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

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.

Now that's a strawman.  Again, is a 1st-level Wizard combat-equivalent to a 1st-level Fighter?

JG

Quote from: Bill;700934Well, 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.

Right, but the roll is the total of the three dice, not the target number.  Or more accurately it's the act of physically tossing the dice, but that's closer to the result than to the difficulty,  conceptually.

It's a poor choice of labels, imo.

Quote from: mcbobbo;700984Right, but the roll is the total of the three dice, not the target number.  Or more accurately it's the act of physically tossing the dice, but that's closer to the result than to the difficulty,  conceptually.

It's a poor choice of labels, imo.

I don't see the problem there. All they are saying is that you need to roll a 15 or less. the 15 is the target number, unde rthe assumption the 15 would be modified for circumstances. A difficult Acrobatics roll for the guy with a 15 or less, might be a 10 or less. Thats essentially a difficulty number.


Another thing about hero is that it worls pretty much the same as d20.

d20     roll 1d20 + bonuses  vs AC 10 + Bonuses

Hero    roll 3d6 +OCV vs 10+DCV


Its laid out differently but essentially the same thing.


I have played Hero with a d20, and using 'AC'

I had a lengthy discussion with a Hero fan many years ago that I reduced to the following Socratic dialogue, as it nicely summarizes the problems with effects-based point buy.

QuoteSocrates: What is worth more: a 10d6 Fire Blast or Life Support: Breathe Underwater?

Hero Fan: The Fire Blast. 50 points compared to 5.

Socrates: The whole campaign takes place underwater, in Atlantis. Does your answer change?

Hero Fan: Of course - if a power is useless, it shouldn't cost the player any points.

Socrates: But finding new uses for a useless ability is a staple of comic heroes.  What if a player contrives a bubble of air, or some other explanation for why his Fire Blast works some times?

Hero Fan: Then the power should have a Limitation to reflect that.

Socrates: The highest Limitation one can put on a power is -2.  That reduces the cost of the Fire Blast to 17 points.  A power hardly ever usable still costs more than three times more than a power necessary to survive the campaign premise.

Hero Fan: If everyone has to have the power just to survive, it should just be free, there's no point in charging everyone for it.  And the point costs are just guidelines, they can't be taken a ironclad indicators of effectiveness.  That's why we have DC caps and CV limits.

Socrates: So the GM can and should change the point costs of the powers to match his own campaign.

Hero Fan: Yes.

Socrates: Does this not make the point costs as printed in the book - and by extension, the values for all Advantages and Limitations, and the point total limits - arbitrary?

Hero Fan: Well, yes.

Socrates: Then why am I doing all this math?

As for the usual "Hero lets you build any power and any character!", that's a canard and always has been.  Every RPG lets you build any power and any character, you just have to make some shit up.  All the Hero system lets you do is slap a number on the power after a couple hours of arithmetic - a number which the most ardent proponents of the system admit is arbitrary.

When Mutants and Masterminds started to follow Champions down the rabbit hole of "how do I build this power", many people were annoyed when I pointed out that just making up some mechanics and slapping the modifier It Just Works Like This +2 was a hell of a lot quicker and no less balanced than complicated stat-wanking. (of course, a lot of other people just went "shit, yeah, that's much easier").

It's a canard twice over, because there are in fact a lot of superhero powers and character concepts that could not be built simply or on any sane number of points because there are a lot of core building blocks Champions lacks (up to late 4th ed, anyway, but I don't think they've fixed the Katana problem yet).  The Astral Projection power from Mystic Masters is the canonical example.

Quote from: James Gillen;700969Now that's a strawman.  Again, is a 1st-level Wizard combat-equivalent to a 1st-level Fighter?

It's not a strawman in this specific case.  Up to late 4th edition, Champions/Hero made quite a big, big deal out of game balance and point limits.  What D&D does or doesn't do is irrelevant to the conversation; Champions claims that its effects-based point buy system lets you build any power and any character and the point totals and DC caps will produce "balanced characters".  That claim isn't true.

Hero lets me build any charcater I want. Most games don't.

If I am gm, I can assist players in making reasonably balanced characters for the type of campaign desired.

I don't expect Hero to create balanced characters on its own any more than I expect that in Pathfinder.

Can you create a character who can run the speed of light in Hero?

I'm just curious. I've never read the system.

Quote from: Endless Flight;701005Can you create a character who can run the speed of light in Hero?

I'm just curious. I've never read the system.

Yes.

There is a power called Faster than light travel, and for a character like the Flash, you would buy FTL travel with a disadvantage "Must run along a surface" or something like that.

It would be mainly for movement.

So could he use that in combat too? Like to add to his defenses?

Quote from: Endless Flight;701010So could he use that in combat too? Like to add to his defenses?

Here is how that works in Hero.

You buy everything that you can do.


So the Flash has many, many, many powers.

Just running fast is a movement power.

If the Flash wants to be hard to hit, he has to buy up his Defense Combat value.

Another example:

Human torch: If he wants to be able to burn things with a fiery trail as he flies,

He has to but both flight and a damage dealing power linked to the flight.

Quote from: daniel_ream;700991It's not a strawman in this specific case.  Up to late 4th edition, Champions/Hero made quite a big, big deal out of game balance and point limits.  What D&D does or doesn't do is irrelevant to the conversation; Champions claims that its effects-based point buy system lets you build any power and any character and the point totals and DC caps will produce "balanced characters".  That claim isn't true.

I can see nothing in either my 2nd ed Champions or my 4th ed Hero System book that makes this claim, and plenty that contradicts it. For example, this is from the 2nd ed Champions (1982):

Quote from: 2nd ed ChampionsUnbalanced characters: As CHAMPIONS allows the players to build their own characters there will be times when a GM comes up against a character he does not feel will fit into his game. Other times a character will be built that is very unbalanced (such as a character who has spent all of his points on Energy Blast).

The GM should hold firm against characters that would unbalance a scenario, for on his shoulders rests the enjoyment of all the players. Try to show the unbalanced character how his weaknesses can (and will) be used against him. Inform the character who does not fit that his character might ruin the adventure for all. Good players should be willing to go along with the GM in the hopes that everyone will have a better adventure.

Even if some other book does make such a grandiose claim, I don't think it makes a significant difference for the system. The important thing for the system is how does it compare to other RPG systems in practice.

Quote from: Bill;701003Hero lets me build any charcater I want. Most games don't.

Not arguing that at all.  I'm looking at two separate aspects of character creation in HERO:

1) The stats on the sheet at the end of the process
2) The process of spending points and adjusting things to buy those stats

What I'm asking as a kind of thought exercise (more than anything else) is:

What is the purpose of the point buy exercise, as opposed to simply saying what abilities you want?

I can see two possible reasons:

1) Balance
2) Providing an interesting character build system as a subgame of its own

If balance is the reason, and the point buy system does not provide it (to the extent that GM approval of characters is *still* generally required), then is it adding anything?  Would anything really be changed by just getting rid of the point buy mechanics, given that the GM *already* has to be in the position of ensuring that a character's power level fits well within the game?

If providing an interesting character build 'subgame' is the point, it does it well.

I'm not actually *criticizing* the HERO system here, BTW.  More of a thought experiment.

Quote from: Bill;701003If I am gm, I can assist players in making reasonably balanced characters for the type of campaign desired.

Indeed.  And you could do that whether powers were bought with points, or whether they were just 'declared'.

Quote from: Bill;701003I don't expect Hero to create balanced characters on its own any more than I expect that in Pathfinder.

Terrible example - I find the 3.x games to be the *most* charop abusable games of any I've played.  One of the reasons I don't play 3.x is that I moved away from GURPS for simplicity and to get away from charop wankery, and found instead that 3.x was even worse.  Since I generally prefer a lot of the things that GURPS does compared to 3.x, if I have to deal with the charop crap, I'd rather stick with GURPS.

(And yes, the same arguments about point buy *do* apply to GURPS as well)

Quote from: robiswrong;701030What is the purpose of the point buy exercise, as opposed to simply saying what abilities you want?

I can see two possible reasons:

1) Balance
2) Providing an interesting character build system as a subgame of its own

If balance is the reason, and the point buy system does not provide it (to the extent that GM approval of characters is *still* generally required), then is it adding anything?  Would anything really be changed by just getting rid of the point buy mechanics, given that the GM *already* has to be in the position of ensuring that a character's power level fits well within the game?

The point system adds to transparency and communication in providing balance. Yes, GM approval is still required, and sometimes the GM will need to adjust things - but on the other hand, often the GM doesn't have to do anything other than say yes to each of the characters.

If I work without the point system, and instead I as GM just say "Make up whatever" - then balance is less transparent and requires more back-and-forth. The players won't have as clear an idea about how much they should take. They each come up with something and turn in their characters, then I have to give them feedback about whether each has too little or too much.

Both of these approaches can work, but the point system approach is more transparent to the players, which is why I think it tends to be preferred.

Quote from: jhkim;701038Both of these approaches can work, but the point system approach is more transparent to the players, which is why I think it tends to be preferred.

I think this is pretty important, too, because all the players use the same set of rules to create characters.  So when jealousy happens you get to point to the pricing for the powers and the reasoning that went into that.

Quote from: jhkim;701038The point system adds to transparency and communication in providing balance. Yes, GM approval is still required, and sometimes the GM will need to adjust things - but on the other hand, often the GM doesn't have to do anything other than say yes to each of the characters.

If I work without the point system, and instead I as GM just say "Make up whatever" - then balance is less transparent and requires more back-and-forth. The players won't have as clear an idea about how much they should take. They each come up with something and turn in their characters, then I have to give them feedback about whether each has too little or too much.

Both of these approaches can work, but the point system approach is more transparent to the players, which is why I think it tends to be preferred.

Pretty much the same as the beginning section of the rule book where they answer the question "Why have rules if it's all just 'let's pretend'?"

JG