier games. However, if the majority of GMs are having to change NCM from it's default state in the rules every time, then perhaps NCM needs to be looked at.

 

And to clarify again for everyone. I think the best solution is move the text about the NCM Disadvantage (again, the one worth points), to the optional rules section, like Hit Locations. It's still in the main rule book, but in a more appropriate category. That would be ideal, but considering it just gets a mention under Age Disadvantage and isn't a separate entry, I don't see any harm in leaving it there either. Also, it should have a Caution Sign since it does lend to Double Dipping or Not Being Worth The Points Gained from it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Apparently my disagreement was based on my misreading his post. Somehow I thought he was saying he uses NCM the way you normally do in a Heroic level game (ie everyone has it), which would make my comments correct. Since he didn't actually state that I agree with you completely.

That's what I get for responding to posts while I'm renaming all the computers at work

Re: Characteristic power NCM

The GM is free to set any limit on Characteristics that he likes' date=' just as he's free to set any limit on anything else that doesn't fit in his setting. Deciding on the limits is a basic part of the GM's job when he puts together his campaign.[/quote']

Exactly

Re: Characteristic power NCM

Actually, after thinking about it a little more, I don't consider Von D-Man's approach to even be an application of NCM. What he's really doing is using the NCM values as campaign limits and being restrictive with the Characteristics power.

Re: Characteristic power NCM

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Is it that Von D-Man's approach is a House Rule?

I don't see how it can be viewed any other way. The text in the book specifically states that NCM Disadvantage requires that the cost is doubled for any stat that is over 20. I don't even see any suggestions that the GM may optionally rule that this limit may not be exceeded. There are other precedents in the book for this kind of GM Optional rule, but it is absent from the NCM Disadvantage text.

 

So the default rule in the book is that the cost is doubled if the character exceeds the NCM limit. Any alteration to that would logically be a House Rule.

 

However, having gone back and reread the text specifically on the NCM Disadvantage, I need to amend something I said. The current rules do not actually have the NCM Disadvantage listed like it was in 4th Edition. It is mentioned in the Heroic Games section and the only mention of it actually being a Disadvantage (worth points), is for Champion level games. And this was mentioned under the Age Disadvantage. Therefore, they've just about eliminated it from the current rules (as far as building a character). If they were to just move it to the Optional Rules section, it would make more sense.

 

So I don't see what the big deal about it being moved or even removed. There is scant little information about it in the book as it is and it isn't even a separate entry anymore and I had to hunt to find it.

 

Anyway, Von D-Man's house rule is perfectly valid and I don't have problem with it. But it is a house rule as far as I'm concerned. Others may differ, and that's okay since it really doesn't change anything.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

What you consider a house rule I consider a parameter of a specific game or setting. IOW if you're running a game where no one has NCM theoretically there is no upper limit to characteristics. In reality there are very few games where you'd be allowed to have a character with a STR of 200. That doesn't make capping the value at 60, 70, or whatever value you like a house rule. The rules don't allow or disallow a particular range of characteristics. That's a function of the setting, group, and/or GM. OTOH the cost of characteristics, with or without NCM, is determined by the rules so changing that would be a house rule.

Re: Characteristic power NCM

Yes. Precisely. This illustrates my point. You made a House Rule that overrides the current rules to make it "work fine" for your games.

 

I think I've read many posts over the years on how GMs have made house rules to make the NCM Disadvantage work for them.

 

Of course this may skew how many actually have a problem with NCM vs those who use it as is, but the arguements remain about the Double Dipping and A Disadvantage That Isn't Disadvantageous Is Worth No Points.

 

- Christopher Mullins

I disagree. Going over NCM limits is always a GM discretion buy. It just happens that most games happen to allow it automatically. Buying powers that aren't standard for a particular game is also normally a GM call. I think Von D-Man's approach is a perfectly logical interpretation of the existing NCM rules, albeit stricter than is commonly applied.

Re: Characteristic power NCM

I think whether characteristic powers should be subject to NCM limits depends on the context. In a fantasy game where one player has to pay NCM cost for higher characteristics because he's a half giant I probably wouldn't consider it fair for a wizard to be able to avoid the extra cost because he raises his characteristics magically. OTOH in a cyberpunk game where everyone has access to implants that would raise characteristics to above NCM level I don't see a problem.

Where it becomes trickier is in games that don't use NCM as a default. As long as the characteristic powers aren't going to stop the NCM from being enough of a problem to justify the cost I don't see a problem. That might mean that the value of NCM should be adjusted for that character. It might also mean that the GM needs to put more emphasis on situations where NCM will be an issue.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now?

Just Can't Wait - The J Geils Band

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

I would disagree to a degree in that as stated above, if we're agreeing to play a "semi-realistic supers campaign," (PS/EDIT - which is the type that can have confusion on this subject) nothing is begging us to have this kind of discussion at all. In practice, sure, it will happen if a PC dies, though regardless of whether by accident (some ignominious hit, and as you realize many GMs hate to fudge and simply never do) or purposefully (in terms of it being a clear life-and-death situation), and quite possibly without a forethought as to how that might play out or that we would be having this conversation. So this at least makes it explicit that we must agree on what's going to happen, that it isn't a GM decision based on setting (per se, though of course that can be a GM-requested point of entry into the campaign), solely, nor is it a matter of me being able to reintroduce a dead PC simply because, after all, I did pay points.

 

That being said, I was just saying that I have no problem with that approach. I would think that ideally such a discussion would be somewhere around the length of the one in GURPS or longer but address this in regard to Transform, Followers (well, the system already does in suggesting the GM play the Follower, though I actually give that to the player), and the like in a unified manner.

Fair enough. I tend to think in terms other than supers because I don't really every get the chance to play it. I can see where someone who wouldn't think to ask that question might be fine with playing in a supers game using nothing but 5ER.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

Bear in mind, it's just about setting expectations and being sure the play group at least can find a way to reach consensus if needed. It's about addressing the topic at a high level.

 

Personally, I would have no problem indicating it's a shared GM-player decision and shouldn't violate the logic of the particular campaign. That right there sets a stage for players and GM to understand each other's roles in all such situations fairly well, and (to me) is the "HERO way."

While I don't disagree that a statement like that would be fine, it doesn't really answer the question of what happens when a character dies. It's just mentioning that the question should be asked. I suppose I can see why you might look at it as an omission, but if you don't already realize the question is there the basic Hero toolkit probably isn't enough for you to play the game you want, so once again I'd it more appropriate to discuss in a genre or setting book.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

I think that's where the fallacy begins. No matter what' date=' players basically have to buy into a certain game physics. And part of that game physics in HERO is a significant emphasis on rationality, cause and effect, and (relative to many games) a realistic sense of actions (as many say, they really like how there's no AC-style dodginess, instead it's clear that you have defenses and you have ways of avoiding being hit, they are not fudged). This in turn promotes certain types of play styles and begs certain play experiences. Don't get me wrong, what I like about HERO is that it's so well designed you can pick it apart and reconstruct and so on fairly easily; but if you start really taking a wrecking ball to BOD damage, STUN damage, distinguish PD from ED, at some level you're starting to revamp so greatly that at some point you are starting to create a new game, or at least your HERO game is nothing like most.[/quote']

I don't think I'm explaining my position very well. I'm not talking about changing the basic mechanics of the game. I'm simply talking about areas that differ between genres and settings. For example, ressurection, clairsentience, and teleportation are perfectly reasonable for most fantasy games but would probably be completely left out of most Dark Champions games. Likewise, in the Dark Champions game you're going to use your toolkit to build firearms that you wouldn't use for your fantasy game. I didn't mean to suggest this is actually a problem, just that it makes it unrealistic to think you can make a universal rule for what happens to your character after he dies because the genre and setting are the most important factors (along with the player's preferences) as to what the answer is. It might be convenient for the system to make a suggestion, but only in the context of something like a genre book - not in the main rules.

I tend to disagree. I think HERO has its most solid basis in core concepts that build up well together. So I hope that it would be fairly easy to communicate those in more detail and be clear on what those do impact in play experience, and from there the rest of the system can be written quite easily/simply. But I admit this is more of a speculation on my part than a fully-fledged theory or model.

I'm not saying they don't fit well together, just that you won't use the same pieces the same way, if at all, from one genre to another. If you were to ask me if ressurection is appropriate for a Dark Champions game I'd generally say no. OTOH for a fantasy game the answer might very well be yes. Even something as basic as an energy blast has different implications - the fantasy mage casting a fireball (which other characters probably can't do) vs. the Dark Champions vigilante with a firearm (which every character might have). The system can't provide a meaningful answer without that context. Genre books provide the context, and are therefore the appropriate place for that discussion. The mechanics have to be considered, but not by themselves.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

"Whether" you do does depend in many systems; some systems have specific rules on how to make a successor character. Some have very specific rules on how to come back' date=' which by itself makes it very clear that this decision is player-driven. Traveller has a system where characters die in creation.[/quote']

Do you have any examples of systems that are independent of a genre and setting that take that approach?

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

But task resolution is only a limited function of rules... though traditionally it is seen as the entirety of the game.

 

Rules and mechanics can (and should, I would argue) have a direct affect on the "assumptions" of the game, including the Social Contract. In fact, a system should guide the Social Contract... not just assume it takes care of itself. Three decades of dysfunctional play (satirized and hallowed at the same time by a game like Munchkin) show that undefined assumptions and an abdication of addressing the metagame around a system is flawed at best.

 

Even D&D now makes some statements (what I would say fall under the rules) that are design intent statements around "mastery" and the like. This is essentially a metarule saying that the intended play experience is one in which the players are rewarded for figuring out the best way to build a character, the best way to kill any certain monster, the best way to defeat a trap, etc. The "in game" mechanics are created with the desired "out of game" result in mind that the experienced player with the most knowledge and ingenuity with the system is "better" than the rest.

 

While I don't enjoy this type of game, I totally applaud D&D for being forthright in stating such metagame rules/design intent.

I think I understand your point now. It seems like what you're saying is that it would be useful to have more explanation of the reasoning behind rules to understand why you would or wouldn't want to use a particular option.

If that's what you mean then I can see your point. The real problem, as I see it, is that the basic rules are written to intentionally avoid leading players toward any specific decisions as to how the game should be run. Of course you're right that there is always some kind of specific reasoning for mechanics in the game, and it would certainly be useful for new players to have at least a basic understanding of that reasoning to give them a starting point for their own decisions. The problem with doing that in Hero is that it would be nearly impossible to provide that kind of information because you can't find a single unified vision of the type you mention in D&D. I suppose that's the down side to making a system that's designed to do anything. It doesn't give you a particularly cohesive vision for a specific genre.

That's why I feel that kind of information fits genre books more. A genre book can relate the possibilities in the system directly to choices a gaming group needs to make to put together an enjoyable game. IMO trying to do that with a reasonable amount of detail in the basic rules would be impossible without adding hundreds of pages unless you only provided information for a single genre.

I could go a lot further with my thoughts on this, but I'll save those for more appropriate thread.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

I don't think we can set aside metagaming' date=' necessarily, as the very act of character creation in terms of points assignment and who controls what is a metagaming act. [/quote']

While that's true, not every metagaming act is tied to the rules of the system. If you're saying that 5ER should have a section that's devoted to discussion of such issues I can see that as a valid point, although I'd argue that in the current incarnation of the Hero rules it would seem more appropriate in a genre or setting book.

However, even if we do, taking a sort of purist standponit that the character can exist in the dreams or an afterlife and be raised by a clairvoyant or the like, the fundamental question is, is a dead character "actually dead," in which case control is at the GM's option since anything the player does not control with points is anything the GM may make decisions for (really not separable from metagaming, but if we somehow wanted to asy so then we are saying that the dead PC becomes part of the environment and is no longer a PC per se), or is a dead character "only mechanically dead" but still under, ultimatley, player control (in which case, again to strip out metagaming, we are implying that psychic links and afterlifes, if campaign appropriate, empower communication and decision-making for the dead PC)? Or should it be a joint ability with mutual veto (the latter being my "vote" as it were)? Because right now the text is vague, with the implication (but it's only an implication) that such control MIGHT be shared, OR it might be genre-dependent, i.e., if the GM has allowed Resurrection and similar powers, then perhaps it's totally in the players' hands. But I believe that your guess is as good as mine. Why shouldn't the system give insight into this issue? As mentioned above, in posts prior to mine, this has implications for Transform et. al..

But I tend to agree with what Lucius seems be saying that these aren't system or rules related questions, but rather general genre/setting/rpg topics. The rules relate to this only in their inclusion of how you could bring someone back from the dead. Whether you can do such a thing wouldn't change whether you were playing Hero, D20, or GURPS. If 5ER were simply a treatise on the variety of options that should be considered ahead of time for your games or what sorts of things are appropriate to invoke the desired feel of a genre I would agree, but that's not what it is. It's instructions for using the rules to do whatever it is you want to do.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you' mean a genre, setting, or maybe even Ultimate book should include this topic I'd agree, but if you're saying it should be in 5ER I don't understand why that's any more appropriate than any other genre, setting, or personal preference specific topic

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

Multipowers and Elemental Controls. Get rid of them entirely.

Why? I could see getting rid of Elemental Controls if they still worked like they did in 4th Ed, but I consider both of those frameworks essential to many concepts I want to build.

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

Yay! Someone besides me says this' date=' too! Although I've yet to use this method, I would recommend 3d12 - just because it's easier to simply double the numbers in the book than to multiply them all by 1 2/3. And BTW, it really doesn't change the shape of the bell curve at all; it only increases the granularity, which is why I like it.[/quote']

Exactly the reasons I like the idea. Nightshade and I have talked about using this method, but we have yet to try it either.

 

But is it really a "fundamental" change?

In a way it is and in a way it isn't. It doesn't change the way those rolls work fundamentally, but moving from d6 being the only die used in the system to using a different die for a large number of rolls seems pretty fundamental to me.