DynamiteKid

RE: Tesuji Generally, you can find out who in your group of players may not be best suited for your game. Most of the time, you can tell if someone may be better for another game under another GM. Sometimes, it may not be apparent until you actually play a session with them. When that crops up, just as you said, "I'm sorry but it doesn't seem things are going to work out..." Yes, it was all about the extreme players. Efficient for the sake of being efficient and little to do with a character's concept. Whether someone just takes a 17 or an 18, if they both have their character concept in mind during creation, that's great. I have no problem with being efficient when it's not the only reason for choosing characteristics. So yeah, a lot of time has been spent on a topic that doesn't apply to too many players out there. Back to the show...

I totally agree. I think the problem with my posting was that I had extreme cases in mind, specifically for the number-cruncher. I wasn't trying to imply that balance means rationing out something like 40/60 of RP/combat consistently. Depending on the needs of the players, the ratio will change. As long as the game suits all of the players, which would mean that it involves more than "just RP" or "just combat" all of the time, that's balanced in my opinion. The type of player I was thinking of is the kind that would not settle for anything but what they wanted out of the game. Even when the GM does their best to provide for each player, sometimes there's bound to be one person who just can't get enough of what they want. That's why I used the "balanced game" as the control factor. In my postings, the balanced game has something for everyone. Add in the GM that will do what he/she can for the players in order to help them enjoy the game. Even then, the only person who wouldn't be able to enjoy it would be the extreme gamer who just wants one thing(combat, rp, whatever.). Here's an example: After finishing a climatic battle with a major villain(Monglor), the heroes begin helping the city clean up the rubble and assist the wounded. Skills such as paramedic are used to just decide at what rate the players can help out. This is an opportunity for a bit of downtime after an intense combat scene. It's also an opportunity for the players to put non-combat skills to use and just get into a bit of soft RP. The exteme player goes, "Enough of this. Let's go out and fight more bad guys.". No consideration was made for the other players' opinions. No attempt at giving an IC reason was made. Even a simple "Hey, Monglor's henchmen are still on the loose!" would suffice and the GM could quickly set things up for a manhunt for the henchment. Basically a player that has nothing else on their mind except for what they want and when they want it. That's what I mean by extreme player attitudes. I'm here with you too. Simplest terms, by balance, I mean possessing elements that all can partake in and enjoy, whether it's RP or combat or just goofy scenes. What I mean about players not having as much fun isn't from the angle of a GM/Cook saying "If you don't like it, tough. See Jimmy over there? He likes what I made/ran. Why can't you?". It's more of a situation where the carnivore player goes, "Why didn't you just make hamburgers? You wasted your time on that vegetable crap. If you didn't, we'd have more hamburgers to eat.". This is what I mean. When a player wants only one or two things to the detriment of other players, I consider it unbalancing. So there are indeed some cases where you, as a GM, can do all in your ability to serve each player the type of gaming aspects they like but still not satisfy the rare minority of an extreme player that only wants one thing. So in that case, the only way to satisfy that player is to basically go, "Okay guys, let's drop everything and just do what carnivore boy wants.". In such a case, wouldn't the other players be the ones that are losing out because of one player's desire? This goes for any situation. If it's all one thing that someone wants all of the time, it's difficult to make everyone else happy too. Same situation here. I see eye to eye and it's just that I didn't make it clear enough that I was talking about the attitude of extreme players/diners. I agree with all except for one part. I think a GM can be good without successfully making the game fun for everyone and it's for the reason I brought up earlier: Some people just will not be happy unless they get what they want out of a game and have little regard for the other players' wants. Nine out of ten times, you can get a decent group together. It's the one out of ten that an extreme player is involved and well, their the ones with the attitude of "It's my way or the highway.", you know? What can a GM do in that case? Abandon the rest of the group to make the one player happy? There's always going to be players with preferences leaning towards one area more than the others. That's fine. Like you said, Tesuji, GMs see what the players want and need and makes adjustments. The problem lies in players that are total number-crunchers or total role-players(the type that disregard the game mechanics in favour of total immersion) or total whatever. These are the kind of players that can't enjoy a game that isn't concentrated in one area of their preference. A GM can only do so much to provide sustenance to his players. When extreme players are involved, you pretty much have to cross the line to satisfy the few extremists at all the other players' expense. Nothing less than total throwdown sessions or free-form role-play sessions will satisfy the extreme crowds. That's not a bad thing. They just need to sign up with the right games for them. The rest of the players out there, even with their personal likes and dislikes, will be able to have a lot of fun in a game that has something for everyone and that is run by an adaptable GM.

I understand that you're basically saying that it's not the player's fault for enjoying/not enjoying the game. I agree, it isn't. However, you seem to think that I'm saying that it's all the player's fault. I stated that both the player and the GM are part of the equation of a game in terms of people having fun. I am, however, concentrating on the player aspect in this discussion. First of all, I'm speaking from a pure player's point of view. I've never GMed but I know what I like as a player in a game and that's variety. RP and combat, not just one or the other. That's why a number cruncher wouldn't have more fun in my opinion: Because the number cruncher is concentrated on a single aspect of the game. If the game had just combat or just RP, it wouldn't be a "balanced game" now, would it? It should be assumed that if a GM doesn't "run his game fairly and respectfully towards all the players" that the GM is not a good one. No one likes to be treated unfairly and without respect. That's easy to understand. Since I took that as a given, I only touched upon the GM aspect by saying that a good GM runs balanced campaigns. First of all, no one forces a player to play a game that doesn't appeal to him/her. Second of all, I'd assume that the GM, when inviting players, would say "This is the type of game I'm running." and then the players would be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play in the game. Also, there seems to be an assumption that balance via "RP, combat, and everything else in between" constitutes a static ratio of 40/40/20 out of 100 or something to that affect. There'll be sessions where there's more RP or more combat or whatever. I'm speaking about a campaign in general in terms of balance. Your example of a weekly throwdown has nothing to do with the topic of player attitudes within a balanced campaign. If we were talking about GMs that didn't listen to player opinions/suggestions, then we'd be getting somewhere. Now that I've explained what I see as a good GM for the purpose of this discussion, it should be clear. Basically a GM that sets up campaigns with something for everyone. Again, to go further into the subject, we could talk about the GM's treatment to the players but I'm sure that's clear to as to how I and most people feel about how we prefer to be treated. Ah...this is another confusing point. "The GM has an integral part to play in helping the game be fun but a player's outlook is just as vital.". How this leads to meaning that it's the player's fault, I don't know. Part of the problem is probably connected to your foregone conclusion that my view of balance means equal parts of everything all the time, which is incorrect. Again, "a little bit of everything for everyone", emphasis on everyone and this does include fun. Again, misunderstanding. I never said that there should be favouritetism. You've seemed to latched on to my "anti-number cruncher" opinion and think as if I were to GM, I'd cater to RPers rather than anyone else, thus punishing number crunchers. You're going way too far into this whole issue of GMs. Do I really need to say that a GM needs to consider his/her players needs and balance that with his/her plotline and story goals? It's something else that I would think is a given. Again, I was just touching upon balanced games run by "good" GMs in order to get my point across about the types of players and how they would enjoy/not enjoy games in a certain environment(A balanced game(RP/combat/other stuff).) Once again, this conspiracy against roll-players as well as the notion of a blanced game constituting a constant fixed ratio of combat/RP. You assume that my view of a GM involves someone who doesn't make adjustments during the progression of a game when players are not having fun. Let's clear something up. By roll-player, I mean someone who is focused on the mechanical aspects of RPGs. By role-player, I mean someone who is focused on most/all aspects of RPGs. I'll put it this way. We have two people eating dinner. One is a carnivore(roll-player/number cruncher). The other is an omnivore(role-player). If they're both given a balanced meal(game) that has meat, vegetables, etc., who do you think will eat or enjoy their entire meal? That's what I'm talking about. In general, a good cook(GM) will make a balanced meal(game). Now if the carnivore makes a special request for steak(wants a weekly throwdown), then of course the cook will oblige. None of this had anything to do with the GM not complying to player wishes/requests. My point about the whole characteristics debate is that the players(diners in my meal example) are griping about something minor. The characteristics system can use a revamp. It doesn't mean that it's so broken that you have a crippled game. That's where my "two cents", which has grown to several hundred dollars, originated from.

Actually, you've missed my point entirely, which would be surprising if you read my entire post. The "dared to take an 18" player took the 18 in my example because it was cheaper than paying for a 20 STR for nearly the same amount of benefit. Bang for your buck. In my example, the sole reason for taking the 18 was because of cost saving and had nothing or very little to do with RP/character concept. This is what I'm talking about. Player mindset. That's the key to enjoying RPGs to their full extent. Anyone who thinks that taking a 17 STR for RP reasons is "limiting" pretty much falls into the category of an accountant. Also, to think that a GM would punish a player for merely being cost efficient is also on the lines of an accountant who is somewhat paranoid about the way they choose to create their characters. I don't know where anyone would perceive any part of my post that insinuates that my opinion of a "good GM" is one that caters to a certain division of players. A "good GM" would set up games with a little bit of everything. Some RP heavy scenes, some combat heavy scenes, and whatever else in between. Basically a balanced campaign. That's a "good GM". I believe that I said that neither Role-play or Roll-play should dominate in a game but remember that both are important and have their purpose. It's about balance so that everyone can enjoy the game. That's what good GMs/GMing is about. Clear enough? How the issue surrounding player attitude/mindset got deflected to the validity of what my opinion of a good GM is...I don't really know. The GM certainly has an integral part to play in helping the game be fun but a player's outlook is just as vital. To sum things up for anyone who wants to just skip to the end: A player who isn't focused on a single aspect of the game(Roll-play/number crunching) will have more fun in a game run by a good GM(one who creates balanced campaigns). I don't think that it's such a far out notion that a player with a mindset of centered on the mechanical aspects of Hero would get bored/not have fun a lot sooner in a balanced game than a player that has a mindset that is centered on playing a role-playing game.

An 80 IQ is not the same as an IQ of 120. The only reason that the INTs of 8 and 12 are no different to you is because you're just considering whether or not they give a bonus to INT checks...which are hardly the sole purpose of having an INT value. They do have an in-game affect: How you play your character. Your logic seems to pretty much go by "If this score and that score result in the same rolling for a characteristic check, they're the same.". Take STR for example. A 15 STR is lower than a 17 STR. The STR chart shows that a 15 STR has a lower weight lifting capacity than a 17 STR. Yes, they do both have 3d6 for HtH damage and have the same dice/value for STR checks. That doesn't mean that they're the same in terms of in-game value just because their "rolls" are the same. I mean, when you have to lift something, if there's a weight that's over the 15 STR limit but within the 17 STR limit, the 15 STR character has to push in order to lift the weight while the 17 STR character doesn't. It does have an affect in the game. Characteristics such as COM are less overtly applicable but as long as you RP, there is a time and place for any characteristic/skill/power/disadvantage/etc. My logic is: Assign characteristics as your character concept calls for. If I want my character to be somewhat below average in terms of "intelligence", I'd assign a 7 or 8 for INT. If I want above average "intelligence", I'd assign a 12 or 13. This is under the assumption that an INT value of 9 - 11 is "average". The fact that I'd gain or lose a die roll or whatever doesn't factor in. The game is what you make it. If you want to make every part of your character matter, then there's nothing that isn't important. RPGs are wasted on so many people because they can't seem to get over the Role-play vs. Roll-play matter. Both are important and neither should dominate. Your info on your character sheet should enhance your character's existence in the game. Every stat and power further defines your character. At the same time, your character concept should be a little more concrete than simply being a super PC with no other purpose than to simply excel in rolls. I'm sure most people can come up with more than, "Oh, he's a super person and...he's a good guy.". Psychological limitations, "useless" skills like knowledge skill in baseball statistics...these and more may not have an immediate in-game impact all of the time but they help you and your GM get a better idea of who your character is. In my experience, it's quite rewarding to see a character come to life out of your own imagination. The system and mechanics of Hero actually are quite good for helping people come up with great characters. I would think that the involved character generation process in the Hero system would imply to most that you should be getting a more, if not fully, realized character once you're finished making a character. Again, it's not about getting something or losing something. And again, everything has an affect in game if you choose to play it that way. Even skills like seduction say that you can't just rely on the success or failure of the roll. You have to RP it out too. My point is that if your focus is: "What do I get for a value of x for (insert characteristic here)?", you're losing the full experience of the game. The game is more than skill/characteristics checks and to-hit rolls. Just take a look at comic books. What series ever had panel to panel combat scenes? I can't think of a comic book series that didn't involve character development. In Hero, some of the character development is handled through coming up with a well realized character. The rest is in role-playing over time, which would be partially directed by your fleshed out character. I'm not saying that the characteristics system doesn't need improvement. I'm saying that it's easy to work within the system, especially if you have RP in mind. I haven't read a post where someone has said that the mechanics are actually seriously detrimental to the game. It's pretty much come down to people griping about stuff like the value you can get by paying for a 23 STR versus paying a more costly 24 STR. Well, if you have good idea of what you want your character to be capable of, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You'd know that your secret agent character should have near peak human abilities so making a choice in the 17 - 20 STR is what you'll need to worry about. There's a difference between player A who thinks: "Okay, he's strong but not Captain America strong. A 17 or 18 STR should do just fine." than Player B who thinks: "Okay...well an 18 STR gets the same dice as a 20. Let's get 18 because I'll save 2 points and be able to do as much damage as a 20 STR player.". Guess which player will have more fun in a game run by a good GM?

If people take into consideration of the game as a whole there is no characteristic or characteristic value that is worthless. Every characteristic has a purpose if the player considers it more than a number on their sheet. The point of numbers ending with 3 or 8 is valid if all you're looking for is the best trickle down effect to figured characteristics and skill rolls. However, taking other reasons for "inefficient" characteristic values such as priority in combat order due to higher DEX or a higher CON stun threshold due to higher CON, invalidates the 3/8 matter. If anyone thinks "Well, that's not as important to me.", well you're right. That's not important to you. It's still important to other people so yes, there is worth to a characteristic that isn't at a value of "maximum efficiency. For example, a player chooses 12 INT for their character...because that's what the player behind the character rationalizes for the character's IQ level. I'm not saying abandon logic within the system that you're given to play within but there's more to Hero than just the numbers on your sheet. Be a HERO and not an ACCOUNTANT.

STR is indeed a questionable characteristic because of its cheap cost and far reaching pay off in figured characteristics. Cheap STR leads to the prevalence of bricks. However, I have two issues that I look at that favours STR staying the way it is. The first issue is that the entire characteristics system should be looked at for a revamp. STR does stand out as a sore thumb but I'd rather "start from scratch" on the whole rather than just fix something bit by bit. The second issue is RP quality. I'm sure most have tried a brick character at least once but the Hero system is about RP more than anything else. To me at least. How many times can someone who is interested in playing an RPG make a "copy and paste" brick for a variety of campaigns? Unless I'm making a character that is something along the lines of a world class athlete, I can't see any justification for putting more than 5 points in STR. From a GM's PoV, I only see a problem with the STR/easy brick matter if I have the same player making bricks in campaign after campaign as well as having little background into the character other than a typical "Me angry smash everything guy!" concept or if the vast majority of my game members make bricks and basically come up with "Team Muscle!". Part of the GM's responsibility is to regulate the game. If a player can come up with a decent character concept that happens to be a brick, great. Game on! If the player just wants to make an easy bruiser for power playing, then don't let them make the character without more work(thought) put into it. It seems like a lot of people look at the STR/easy brick situation with just munchkins in mind. Remember that there are other "corners to cut" in the Hero system that allow cheap gaming and they've always been more of a concern to me than the STR issue. Maybe I'm lucky but the majority of players that I've had the honor to play with actually focus on character concept before stat calculating. They wanted to know what kind of character they were going to play before deciding where to allocate their points. Sure, there's always going to be power players around but Hero is the type of system that keeps the attention of decent quality players(in general). There are other systems out there that are easier to power play in. No offense to D&Ders but that's the type of RPG system that people can just pick up and say what they want to do like "I want to make a warrior and hack 'n' slash stuff." and not have to worry too much about why they want to do it other than "He/she's an adventure seeker.". You can have a party of fighters in AD&D and justify it easily by calling it a mercenary group. It's a little trickier to pull off in Hero. If people look at the situation from 50% RP and 50% game mechanics views, the STR issue isn't as bad as it seems. If the GM is the type that lets any ol' concept into his/her games, that's when it's a more serious problem.

Role-playing vs. roll-playing. I'll have to remember that.

Great point, Arthur. For heroic campaigns, I can see non-metahumans with above 20 characteristics. Those highly trained normal main characters, such as Batman, seem to have an edge over even the best highly trained NPC normals. I also give significant weight to both the stats and the RP/more abstract aspects of the game. I spoke about RP emphasis in my other post but I also want to add that if I were to have a point in all of this, it would be that all facets should be included in order to best experience the game. It's truly something that's "more than the sum of its parts" when you utilize everything the game has to offer. Each piece has its role in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, I see comeliness as a characteristic that's as valid as any other. Some people get into the number crunching aspects of the game and don't put too much emphasis on the RP side of things. My characters' appearance are just as important as their powers and backgrounds. In the games that I've participated in, COM as well as other characteristics, were more than just a number on my sheet. There was purpose for each characteristic. Why is he or she that strong? Why is her or she that fast? When the character is then set up with values, it's more than "I want 20 STR so that I can do 4 dice of HtH damage by default.". It was more like "I want 20 STR because he trained himself to the limits of human ability." Distinctive feature and reaction rolls were brought up but I think that those aren't needed as the sole tools/triggers for character interaction. For example, Evil Supervillain A(ESA) NPC is easilly swayed by an attractive captive. This is due to his background(Fancies himself a ladies man, has huge ego, and so on). So a PC heroine with 16 - 20 COM(I consider 20 to be max for a non-superhuman) would be able to inspire a reaction with little effort(A bit of decent RP is all that's needed). Now onto Evil Supervillain B(ESB) NPC. He's a powerhungry type that is obssessed with total domination. He has little time for fooling around with anything other than his evil plots and schemes. No time for the ladies. Thus the same attractive heroine PC would have a much more difficult time getting the same reaction from this NPC. Even spectacular RP might not do the trick. This is because we're taking the backgrounds of ESA and ESB into account. It makes sense for one of them to react to the PC heroine as any "hot blooded male" should(ESA). It also makes sense for the other NPC to not react the same way due to his particular background(ESB). This, to me, adds to the RP experience. It's more than following numbers for situations like "What should I do? Wait, let me refer to my sheet. Oh, I have (insert characteristic/skill/power here). Hmm, well let me roll to see if I can make this check.". Sometimes, it's fun to go a bit freestyle and just say "Oh, this situation seems to call for this action(ie. rolling the dice for a check) because that's how my character would respond." Gaming seemed more lively when I was able to see my characters as more than just a collection of numbers. My characters had more depth and I was able to have much more fun at the sessions.