Doc Democracy

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

I repped him' date=' it put the issue into the appropriate context, I think.[/quote']

 

I'm sure that'll make up for my puny rep addition being delayed!

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

I'm not sure what you two (Hugh and Doc) are debating anymore.

Pretty much, in my head it was whether that making two players pay different amounts of points for the same ability (e.g. 25 STR). In Hero that would seemingly be anathema - the concept should explain the ability not influence the cost.

I think in a superhero context that I'd be with Hugh but in Fantasy where points aren't the be all and end all I'm more relaxed about point tallies.

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

But wouldn't it be just as easy to say "no human wizards" and be honest about it up front' date=' than to place enough hurdles in the way that a human wizard isn't viable anyway? Looking back at Herc and his 20 point disparity, he's better off with a 20 STR, a 20 CON and 40 points of skill levels, isn't he? So expect skilled humans, and strong trolls. And, again, that may be what you want - just like you may want high dex characters to be elves, or high CON characters to be dwarves.[/quote']

 

Good post Hugh (will rep you when I can).

 

It might be easier straight off to say no human wizards but you get players who want to now why or want to be the only human wizard. I'd be inclined to say that there are no human wizards and this is why. If you inisist on being a human wizard then these are the problems you'll have to overcome - possibly a good story in itself.

 

Personally (and that doesn't mean its right for anyone but me) I prefer to hardwire my campaign preferences into the game rather than continually have to adjudicate characters and enforce genre standards 'cause I said so'.

 

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

My initial post doesn't talk about the social consequences of being a Troll, but assuming the package includes disadvantages, he's gettung the points for those disadvantages. Herc has to take similar disadvantages (remember, Herc had the occasional berserk rage, and killed his own family in one - does Joe Average have a strong preference for that over a troll?), or take disadvantages in some other area, so I don't consider the fact that the Troll "must" have social limitations to be much of a constraint to equalize him with a human wanting to be "as tough as a troll".

 

The Troll could have the same 30/25 stats as Herc for 50 points. That leaves 20 to buy social skills (or PRE) to counteract the usual Trollish penalty. Letting the Troll have these freebies makes him a "superior" concept to Herc solely due to the choice of racial archetype. There will be other differences (good uck persuading your GM you should regenerate, Herc!) but the troll gets an automatic 20 point advantage at the arbitrary STR and CON levels selected.

As I said earlier in the thread (I think), I can see the gamist viewpoint (a pure Hero System viewpoint) that every player should be able to buy the same abilities for the same number of points. There is an inherent feeling of fairness in that approach.

When I create a campaign, however, I often have a very strong idea of the way things wor in that campaign and the inds of things that I want to see. Now, if my worldview is that superstrong humans are exceedingly rare but I am willing to allow players to play other races as long as they accept the hardwired disads that come with those races then I think the Hero System supports me in enforcing that - I change NCMs to reflect what races I want to be strong and what races can be super dextrous.

Obviously the players have the option of following my vision of the the world or contradicting it. If they contradict it then it costs them points. A human that is superstrong - extra point cost. A troll that does not suffer from social consequences - extra points.

Not 'fair' as far as point counting goes, but fair as far as my vision of the world goes. Surely the point of the toolbox in the first place.

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

However' date=' in a Heroic level game that supports NCM, then if the character wants to be superstrong, he either needs to play a Troll or other superstrong race, bite the bullet and spend the points or get friendly with an NPC Alchemist...[/quote']

 

This is my take. In my game if you want a superstrong character then you'll have to pay the social consequences (which would be hardwired into the Troll package deal) or pay the points.

 

The player can still make choices but they'll make them within the constraints of my game.

 

 

Doc

Re: Bye all

*derogatory statement directed at a Scotsh person*

What's a Scotsh person??

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

[Why do I see this turning nto the old question of whether an Elemental Control gives too many points when you should have a tight character concept anyway?]

I hope not, it does explore an area that I often simply ignore because I don't see the deal side.

It is true that the change in NCM only affects those people who choose to exceed the figure and that an increased NCM only benefits those that want to exceed the normal NCM.

I was responding to a comment that changing NCMs would be abused as only those players wanting a higher DEX would choose an elf. Well, if there is some benefit that players want to purchase then they should be allowed to purchase that. If you want an increased NCM perhaps you should be thinking of playing an elf rather than an abnormally dextrous human.

I have no problem with making being an elf cost more than being a human for that. If a GM is worried that something will get overused then they make it cost more.

I see the other side - a purist Hero perspective would say that the elf/human/dwarf labels come after the mechanics - possibly as a way of justifying breaching NCM limits and thus everyone pays the same for their characteristics.

Personally - I like encouraging certain things and if I want the majority of dextrous sentients to be of a certain race then I change the rules to encourage players wanting to be dextrous to choose that race - along with any disadvantages and limitations that being a member of that race might entail. Hero is good at allowing things like racial discrimination to be written right onto the character sheet and gives the GM an obligation to ensure that the disadvantage disadvantages the player.

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

If you do change NCM, you have to make it a -0 limitation/+0 advantage (in other words, it costs nothing and is not worth a bonus). This is because you will find that those who have elves (+2 DEX NCM, -2 STR NCM, -2 CON NCM) will "just happen" to have STR 18 DEX 22 CON 18. They have paid 6 points less than a human would for their DEX, and not been disadvantaged by the STR and CON compared to a human. One can argue that only being able to have a STR 18 is itself a disadvantage, but it's not: the player that wanted a higher STR than that will simply not play an elf.

My response to that would be the opposite of "if something does not limit the character then it is not worth any points".

If I was to have a normal NCM of 20 for all the stats and was then to have someone buy NCM that changed stuff and believed those changes would advantage the player picking them then I think I should charge for that.

I would have the package deal contain some things that players might not want to deal with as part of their racial package deal. Or I'd call it something other than a package deal.

Doc

Re: Mental combat using combat mechanics

I have been thinking something similar.

You might want to look at this thread where there were a few good points made.

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

Hmmm....I like Doc Democracy's idea' date=' but I am cynical enough to think that many players would just take the Michael, and I've been burned enough to know that changing characteristic costs is a tricky proposition. [/quote']

 

Now there goes an experienced GM!

 

Here's a compromise solution:

 

1. Reduce the NCM breakpoint to 15 for ALL characters. Rule that characteristics should not exceed 20 in a heroic game without permission.

 

2. Keep characteristic costs the same but adjust the NCM for races to 10 for 'low characteristics and 20 for high characteristics (as opposed to the 'new normal' 15. Make sure the plus and minus characteristic costs balance, so, for instance, elves have a 20 NCM for DEX and INT (4 characteristic points) so we need to lose 4 points - say CON and BODY are at 10 NCM: they tend to be hard to hit and tricksy, but once you have one tied down, they are easy to make squeal.

 

That's not a bad idea either. You are simply making new NCM templates for the different races. My problem with this in Hero is that the characteristics aren't differentiated enough as it is - tying people down to 15 makes things even worse.

 

If I was going to do this then I think that I'd change the valuation of the skill system so that each point counts - something like CHA - 2. That would mean that Tightrope Walking would start at 8- (26% success rate) with DEX 10 and maxing out at 13- for DEX 15 (84% success rate).

 

Every point of the characteristic then has some value in the skills - which are far more important in a Heroic game.

 

 

Doc

Re: XP idea

I always give bonus experience as directed experience - improving someone's ability or skill or contacts or reputation etc.

I have been designing my own version of Gloranthan Hero and have recently been pondering about experience. In RQ people got ticks and could roll for improvements - they got harder as the skill improved and they could spend money and time to train other skills.

I've decided to take this on - I like seeing improvements to characters (other than superheroes - I like them being constant for some strange reason).

I've decided to give people rolls against skills that they successfully used and to be able to buy training up to a certain point. With the training I intend to require a roll and with both training and experience rolls I intend to improve the skill/talent etc with a successful roll or a relevant KS with a failed roll.

Then I can afford to be stingy with experience points where players can freeform improve their characters.

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

And to add to that, I'd probably increase the granularity by reducing or increasing the Character Point cost of Characteristics by .50, instead of a whole 1.

 

So for STR, perhaps a cost break would reduce the cost to 1/2 CP per point of STR (like COM). The bottom line of any Characteristic could be 1/4, so that the next level of cost break after 1/2 would be 1/4.

Yeah, my 1/2 orcs got 3 STR for 2 points - I wasn't so stupid to reduce the cost to 0!

I also tried to find funky stuff to put in the package deals, it's amazing what players will do when they get odd knowledge skills and disadvantages through a package deal. One 1/2 Orc got Reputation: Attends Drum Parties - that gave him the fantasy reputation of being a raver and implied drug use and knowledge while his KS: Tattoo recognition was used extensively in game.

Players are most creative when you least expect it!

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

I never tried to 'balance' it. Obviously it would be balanced if the character bought the same amount of DEX and CON but you find that characters that want high DEX and low CON tend to buy a elven package deal and then load up on DEX and avoid the CON.

End result? Elves with high DEX and very little CON. Because that comes with the package deal the elves then have all of the other stuff elves should have - the cheap DEX drives the deal.

All you have to do is ensure that the good part of the deal comes with all of the colour that you want your race to have.

Doc

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs

When I wanted to do racial package deals I have changed the cost of characteristics rather than changing the starting point. So where I wanted to encourage high DEX low CON elves the package deal allowed the character to buy DEX for 2pts per point and CON for 3pts per point.

This has a lasting effect on how the characters develop - obviously when they hit the NCM level the effects are even more pronounced.

Doc

Re: The purpose of a system - academic and geeky...

Hmm. This has been an interesting threadbut I haven't been tempted to respond to it. However I am currently trying to sort myself out with a set of rules that I want to use to play in the Glorantha setting. Runequest was too limited and HeroQuest (though I love the system) too narrative for my Glorantha.

I have decided to use Hero but in a way that probably makes it look less like any Hero game that I have ever run.

It has been an interesting task (despite the fact that work and fatherly duties continually interrupt) and I'm coming to see that while certain things in the Hero system can easily be dropped or replaced (SPD and the SPD chart for example) other things need too many consequential changes to be easily dropped (basing combat soley on DEX).

I think when I am finished I might have a better perception of what is actually core Hero System and what are flavour bits that provide the gameplay the designers want to promote.

Doc

Re: Bye all

Look at that, not only is he a d*ck, he a fat lying d*ck!!

It's a good job U wrote that rather than I...

Re: Help converting a couple of GURPS abilities to Hero

(In relation to the Sanitized Metabolism)

 

 

I agree.

 

IMO some people seem to be trying to create this ability in literal terms rather than reasoning from effect.

 

What exactly does the ability do for a character in game terms? Figure that out and you are most of the way toward building the ability in HERO. In GURPS it just made getting close to the character with the ability a bit more appealing.

My thoughts exactly. I was thinking of a limited invisibility. Obviously the sanitised metabolism will ensure that the character is effectively invisible to certain senses (bloodhounds will be baffled) and forensic techniques.

Possibly worth 10 points or so but I haven't properly costed it out...

Doc

Re: One Wizard tower is another's shop

Ah, the first defence is misdirection.

My home would exist simultaneously with a false home.

I would have a home in a city - why should I have to forego the benefits of living in a civilised area with all the facilities I need close to hand.

However, when I walk into my tower I translate to a different dimension that is in the exact same place as my apparent home. My place is taken by a homonculus that potters about doing day to day things so that any spies would 'see' me living in the false home.

Obviously all of the tomes and items in the false home would be trapped, cursed and a focus for my own scrying abilities (I _will_ find you and kill you!)

That would be my first line of defence...

Doc

Re: Black box recorder

Hmm.

I would be in favour of independent because the power should be available possibly after the character is dead - something that would require the particular effects that independent provides.

The power I was thinking of however was not eiditic memory which seems a bit too personal to the character possessing it but instead retrocognition, only through the senses of wearer of the armour (-1), only retrocognition (-1), only back to last time box was reset (-3/4) IIF (-1/4), independent (-2).

That seems more fitting in powers to me, even if it does cost 7 points for a base PER roll.

Doc

Re: Avlse

I'd say 'yes' - there's nothing in the idea that would prevent ANY relevant defence being taken into account. Makes you a bit of a sitting duck for the EB AVLSE (cold) though

But surely that's why my standard defence package now contains a 10 point variable sfx force field....

You might want to change the costs of that in a campaign where people have AVLSE

Doc

Re: Avlse

Another good topic Sean - I've stopped repping you - I don't get around to repping enough other people to keep up with the number of times I want to rep you...

Anyway, I enjoyed reading the thread but I have one question that may reduce the utility of the advantage or may not.

If you have a EB AVLSE (Heat) and your target has a Flame Force Field and Lavaskin Armour would the defences add for the purposes of defence against the EB?

Doc

Re: Bye all

JMHammer' date=' Shem Whistler....apparently old gamers do just fade away. Young ones too.[/quote']

 

Well, I know that Shem Whistler has moved from London to Belfast and will be getting married on October 1. I'm sure that he'll be back as soon as his life settles down again - I made him a HERO geek and I'll make sure he stays one!

 

 

Doc

Re: Pulp Hero, after looking it over

We've got about another dozen hardcovers incoming. I doubt they'll remain in the Online Store for long.

 

If further demand exists, we'll look into getting more printed. I'm not sure how long that will take; it depends in part on the printer's schedule.

 

At this point we don't have any plans to take pre-orders. Depending on perceived demand and how we want to proceed going forward, we might see if we can start something like that for "premium" items during non-convention season, but the safest bet for now is to assume we won't. If we set up a pre-order program, we'll announce it loud and clear.

I guess that means those of us that want a hardcover - if we don't get one of the 12 coming to the online store - will have to make our desires loud and clear too.

Re: Pulp Hero, after looking it over

So Steve,

What's gthe score with hardcover Pulp Hero then? I wouldn't want to delay buying a softcover just because I was waiting for something that wouldn't happen.

I can afford to wait as I will not be playing any pulp games any time soon - but I do want to have the book on my shelves (or in boxes waiting to move house).

Will you be doing a hardcover run? Would you take pre-orders to determine whether there was a market (and accept a softcover with miscellaneous stuff to make up any price differential).

Doc

Re: OCV Penalty on Powers

When I've done this in the past I have used negative skill levels - which avoids doing strange things to the powers points. What I've had to be careful with is that not too many powers are getting negative levels! It is too easy to make a few points by 'buying' -2 levels with three or more powers rather than purchasing a 5 or 8 point power to cover all those necessary.