Quote from: robiswrong;700732IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

That's interesting, because that's the approach I'm considering taking with my game, at least during playtesting and until I can sort out what the various costs might even be.

Quote from: robiswrong;700732IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

When I have had to run Champions, that's more or less how I decided to do it. I tell the players an approximate maximum starting power level (as example characters from actual comics) and tell them to create characters about that power level and not worry about the points. The Hero system master players create characters that power level using very few points. Others create characters of that power level that easily use twice as many points.

I discovered after playing the original Champions for a few weeks that I still had to approve characters because equal point cost characters could be at widely different power levels. So just implemented the above. It freaks out the "hero system master" players, but I didn't cater to "system mastery" back in the early 1980s either.

Quote from: robiswrong;700732So the question I have is if the point system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add?  Isn't that the whole premise of a point-buy system, that two characters with the same point cost will (assuming people aren't deliberately sabotaging their characters) be within some margin of effectiveness of each other?

IOW, if you just threw out the whole point buy thing and came up with a bunch of powers, and the GM just approved or disapproved of the characters, would that be worse than the current system?

In my opinion, the premise of a point-buy system is the same as any other character creation system - to make an interesting and satisfying group of PCs that are fun to play. A game can achieve this without being absolutely balanced, in my opinion.

I find that just using the point system works fine for a fun game. If I was looking for exact balance - then yes, I would have to modify point costs. However, I don't need that to have a fun game. Players just make their characters on their point budget, and then we play, and we have fun, without working about the details of balance.

As for just saying "make what you like" without point costs - it can definitely work. I've done it. It depends on the GM and the group. Some groups are fine with this. In my experience, though, a lot of groups like having guidelines, though, even if those guidelines may sometimes be overridden.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700661They're doinking around with the calculation to make it more like d20.  The original is easier to understand:  11 + OCV - DCV.  Roll less than or equal to that number to hit.

No, they're not doinking around with it. It's the same as it ever was, just expressed in a different way. This way, the player does not have to know the DCV of his opponent, he can just say "I hit DCV of X or below". It's a marginal benefit for making the calculation of the hit roll a head scratcher, but that's the reason for it.

Quote from: robiswrong;700732So the question I have is if the point system doesn't provide reasonable levels of balance (nevermind "perfect balance"), then what value does it add?  Isn't that the whole premise of a point-buy system, that two characters with the same point cost will (assuming people aren't deliberately sabotaging their characters) be within some margin of effectiveness of each other?

That depends entirely on your concept of "reasonable levels of balance."  If one of your characters is James Bond (or Batman) and another one is Superman, you might make both on 500 points but the first is obviously not going to beat the second one up, although he is going to know more stuff and have more options for approaching a target than just beating it up.

In my opinion, the virtue of Hero System (which I find simpler than GURPS, though that probably doesn't say anything) is that every game establishes some concept of "game balance" and this becomes that much more obvious when you look at the D&D family.  If you want a Fighter to have lots of combat options and damage-dealing ability via Feats, he apparently has to suck at skill ranks, skill selection and saving throws.  A Paladin is somewhat less handicapped, but also isn't going to be nearly as good at combat.  Or you could just do what D&D 4 did and make the classes largely interchangeable.  In any case a lot of D&D third-party stuff seems somehow "broken" to me because the fancy new feat or prestige class in the book isn't balanced with what came before, since there really isn't any guideline for what that means.  In Hero System, at least there is.

JG

Quote from: jhkim;700785In my opinion, the premise of a point-buy system is the same as any other character creation system - to make an interesting and satisfying group of PCs that are fun to play. A game can achieve this without being absolutely balanced, in my opinion.

Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman.

But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

Especially in a game like HERO/Champions, where it's very common to put additional restrictions on characters (no attack over xd6, etc.) above and beyond the point budget anyway.

Quote from: jhkim;700785I find that just using the point system works fine for a fun game. If I was looking for exact balance - then yes, I would have to modify point costs. However, I don't need that to have a fun game. Players just make their characters on their point budget, and then we play, and we have fun, without working about the details of balance.

I'm not looking for "exact balance".  I'm just saying that the whole *point* of using point buy (as separate from the power/skill definitions that you can get in HERO) is that two characters of the same point value should be roughly equivalent.

If that's not the case (and it's not - I pity any HERO or GURPS GM that doesn't pre-approve characters), then why not just skip the middleman?

Quote from: jhkim;700785As for just saying "make what you like" without point costs - it can definitely work. I've done it. It depends on the GM and the group. Some groups are fine with this. In my experience, though, a lot of groups like having guidelines, though, even if those guidelines may sometimes be overridden.

So why not make the guidelines based on maximum power levels, defense levels, etc. - which you often do in Champions games anyway?

Quote from: robiswrong;700814Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman.

But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

One advantage that Hero gives is the ability to make any character you want, in exactly the way you want. This isn't "charop prowess" (a d20-centric term) but building to concept.

I have introduced two newbies to Hero this year and they loved this aspect of it, making off-the-wall characters rather than choosing from a menu of abilities. The fact that I had to give them guidelines for appropriate SPD and attack strengths based on my judgment for the campaign was no sacrifice.

Quote from: robiswrong;700814Nobody's talking about "absolute balance".  That's a strawman.

But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

Especially in a game like HERO/Champions, where it's very common to put additional restrictions on characters (no attack over xd6, etc.) above and beyond the point budget anyway.

By "absolute balance" I don't mean "exact balance".  I mean what you are talking about here - the idea that there is an absolute effectiveness and characters can be within 30% of it. Given infinite possible campaigns, I think the 30% number is meaningless. If I pick up two real character sheets, I don't think there is any way for me to assess if they are within 30% effectiveness of each other.

Rather than comparing Hero to an theoretical perfection that it should be within 30% of, I think it is more useful to compare it to other character creation mechanics. I think it is a legitimate complaint that Hero character creation is complex and time-consuming, but it also has great flexibility and clarity. I have a metric fuck-ton of little issues with it over how detailed mechanics and costs in it work. Still, I can state that I have played many campaigns where we just used the character creation rules as written (which includes campaign limits on attacks and defenses as you note), and we had plenty of fun that character creation was integral to.

Quote from: robiswrong;700814If that's not the case (and it's not - I pity any HERO or GURPS GM that doesn't pre-approve characters), then why not just skip the middleman?

There's nothing wrong with doing that, and maybe that's how you prefer to do things. For a lot of groups, though, they prefer the structure and objectivity of a point system - and even if fully informed of the option of just skipping the middleman, they prefer to work with points.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700710STR ranges from 10 to 20 for a normal campaign, but the only values that have any mechanical meaning in the system are 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20. The intermediate values are superfluous.  Similar breakpoints exist for all the other stats, but they aren't at the same values.

And this differs how from any other system that uses stat bonuses?

In Runequest most modifiers and additions are in +5% increments which makes me wonder why they bothered with percentiles in the first place.

In D&D 3.X and 4.0 a +1 bonus is granted for two points of characteristics.

I appreciated the commentary, like Goodman sez, the authors put into the books. Rather being ashamed of it, they pointed it out so everybody can take advantage of it if they choose. And in 3rd ,4th, and 5th they get better at not only this but in area that were problems. Stuff that despite whatever point tweaks you throw at it are going to be a problem if you allow it in your game.

In my view Champions/Hero System passes the most important test which is that it work well in actual play over the course of an entire campaign.

Quote from: Novastar;700720And the inevitable fights over how to build something.

(I.e. when I started, I made a character that was a fighter pilot, so while in a vehicle, he increases the Defensive Value. Now, I figured since it only increased his DCV while in a vehicle, it gets a disadvantage, and I can buy it at reduced cost. Wrong. Since it's "affecting an outside entity", you have to buy a number of expensive advantages, which greatly increases the cost. My +2 DCV in a plane went from 7 points to 37 points, IIRC. It was cheaper to become a Kung-Fu Master, than make the plane a little harder to hit.)

Because it is an advantage, the character can sit in any plane and give it +2 DCV. He is lending his bonus to another "character" in this case the plane.

If you wanted it cheaper then you flip it around and give a plane a +2 DCV if piloted by an individual with a specific skill set. One that your character happens to have.

Then it would a limited bonus because the +2 DCV only comes into play if pilot meets the criteria. If don't want every plane to have it you can say it is a special module or maintenance package that has to be added to specific planes. In a cinematic campaign you can say that is something unique that your character does to the plane before he flies. The point is that it is the plane that get modification not the player.

Quote from: jhkim;700724I agree that the Hero System has a very difficult learning curve, which means the main option for playing is people who have already learned it. I don't play it with any of my regular groups these days for that reason, though I still will run and play in one-shots.

I found for 5th edition that the UNTIL database of superpowers and the Ultimate series make the game very approachable. They are like shopping lists that the player can pick pre-built powers and clearly explain (in normal english not just the game-speak stats listing) the pros and cons of the options.

In the campaign I ran last year these books were highly effective as a starting point for all kinds of crazy things the character wanted to buy. Because the game stats were listed, they could find something similar, ask me how to tweak to be more what they wanted and then go from there.

Quote from: robiswrong;700814But if two equal-point characters aren't within, say 30% effectiveness of each other (which is in no way "absolute" balance), then what's the advantage of using points instead of just declaring powers?  The only thing hte point buy system seems to offer at that point is to allow people to exercise their charop prowess.

The strong point of Hero was always power customization. Superhero games that uses shopping lists of powers may allow for character customization but are quite limited in power customization. Sure you can always house rule something in but Hero System allowed for a more objective way of creating just about anything.  

Should Stretching be worth twice that of Telekinesis (I don't if it is but it just an example). I don't know. I what I do know from following Champions from 2nd edition that the all of this be honed through many years of actual play. That while not perfect and much of it is arbitary it got a lot of playtesting behind it. And to note the authors had said at various times and in various editions if you don't how something is priced change it.

And to answer your point that a 500 pt batman is useless against a 500 pt superman is a consequence of any general point buy system. Unless your shopping list is limited then you can always make a "useless" character. Champions/Hero System recognized the issue in the 80s, talked about it, and the conclusion is that you need to make sure that your campaign fit the characters. That if there is a Batman and Superman then you need to run World Finest adventures not Batman adventures or Superman adventures.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700642So in the generic systrms thread it was suggested that I check out Hero System Sixth Edition Basic (BR).  $15 later, hat tip to the drivethru folks, I am reading/listening to these rules.

And... wow.  I am pretty shocked by the complexity represented in the BASIC version of these rules.  I am not yet passing judgement, and am willing to let it grow on me, but check out this out-of-context example:



Again,  that's out of context, but it boggles me a bit...

Why subtract what you rolled, and I guess this means rolling low is better?  Maybe?  But I think damage is a "roll high" situation, so maybe not.

And why eleven?  3d6 should average to 10, or 9.5 or something, without exploding dice.  With exploding we should be above 12.

More to come, but I am definitely having fun trying to fit all this in a busy addled brain.

Hero uses roll low, and dice do not explode.

Stat rolls, Skill rolls, all types of rolls might be '12 or less' for example.

Average is 10.5   so 11 seems reasonable.



The 'to hit' roll is not a complicated as it might look.

You essentially need to roll an 11 or less to hit, modified by the difference between the attacker and defenders offence and defense value.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700652This book, exactly -http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/64691/HERO-System-Basic-Rulebook

Also I am a bit annoyed at the use of the word "roll" in Skill Roll.  It isn't a roll at all, but a target number to roll against, assuming I read it correctly.

Well, you do roll.

For example, If I have Acrobatics skill 15 or less, I just roll 3d6 and see if I get 15 or less.

Quote from: estar;700922Because it is an advantage, the character can sit in any plane and give it +2 DCV. He is lending his bonus to another "character" in this case the plane.

If you wanted it cheaper then you flip it around and give a plane a +2 DCV if piloted by an individual with a specific skill set. One that your character happens to have.

Then it would a limited bonus because the +2 DCV only comes into play if pilot meets the criteria. If don't want every plane to have it you can say it is a special module or maintenance package that has to be added to specific planes. In a cinematic campaign you can say that is something unique that your character does to the plane before he flies. The point is that it is the plane that get modification not the player.

I understand the reasoning behind the cost from HERO's mechanics; I just disagree with them.

We're going to spend, maybe, 10% of the game in the plane. A fraction of that will be in combat (if I'm doing my job smuggling the PC's in, correctly). That's a lot of points, for something that may come up, 5% of game time, and gives me a slight advantage? Where as Bruce Lee the martial artist is at a significant advantage, anytime there is personal combat, which makes up a significantly larger amount of the game (spit-balling I'd say 25-50%).

It's an area that the game does not emulate well. Just like poison (IIRC, a spitting Cobra is an over 300pt animal, more than some superheroes).