Surrealone

It is, indeed, six (6) points … because the floor value for a Characteristic in 6e is one (1) point.  By the way, nice example of why six (6) points matter.  People can do a LOT with six (6) points, especially if they are practicing the principles documented and espoused by The Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (published in 2e, IIRC). (Granted, lack of figured Characteristics renders those principles tougher to adhere to, but catching the round is still quite relevant.)

I don't think anyone's ignoring the other side, at all. Instead, you're dealing with a thread entitled 'The Case for Comeliness' -- and the original poster simply has yet to successfully and coherently make his case for its superiority/necessity with regard to use in the current version of the game.

11 hours ago, Zephrosyne said:

Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

I'm a bit confused how you think that it's consistent to disallow sellbacks of OMCV on a character that has no mental powers (presumably because you see nothing limiting for the character by doing so) … but you expect the character to spend points on OMCV … for something that doesn't benefit the same character, at all.  If it's irrelevant for the character, then just as the character doesn't gain points to lower the state (because it's irrelevant), then the character shouldn't have to spend points to raise it (because it's irrelevant).

What I'm getting at is: either it's irrelevant … or it isn't.  You, however, expect points to be spent if the stat is to be raised … suggesting relevance (since in this game you're supposed to get what you pay for) … but only if the stat is being increased.  Again, either it's irrelevant or it isn't … and if it is, then the value (be it 3 or 35) should cost not a darn thing to the character … just like they get nothing back if the value is 1 or 2 (instead of 3).

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Your stated consistency is not consistent.

What, precisely, was inconsistent about the following statement I made (quoted from above)?
"If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently."

Did you, perchance, quote the wrong poster? I ask because I think you and I are saying the same thing: if something doesn't limit, then there's no points back … and if it doesn't yield benefit, then it shouldn't cost anything.  i.e. For consistency, the cost should be 0 regardless of a sellback or an increase to OMCV … in a scenario where the value of OMCV will never come into play.

On 5/10/2019 at 4:24 PM, Zephrosyne said:

I guess I can be lumped in with the other "lazy, shortsighted, and biased" gms because I wouldn't allow OMCV to be sold back either.

Does this also mean you'd allow someone who has no mental combat abilities to set OMCV to whatever they like … for 0 CP … since they can't do anything with it?

I ask to check for consistency -- because if having less OMCV has no bearing on the game (i.e. is not limiting) for a character who has no mental abilities … then having more of it also has no bearing on the game(i.e. is not beneficial) … and, thus, the player should be able to set it to whatever s/he likes for no cost since it's completely irrelevant window dressing.  (If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently.)

And if you WOULD let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost -- how is that fair to mentalists who must pay for the same stat?

And if you WOULD NOT let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost … why not … since, again, they have no mental abilities for which OMCV would matter?

On 5/13/2019 at 12:21 PM, massey said:

 

1.  Comeliness tracks well with a real life standard that most people are familiar with.  If you say "she's a 10", everybody understands what you mean.  In Hero, you just double the rating and that's your Comeliness.

2.  It allows for a lot of small gradations that isn't really appropriate for Striking Appearance.  A 12 Comeliness is cute, but it's not really enough to qualify for a skill bonus. If the girl next door gets a +1D6 on her PRE attacks because she's cute, then Kate Upton could stop a super fight in progress with a suggestive glance.  That's too much.

3.  Comeliness is a legacy of the game system, and regardless of what Hugh has said, there's value in retaining older aspects of the system.

 

Massey,
I don't believe that yields insight into why Christopher R. Taylor thinks COM is superior to SA. He put it out there, but he has yet to actually explain the rationale. At this point, I'm inclined to believe he's not responding to questions on the matter … because he recognizes he can't actually demonstrate SA's inferiority to COM … or COM's superiority to SA. 

With regard to your remarks, #1, above, doesn't make COM superior to SA … specifically because use of COM in 6e requires house rules that, through their addition, add complexity that more than offsets any simplicity gained by use of COM … because you have to add a bunch of rules and explanations that a newcomver to Hero wouldn't find in CC, FHC, or 6e v1&v2.

With regard to #2, above, I agree that you do, indeed, get small graduations from COM that you lack with Striking Appearance. However, those numerical graduations simply aren't needed for non-mechanical role-playing purposes, and I think Hugh has done a solid job of underscoring it.

With regard to #3, above, just because something is a legacy of the game system … it may not be worth keeping. As an example, I'll cite 'Elemental Control' and just leave that there knowing that someone will probably pop up to extoll the virtues of EC's while denigrating the Unified Power limitation.

13 hours ago, dsatow said:

The thing is, I truly believe something beyond charm(or seduction) is necessary as many genres has the scene where a drop dead gorgeous person walks in to a room and causes a big distraction ( ex: from Chuck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjiVu5_83WY ). 

 

 

 

dsatow,
I agree -- and believe what you speak of would be a Power … not a mere Characteristic or a Talent.  I mean, heck, people were drawn from other rooms in that vid clip -- so it was probably a mental power ("Smoking Hot") that is a non-conforming AoE … likely with limitations that allow it to only induce certain reactions … only in those attracted to women. I think you get the idea -- 'drop-dead gorgeous'-induced effects … should likely be built as Powers.  

On 5/12/2019 at 9:30 AM, Lucius said:

Some people are made happy by COM, and made unhappy by Striking Appearance. WHY this should be so is a mystery, but it cannot be denied THAT it is so.

Interestingly, those people can't seem to explain why COM is superior and Striking Appearance is inferior -- i.e. they are unable to explain why one makes them happy and the other makes them unhappy.  Perhaps it's the act of making players spend/waste points on a stat that doesn't give them any mechanical impact in the game (i.e. what they paid for) … and, worse, making them pay for the privilege of bragging rights when they could have the same bragging rights (from a RP perspective) by taking using Psychological Complications and/or Distinctive Features to get points back.

Frankly, spending points on something for which you could get points back a la Complications … isn't exactly something to brag about when considering the teaching of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (also part of the game, as you may recall).

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I continue to be unclear why you need a statistic with a point cost to role play.  If my character should be distracted by a pretty face, that is the way I will play my character.  I don't need to know "she has a 24 comeliness and yours is only 18" to play in a scenario where "she is drop-dead gorgeous and  truly out of your league".

 

It seems like you want something part way between pure role playing and a mechanic.

This. Is. Spot. On.  In fact, being distracted by pretty faces could readily be a Psychological Complication … and having a pretty face could readily be a Distinctive Feature.

The need for numbers around this to enable role-play … while bashing the mechanics of Striking Appearance … makes no sense.  People don't need stats to role-play.  

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Again, Comeliness is a role playing stat, not a mechanical one.

Did you mean to imply mutual exclusivity?   I'm asking because The Hulk's STR (which is mechanical) makes for excellent role-play, ergo, I don't personally see any distinction between role-playing stats and mechanical ones.  In fact, I see every stat as a role-playing stat, and to support that angle, I cite that we have an archetype (speedster) named after the mechanical stat (SPD), and having lots of SPD, while mechanical, also makes for good role-play (example: The Flash tidying up a room in an instant).

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

If you need the mechanics to do the job, by all means go with Striking Appearance.

What job, exactly?  Support good role-play, perhaps?  If that's the so-called 'job', then I think you need to speak to how COM is supposedly better at it than Striking Appearance.  So, I'll ask a second time:

1. How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent?
2. How (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent?
3. How, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM?

I'm asking (again) because you seem to have ignored the first inquiries ... while suggesting via your word choices and sentence structure that just because there's a well-defined mechanical apparatus ... Striking Appearance is somehow not as good as COM. If that is, indeed, what you intended, to convey, then surely you can explain the how and why of it, right?  So ... I continue to await your answers.

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

But look at what Tjack or Massey posted about how Comeliness is, or was, used in their games.  Its descriptive, not prescriptive.  Think of it like a psychological complication that comes up when the player believes that it should for their character or the GM rules is a situation where it arises rather than a task resolution system.

Striking Appearance can be used those ways, too, but instead of comparing a 24 COM to an 18 COM, you're comparing 2 levels of Striking Appearance to 1 level of Striking Appearance.  Tjack could do the same comparison, as well, and achieve the same result.

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Think of it like a psychological complication that comes up when the player believes that it should for their character or the GM rules is a situation where it arises rather than a task resolution system.

What, exactly, does an 18 COM describe that 1 level of Striking Appearance fails to describe equally as well?

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Think of it like a psychological complication that comes up when the player believes that it should for their character or the GM rules is a situation where it arises rather than a task resolution system.

This sentence seems to suggest that an 18 COM entitles a character to feel entitled to be treated as good looking just because s/he believes it should come up for his/her character … or when the GM rules there is a situation where that 18 COM arises rather than a task resolution system.  Tell me, again, why how many levels (not 1d6 effect, but actual levels of Striking Appearance) cannot be used the same way?

As a parting gift, I'll leave you with this thought:
Since COM has no in-game effect in 6e and, thus, is mechanically irrelevant, it should cost 0 CP regardless of how much of it one has … since it offers no advantage … or limitation.  Moreover, if this is to be thought of as a psychological complication that impacts behavior (see the palindromedary 's build, above) for the purpose of role play (per your own suggestion), then it should actually be a Complication for which one receives points … rather than a stat that one must pay points for … right?

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure you can use Striking Appearance if you want to; its a decent replacement for comeliness for folks who want to have mechanical rules for interaction.  But for those who want a role playing device for interaction and character behavior, and you want an aesthetic device rather than a mechanical one, Comeliness is a good alternative.  What Comeliness does is gives the game a role playing subjective game device for games where peoples' behavior and responses matter more than combat, for example.

How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent? And as a follow-up, how (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent? Moreover, how, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM?

I look forward to your responses on all three questions. (This should be good...)

Surreal

The sort of one-upmanship massey mentioned is, by the way, achievable with … (wait for it) … Striking Appearance.

14 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

1. Yes, now that COM is gone

 

2. Only 1 pt. Unless there's a good justification such as also reducing EGO.

 

3. It's only 3 pts to sell off a pt of OMCV. I'm not going out of my way to make a player regret shaving 3 pts.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I regret shaving a palindromedary. It keeps complaining about the itch as the fur grows back.

Point #2 seems to suggest that one can't have a towering will/EGO with a craptastic ability to mentally aim it at or defend against something external.  Game mechanics … say otherwise … and for good reason: it should be possible to build and play such a character.

Heck, I happen to love playing low OMCV/DMCV characters (i.e. characters with 'open', 'undirected' minds) that have piles of EGO as well as bonuses to the EGO roll. It just gives me joy to blow a mentalist's Phase and END … while also learning who s/he is and what s/he tried to do … by kicking him/her out of said open mind via a strong and very focused will (i.e. sense of self) that makes its Breakout Roll on the character's held (or next) Phase.

My point is that the ability to hit or avoid being hit mentally … shouldn't necessarily be tied to one's strength of will/EGO; they are two very different concepts, and some players may want to play a character that extolls the virtues of one while not touching the other, at all.  6e allows for exactly that … where 5e did not.  i.e. It's a 6e improvement that should be celebrated/appreciated, not done away with by trying to connect two things (EGO and mCV) like they were in 5er days.  If you want to take backward steps, why not just go back to 5er, eh?

I'm completely with you on #1 and #3, by the way.

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Besides the GM permission thing

All of RAW is littered with the GM permission thing -- so much so that I wouldn't think it needs to be stated given the RAW knowledge level of those of us who have been discussing this, as it's reasonably considered by all participating in this thread that the GM can rule as s/he likes for any reason or no reason, at all.  So why did we need to state the obvious? Oh, right, we didn't... 😝
 

3 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

I disagree. It is entirely possible the player is saying "I never expect to use this so it is no good to me. Let me trade it for something that will be of use to me."

Then the GM decides that everyone is going to end up with bicycles and this character only gets the frame with no wheels. Which is why discussion between the GM and players is important when making characters, campaign expectations, etc.

Certainly that is possible.  And if the player made that trade and didn't later like the consequences, well, that's the nature of giving something up … to get something else ... isn't it?
 

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

My last contribution here.  These are making things up to make OMCV useful.  Mental combat manoeuvres may be something for a mantalist heavy campaign but they are not RAW.  You do not need to hit a mental paralysis if you are the victim and I would not allow anyone else to attack a mental paralysis if they had no psychic abilities (and I do not count OMCV as such).

 

Your best response, like was raised in the first thread (by Killer Shrike I think) is that Mental CVs should be 1 by default.

 

Doc

I made up nothing.  Citing what dsatow provided as input is not making anything up, nor is sticking to literal RAW sans interpretation.

Per RAW on 6e2 p35:
"The first step in combat is to determine whether an attack hits its intended target. To do that, you need to know the attacker's OCV, the target's DCV, and the results of the attacker's Attack Roll." 

RAW on 6e2 p39 goes on to add:
"Most attacks use the ordinary Attack Rolls and CV already described. However, Mental Powers use Mental Combat Value (MCV) instead of the normal Combat Value./ MCV can be divided into Offensive MCV (OMCV) and Defensive (DMCV), just like CV. The Powers that use MCV are Mental Blast, Mental Illusions, Mind Contol, Mind Link, Mind Scan, Telepathy, and certain powers bought with the Advantage Alternate Combat Value."

While RAW on 6e1 p216 indicates that a character within an Entangle need not make an Attack Roll to hit or damage the (physical) Entangle restraining him/her (6e1 p216), the section pertaining to the (highly specific and incredibly different from Entangle) Mental Paralysis power does not echo that same lack of Attack Roll.  Mental Paralysis is a mental power (because it's bought with Alternate Combat Value to use OMCV vs. DMCV) and is so different from physical Entangles that it gets a half page to itself …. to describe how to calc BODY for STUN-only attacks (huh?  come again?  calculating BODY for a STUN-ONLY attack?? oh, right, this is a super special case, so STUN-only attacks can do BODY when dealing with Mental Paralysis), how Mental Defense can be added to EGO in some situations to increase the EGO/5 effect roll (huh? come again? having a Defense that isn't a Damage Shield add to damage/effect dice used for an attack??? oh, right, this is a super special case wherein a particular defense might do that),  damage it, attack it, how it can and can't be escaped, etc.  Thus, a reasonable person and and likely should expect all essential rules for how this power works to be covered in this section -- and there's nothing within it that says the victim need not make an Attack Roll to hit it -- just like there's nothing in it that indicates a character with Growth can use his/her Growth-augmented STR damage to affect a Mental Paralysis (as it says on 6e1 p217 with regard to Entangle).

If you, as the DM, are not requiring an Attack Roll for attacks by the victim of a Mental Paralysis … against that Mental Paralysis …  you're certainly entitled to that interpretation … but the section on Mental Paralysis flat-out doesn't say that the victim of a Mental Paralysis hits automatically.  Absent both that and GM fiat, what I cited on 6e2 p35 would seem to govern in conjunction with what I cited from 6e2 p39. However, if you're going to be consistent about applying the lack of need for attack roll to Entangle … to a Mental Paralysis, then I would think you'll also automatically let Growth-augmented STR damage affect a Mental Paralysis like it does an Entangle except, oops, that's just not logical, is it?  (I harp on consistent application of approaches, by the way, because I've found it to be a good litmus test for whether said approaches are faulty or sound.  i.e. Where consistent application of an approach fails to yield a logical result in all applications of that approach, one can often find a problem/fault with the approach. So it is with consistently applying things that automatically hit Entangles … to Mental Paralysis.)

Oh, and it was I who suggested starting values of 1 in the older thread.  (Killer Shrike agreed and took it farther, suggesting starting values of 0 --- something Hugh suggested [i.e. starting value of 0] very early in that thread.)  How about some credit given where due?  Also, how about just owning your bias on this one, eh?

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

If you can point out one instance where OMCV is of use to a non-mentalist without me having to change the physical constants of the world or introducing maguffins then I will concede I should allow it to be bought down. That is more generosity of spirit than God initially showed Abraham...  

 

Doc

1. Mental Block (i.e. mental-based Block maneuver) ... as was already pointed out by dsatow.  (I've never experienced a GM who didn't allow those -- and allowing them does NOT require changing the physical constants of the world or introduction of maguffins.)
2. Use of EGO/5 dice to try to break down a Mental Paralysis requires one to first hit said Mental Paralysis …. which, per RAW, has a DMCV of 3 (same DMCV that hexes have). Thus, with an OMCV of 1, the individual trying to break out of the Mental Paralysis must roll 9- to hit it … before being able to try to break out of it … while someone with an OMCV of 3 would need to roll 11- to hit it.  END is, of course spent whether the attack against the Mental Paralysis hits or misses, so the character rolling 9- to hit will likely burn more Phases and END trying to get out of the Mental Paralysis than a character rolling 11- unless, of course, you've changed the physical constants of the world by failing to require a successful attack roll prior to allowing a damage/effect roll.

Quote

I haven't even mentioned that it's an option to either one of my tables for fear that it will immediately result in them all selling OMCV to 0 and using the points to raise DMCV to 6 for "free".

As a reminder, the minimum value of characteristics in 6e is 1 … whether bought down, drained, etc.

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I do challenge the equivalence of OCV and OMCV unless you are changing the fundamental basis of the world, a task too onerous for someone as time-poor as I.

They both have starting values of 3 - costing 0 points for that starting value, so there's the equivalence.  And when buying them up or selling them back, OMCV is cheaper than OCV, so deviation in any direction (up or down) already has any perceived disparity between them … accounted for.

If you don't happen to like that particular accounting, then that's certainly your own bias showing as it pertains to the value of points of OMCV versus points of OCV -- and you're absolutely entitled to it.  However, if you're going to be biased about it, then I suggest at least owning your bias by being consistent about it.  To wit, if you see OMCV on a non-mentalist as value-less (i.e. worth nothing) and, thus, will give 0 points for a buy-down to 1 (because you, the GM, will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game) …  then it also logically follows that the same non-mentalist should be able to set OMCV to 100 for 0 cost, because you, the GM will not lift a finger to ensure that it comes up in game.  Thus, if you're consistent about your stance of OMCV being completely valueless on non-mentalists, you should let any of them set the value of OMCV to whatever they want for a cost of 0 CP, since it just won't come up in your game due to your own lack of action/input on the subject.

This is, of course, completely unfair to mentalists in your game (presuming you have them) since THEY can't do the same, but it's your bias, not RAW, with which you're wrestling...

Personally, I think a better approach is to set the starting values of both OMCV and DMCV to 1 for all characters in your game.  This completely disallows sell-backs while affecting both non-mentalists and mentalists equally -- making it far more fair while still catering to your own personal bias. Moreover, it doesn't put you, the GM, in a position where you're saying 'no you can't do that' just because of your own bias against the buy-downs of OMCV using the already-accounted-for cost delta between OMCV and OCV.

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

The only characters disadvantaged by low OMCV are mentalists. I am talking Golden Age superheroes here. There will be mental combat but for someone with no offensive mental capabilities selling back OMCV has no drawbacks.

 

Obviously I could contrive points where this brick might have to use OMCV but it would indeed be (and look) contrived.

As far as I am concerned, what you wrote is true ONLY in a world with a short-sighted/lazy GM. I say this because by selling back a non-mentalist's OMCV, a player is basically indicating to the GM that s/he expects the issue to come up -- and a GM who isn't lazy/short-sighted can easily accommodate by introducing independent foci that non-mentalists can use ... which someone with a 1 OMCV would be worse than other non-mentalists at using.

So, the reduction is, indeed, limiting … unless the GM is too lazy/short-sighted to make sure it's limiting.

With that in mind, Gnome's counter-point is spot-on -- i.e. if a mentalist sold OCV down to 1, the same issue would crop up - the mentalist would suck at using foci others could readily use.  IMHO, treatment of the selling of OMCV to 1 any differently than the selling of OCV to 1 … just reveals an underlying bias in the GM and/or the players in question.

 

1 hour ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

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

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

10 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

When you take the map and draw a bigger circle labeled "You will be here", it's only fitting that the circle labeled "Your contact can help here" also gets bigger. 

I believe that bigger circle is where the following are intended to come into play:

• Contact has access to major institutions (examples: ports, airports, freight companies -- all over the place)
• Contact has significant Contacts of his own (examples: managers running things in other ports; pilots; ship captains; freight logisticians -- all over the place)
• Organization Contact

So yes, when you take the map and draw a bigger circle labeled 'You will be here', it is, indeed fitting that the circle labeled 'Your contact can help here' also gets bigger … and it's just as fitting that the contact be bought properly (i.e. cost more) to properly represent it.  After all, a contact who can only help with things locally doesn't have the reach/capability of one who can do things globally … and, thus, one should cost less than the other, most especially in a global game. (This actually helps incent local contact purchases in a global game … by making local ones cheaper than global ones.)  The cost delta also works well with a Resource Pool, by the way.

56 minutes ago, Spence said:

But a Contact isn't a chance meeting with a "Bob the Bell Hop".  It is meeting with Robert "Deadeye" McCabe the you spent 3 years with back to back in the trenches and you've lost count of how many times you saved each others life. 

 

I try to flesh out Contacts into full fledged NPCs that will be reused.  A Contact is not made willy nilly on the fly, it is a detailed build.

That works well enough right up to the point where Captain Contacts with his shining 33 PRE whips out his electronic rolodex of 15,234 contacts because he "knows a guy".  Since that's a very viable ability/concept, would you, the GM, shoot it down?  If not, would you, the GM, flesh out all 15,234 of them in advance?  Or would you, the GM, think a pool is in order … with throw-aways making logical sense?

While Captain Contacts is an extreme/absurd example, it's this sort of thinking (to a lesser extent, of course) that makes Resource Points a thing.  i.e. Some contacts -should- be willy-nilly because they just aren't important outside of being one-time plot movers.

49 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Let's say the Miscellaneous Pool fits the bill here. Create a list, call it Linguist, or Traveler, and set it up just like you describe here:

 

So potentially each Skill Enhancer or Perk Enhancer provides it's own Resource Pool. You spend 3 points for the privilege, and then get a capped amount of the resource (Contacts, Languages, AKs, or whatever). So my industrialist could be both Well Connected and a Traveler, and have both the Perk and the Skill Enhancer for 3 points each, and then get two 10-point pools (or whatever) that can be modified each game.

 

This is starting to make me crazy, because what do I do with all of the skills that barely get used. The rules suggest not making a person pay for little-used but well justified skills (being a world-renowned chess player has little game use, but is an interesting character concept), so why make my aviatrix pay for a mechanic skill she'll almost never use? Or knowing how to fly every kind of plane there is? I could give her an "Aviatrix Pool" and give her a break on some core skills, but that's starting to get a little bit too friendly on the costs of skills for the players. Maybe it makes more sense to give them all fixed costs, more character points as compensation, and then allow some flexibility on how the skills and perks get used from game to game. Not every character has a list of Skills or Perks, so not every character need the point break that the Resource Pools give. So if I give everyone 25 more points to work with, that puts those characters way ahead in terms of skill levels, etc. that the other well-rounded characters won't get. This is all my own damned fault, of course, since I'm the one making the characters, but I'd like to figure it out before I tell them what's going on.

 

Right now I'm in quick sand trying to get my characters balanced and ready for Saturday. I know if I just relax I won't get sucked under, but . . . . I guess for now I just need to hand them something for Saturday, and then plan on just reworking the characters anyway based on what they want. By then I'll have made a decision. 

I personally feel there's a vast world of difference between a pool of physical or social resources a character can access …. and a pool of things a character KNOWS.  Key to this is that foci get taken, lost or broken; contacts don't always respond; followers aren't always around; vehicles break down or are destroyed; bases get sabotaged or must be abandoned; other misc perks (like driver's license, concealed carry license, etc.) change depending on locality; etc.  … whereas what one knows and can (or can't) recall (such as Area Knowledge, Science Skills, Professional Skills, etc.) … is what one knows and can (or can't) recall.

For this reason, I do not see any Skills of any kind making sense within Resource Pools.  Certainly if you want to house rule it that way, you can, but skills are Skills, i.e. they're not Resources as Resources are explained in APG1.  Both I and Gnome have already provided you with the conventional way GM's handle large numbers of AK's -- which is to say: they lump them into broad categories, provide a roll level that makes sense for the character when appropriate modifiers are in play, and then work from there.  That's what I think you should do with the AK's -- figure out which regions the character would have knowledge of … and to what extent … and buy the relevant AK's appropriately.

As for languages, the Universal Translator path is a solid one if the character will have perfect, colloquial fluency with literacy in 4 or more languages.  James Bond is fluent in French, Italian, German and Russian, has a solid grasp of Greek, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese … and has a degree in Oriental languages.  Think he paid for a bunch of languages?  Nope, he's got Universal Translator with some limitations, I bet … and likely has Oriental Languages bought as a Science Skill as a cherry on top.
 

57 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

I like the idea of the themed pool: it makes good sense. So for your military contacts example, your player used 18 of the 20 points. Do you allow the player to add a different contact to replace one of those, and then rotate the old one into an "armory" of contacts?  

Remember, the idea is to be able to capture the "I know a guy/gal" concept … so from a Resource Point/Pool perspective, every contact is a floating one from scenario to scenario.  Also, from a storyline perspective, the specifics of Contact X who got called on mission Y just aren't all that important (long-term) unless the contact is (or might in the future become) a recurring one.  We keep track of recurring contacts … but they're ultimately akin to a Power in a Variable Power Pool -- i.e. just a pre-arranged configuration that serves a specific purpose/function and has a specific cost/value.  

57 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Here's what I'm looking at: I have an international businessman, the son of the CEO of a large munitions company, and he has a lot of contacts, as well as Area/City Knowledges. He's probably got 30 points tied into these so that he has just the right contact when they need to go flying off to Egypt to chase a stolen mummy (or did it come to life on its own . . . ?), or whatever: fill in the blank for several trips in maybe one or two game sessions. 

 

It makes sense to have a Contacts Resource Pool of, say, 20 points. But I'd like to have these on his character sheet in some form because all my players are learning the game for the first time, and they won't know how to make this stuff up on the fly yet. But if I stick him with a bunch of 2 point contacts (he has Well Connected), that's a suck on his Character points, so he can't be good at much else. Should I not define them at all? Should I define them generically (Asian Contact)? Have one expensive contact and one cheaper contact that can change each game session (the "kit" and "armory" concept)? 

Easy enough.  Build the Resource Pool for Followers/Contacts ("Gun Runner Contacts" ??), give the character Well-Connected since you see him being exactly that, and then pre-design some Contacts.  Doing so will cause them to be listed out in a numbered list beneath Well-Connected. When you name each, put the real cost in parens, brackets, braces, or some other indicator (so that you will know how many real points it is … after adjustment by Well-Connected … for pool use ... just by looking at the name)… and then as a final step, add a Custom Adder to each Contact whose value is negative that of the Contact's active cost (i.e. if active cost of the Contact is 5, the Custom Adder is -5); doing so will result in the Contacts now costing 0 CP on the character sheet ... while leaving you with pre-built contacts that are listed out with costs readily usable alongside a pool.

Since the entire point of such a pool is to avoid limiting the character to just a few contacts … in order to represent a rolodex (or head) full of them without the character spending every CP s/he has on contacts, I wouldn't limit the character to only the pre-built items. Rather, I would strongly encourage the player to come up with new contacts that make sense for the scope of the pool.  If you're worried about being taken by surprise, then have the player run new ideas past you outside of game time such that you have to pre-approve them.  However, if you're the sort of GM who can take a NPC concept and run with on the fly (give it a name, role play it, etc.) as well as make a solid ruling on the spot, you might find it more fun to just roll with new contacts as they come at you.

Your international son of a gun runner probably warrants a Miscellaneous Resource Point pool, too -- to obtain IDs, passports, diplomatic immunity, and all the other things one needs (which change from country to country and shipment to shipment) to move arms under the radar.  Just a thought.

57 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

I'd like to be able to do this for his 10 Area Knowledges (he is also a Traveler). And I have another character who is a Linguist with 10 languages. Almost every character has some sort of similar Character Point sink. I could:

• Just give them all 20 more points for character creation, and allow them to shuffle around their items as needs change? Simple solution. Instead of 175 point starting characters, I'll give them 200 point starting characters with a lot more AKs, Languages, Contacts, etc.

Or perhaps just make them pay for a couple (say one language, fully fluent, with literacy for more points, and one at the conversational level) and then shuffle them each game session? This saves a lot of Character Points, and doesn't require a long list. I could just give them each a Resource Pool (or a Language Pool, or a Knowledge Pool) and let them decide what they want each game session. This easily solves the problem, but I want to print out their characters each game session with the list of skills/perks already on them so that it's easier for them to learn the game (remember, they're all first-time HERO players).

I don't know which option to choose right now. So far I have long lists and lots of points sunk into their pools just so I have character sheets with all their items on them. But 10 area knowledges that will rarely be used seems punitive. More points makes sense, but it requires long lists of things that still won't get used all that much. The Resource Pool seems like the best idea, but it might not be the easiest solution for new players. I'm still not sure which way to go, and I have to hurry up and decide before Saturday! 

To my knowledge there isn't a knowledge-centric Resource Pool -- which makes sense, since Knowledge entails what one knows/understands, not what one has at one's fingertips (like guns, vehicles, bases, contacts, etc.).  Thus, unless you cobble something custom together for the AK's and languages, there's going to have to be some serious point expenditures, there.  If you truly see this character as knowing a crap-ton of languages, Universal Translator limited to only modern communication forms used by humans …. which requires a successful INT roll (whose result determines how well he does or doesn't understand or convey something)… might address your language issue.  It should add some comedy, too, I'd think, when a roll is missed and the character translates "meatballs" into "donkey balls" in some backwater language no one else knows.

As for AK's -- perhaps you have one big one ("The World") with a very high skill roll to which you, the GM, must always apply penalties.  (Because the AK is very, very broad, if the character wanted to know something specific/granular about a backwater place no one's ever heard of, you'd assess a big penalty … and have the character make (or miss) the modified roll to see what s/he does or doesn't know about an area. If the character knows some places better than others, then perhaps you break it down by regions and give the character several such AK's with big numbers -- that you again modify based on granularity of info to which the roll pertains?  (I could see a character knowing North America, Central America, and South America -- but having little knowledge of Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, or Antactica … if they were into running coke.  But if they ran opium, well, that's probably Asia, the Middle East, and North America.  Since dad dealt Arms, I could see North America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.  You get the idea.)

49 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Nope, other than I've never done it before. Seems like a good time to start. Also, I don't know how to do it effectively in Hero Designer, since the Perk: Resources only gives the number of points available, but doesn't create a list nor does it counterbalance the cost of those items in the list. I'm considering creating the Resource Pool and giving it a negative adder (say 10 points), and then creating a list of Contacts for whatever points seems right. The Resource Pool will counteract 10 points of the list in terms of accounting, but there is no "official" interaction between the Pool and the List.

In Hero Designer, simply add Resource Points to the sheet.  Once done, drill into what you just added and change the Type from its default (Equipment points) to Follower/Contact Points.  Then, if the GM (presumably you) is giving everyone a starting number of contact points (much like Everyman skills … because everyone knows someone, right?), set the Starting Points to whatever the campaign starting value is.  

That's all there is to it. From there, simply increment the 'Levels' of Resource points (in 2pt increments since the cost of Follower/Contact Resource Points is 1CP per 2 RP) to reflect how many Resource Points have been purchased.  There are no lists to manage; nothing needs to be predefined like traditional contacts -- unless, you the GM, want to try to apply the Kit and Armory concepts of Equipment-based resource pools to Follower-contact-based resource pools.

A Follower/Contact Resource Pool helps respresent a character's ability to say, "I know a guy" … and reach out.  Thus, if you had 10 CP tied up in Resource Points for Followers/Contacts, that's a 20pt pool … and your character who is an honourably discharged U.S. Army Captain might pick up the phone and dial a special forces buddy (Very Good Relationship, 14-) that would use 7 pts from the pool.  Next in the same scenario he might dial a General under which s/he served when they were both younger and lower rank (Good relationship, Contact has significant Contacts of his own, Contact has access to major institutions, Organization Contact, 12-) that would use 11pts from the pool.  That's 18 of the 20pt pool used for the scenario, so far. 

Note:
It generally helps to give some sort of special effect/theme to the pool … so, in this case, it'd likely be a Military Contacts Resource Pool … and I would name it as such on the sheet -- as that's sort of what justifies the pool I used in my examples, above.  It also works for famous people, rich people, and the like -- with appropriately scoped Contact pools, of course.

The complete rundown on Resource Points and how to manage/use them can be found in APG1 p191.  If you the GM want to pre-define Contacts for pool use, that's certainly up to you … and if there's no unifying theme (a la Military contacts) for the pool, it may be prudent/necessary.  However, with a solid theme for the pool, it may make sense to avoid such definitions.  Totally up to you.  I've seen both ways done, and the less structured, theme-based approach tends to work best (IMHO) when representing a changing cast of contacts.

Example Contact/Follower pool themes I've either used or seen:

• Military Contacts Pool
• Police / Law Enforcement Contacts Pool
• Masonic Contacts Pool
• Legal Contacts Pool
• Press Contacts Pool
• Mutant Contacts Pool (in a game where mutants were not the norm)

You get the idea.  Remember, villains might have one too (Terrorist Network Contacts Pool?)...

Surreal

P.S. Well-Connected is highly complimentary to a Contact pool -- especially if the character is prone to using a number of cheaper contacts in a scenario (as opposed to using a big, spendy, organizational contact in the scenario) … as it effectively shaves 1pt off the Contact cost for each Contact manifested via the Pool (as well as any static Contacts the character may have).  Note, however, that Well-Connected must (per RAW) be purchased outside the Resource Pool. 

1 hour ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Ok, so let me reframe this a bit: Why buy 5 contacts when it seems having 1 "floating contact" is good enough from game to game?

 

It seems punitive to make a player pay for being so well connected worldwide that he has to buy at least one contact on each continent, and probably area knowledge for each continent as well, and probably city knowledge with some of the major cities. In a heroic campaign where players are only 175 points, that takes up about 20-25 points, which is pretty significant just to make them seem like they know a lot of people. In reality (in game terms), it would make sense to give them one blanket Perk for each category: 1 Contact, 1 Area Knowledge, and 1 City Knowledge, and have them roll each game when they want to use one of the Perks. Otherwise, I'm making them pay a lot of points for something they'll almost never use. I have the "Well Connected" Perk Enhancer for a couple of my players, but then that's another 3 points to save a handful of points, so it's basically a wash, points-wise. Although it's a globetrotting campaign, I don't see them visiting more than 2 continents per game session!

 

Any advice here? I thought the Resource Pool might work, but I've never used it.

Resource Points for a Resource Pool of Followers/Contacts is the way to go, since Resource Points entail the RAW for equipment, vehicles/bases, followers, and other things that change often.

i.e. Resource Points are the RAW mechanism for a changing set of 'floating' contacts without any hackneyed house rules being needed. 

Your original post asked, "If you don't use Resource Pools, how do you do it?" The only answer I can give you for that is, "I don't - because I use Resource Pools ... since it's intended to address exactly what you're describing."  Is there some reason you're trying to avoid Resource Pools???

I wasn't trying to be ironic. The term "CON-stunned", no matter the reason it's used … is un-necessarily redundant.  Moreover, its use tends to dis-incent use of the correct term "Unconscious" … which doesn't help those new to the game learn RAW, I suspect.

But we're sort of off-topic and it's my fault.  My apologies for the digression.

4 hours ago, TranquiloUno said:

Darkness versus Sound is explicitly intended to trigger the Incantations limitations. The Incantations limitation specifies: "...only if he speaks *loud phrases that are audible at a distance*.." (emphasis added)

In addition to the "must be able to speak freely and clearly" part.

 

If you're in a Darkness versus Sound field then in addition to the specific RAW guidance I don't see how a player can speak loud phrases audible at a distance if they can't make sound. Doesn't seem like you can "speak freely" when you can't actually make noise either.

This is spot-on … because the definition of 'speak' entails the articulation of sound to form words in order to communicate.  No sound … means no speech.  No speech … means no incantations.  (Vacuums work particularly well to hose Incantations too ... for the same reason -- no sound.) Those arguing to the contrary by suggesting Darkness to Sound has no impact on Incantations seem to have forgotten the foregoing.
 

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

I don't see any reason to apply a called shot penalty, since declaring "both arms" doesn't mandate a called shot to the arms. 

That said, there's a valid point that grabbing the head doesn't necessarily entail obstructing speech.  If the grabber doesn't know that the grabbed has powers with Incantations, I could easily see them grabbing in such a way that it doesn't prevent incanting.  A "shut up, wiznerd" grab could be very different from a "get those eye-beams away from me" grab. 

Actually, specifically Grabbing the arms (and only the arms) is, quite technically, a called shot -- whereas a Grab maneuver with no called shot targets the opponent rather than the opponent's arms.  Both happen put an end to gestures if successful, but they have very different special effects … in addition to the fact that a Grab called to the arms can disable the arm(s) with a squeeze if enough damage is done -- which is untrue of a generic Grab maneuver.

55 minutes ago, drunkonduty said:

 

CON Stunned is when a character takes STUN equal to or greater than their CON score.

 

As opposed to:

 

STUNNED when a character takes enough STUN to leave them at negative STUN.

What Chris Goodwin said.  (i.e. You seem to have confused the term 'Stunned' with the term 'Unconscious'.)

It's situational.  To explain what I mean, for #1 (incantations not being possible in the circumstance you described -- which was a called head/neck shot), I think more than just a called head/neck shot while performing a Grab is needed before you can deem incantations 'impossible'. Specifically, I think someone needs to go for the throat (neck) or the mouth (head) in order to prevent proper/clear enunciation of incantations and, if successful, then (in most cases) it's pretty cut/dry that if the Grab is followed by a squeeze, proper/clear enunciation will not be possible.

Anything less specific than a called shot to the mouth/throat using a Grab maneuver is something I feel gives rise to #2 (incantations are possible but only with great difficulty - requiring an ability/skill check).  i.e. A called shot to the head/neck that isn't specifically to the mouth/throat, so it just generally hits the head/neck and has the called shot effect per RAW.  Once damage is computer, if the hit does significant damage after defenses (GM call on what constitutes 'significant'), I feel it could then result in a skill check to see if the character can continue to enunciate words properly/clearly.

And then there's #3 (head/neck being squeezed doesn't interfere with incantations).  There's room for this, too.  For instance, where, exactly, is the head/neck of a Doppleganger or a Changeling? Given their abilities to adjust their bodies, if one is incanting, then it's a special circumstance that gives rise to the throat/mouth being successful Grabbed … having no meaningful effect.

On 4/22/2019 at 1:19 PM, BoloOfEarth said:

 he plowed through three heroes and CON-stunned two of them.

As opposed to DEX-stunning or STR-stunning them?

Why not just say 'he stunned two of them'?  Am I missing something?