... that's right, the points are like a role-player in a D&D game :)
More seriously, this picks up from the previous article on Point Systems. There I looked at them from a game design POV with a focus on what is a rather traditional style of play- a GM designing a campaign world and adventures for his group of players (and their characters).
There's another way of doing things however and it's a very simple one. You build everyone (and in a game like HERO, everything) to match the setting and its concepts. It doesn't matter if an ability is useless or not, if they have it- buy it. Hang the points; only add them up if you're curious.
For example, I've ran a re-imagined version of the Marvel Universe for years now with a number of different groups. Every character, weapon, device, etc was built in HERO System first and foremost to match my own view of what my version of the setting was and should be like. Game Balance came in second on the list of consideration.
So Hulk is the strongest one there is. And Hawkeye is just plain not as powerful as Thor in the Avengers. And the points show this. Hawkeye is a 365 point build while Thor clocks in at 655.
And to someone interested in recreating a consistent reality based upon the comic world (with changes to make it truly consistent), that's the way things have to be.
Now what's interesting, is that over the campaigns Hawkeye has been on the same team with Thor in the same adventures. And he wasn't useless by any means. Sometimes niche is more important than power, and Hawkeye can do things Thor can't for the simple reason that their niche is different. In fact, I've had more people want to run Hawkeye than run Thor- they think he's more fun.
I'll come back to niche some day, for niche is the single most important mechanic element in a successful rpg IMO.
But for now, I'd like to suggest that it's ok to run wild with the points if "it is what it is" is your primary concern in campaign design. If you (like me) are still interested in some degree of player balance- find it not in points but in niche. It works.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I've never been huge into "all characters are created equal". They aren't. You get into forcing equality, in my experience, and you begin to erode niche protection.
GMing Rifts was very good preparation for creating player balance through situational placing and protecting those niches, because first level characters are very rarely anywhere close in power level.
I've noticed that if given points to spend, people will optimise, and if just told to make the characters they want to, people will do just that, assuming sufficient familiarity with the rules in use.
This is like your version, but players build their own characters to match their vision of the setting.
Balance is only important if playing in a style that makes it so. If, for example, interaction between characters is in large role, balance does not matter a whole lot.
Zachary- I wonder if the assumption that characters should be balanced instead of useful is a cultural thing, because that certainly wasn't the starting point for the hobby.
Thanuir- I've heard of groups managing just what you suggest. Mine however tend to have a number of people who don't get into rules, plus I want to make sure the world matches my image of it as GM.
Thus I tend to build everything taking the input from the player as to what their vision of the character is.
HERO is a lot of work, but worth it IMO.
As a champion of the points-based generic game, I think there is an inherent value in trying to simulate things regardless of the points. It's clear that more powerful does not always equal more fun to play.
We must, however, be mindful of the creative value of constraints. I think it was Warren Zevon who said that when he's just sitting around he's lazy--but when someone offered him money for commercial music the constraints led him to create some really good stuff.
If we don't get restraints from source material, points isn't a bad way to get it.
-Marco
Marco- that's a rather unexpected point. I normally see it from fans of random character generation systems. "Run what the dice give you, it will result in you going in unexpect and more creative direction".
I think your correct at least for some people, although I worry about the side effects. Rather than ending up with something creative, I fear the more common result is something purely min-maxed.
Just to be clear: I don't discount the issues with min-maxing. That's certainly a common and very real problem.
I just wanted to point out that I think there *is* a definite value in keeping points constrained for some creative character generating efforts.
We'll see more about this when you post about effects-based generic games and whatever the opposite is (powers-based? I forget).
-Marco
Zach - GMing Rifts was very good preparation for creating player balance through situational placing and protecting those niches, because first level characters are very rarely anywhere close in power level.
That's where you learned how to do that too huh?
There is nothing like a kitchen-sink game that is shamelessly unbalanced to teach a player or GM how to celebrate the differences in a party. Maybe one guy can kill with a stare, but can he hack into that computer or fix that busted bionic arm?
marco - I just wanted to point out that I think there *is* a definite value in keeping points constrained for some creative character generating efforts.
I was curious as to how. I would think that giving out less points to build with would be a big factor, but I'm curious as to how you've seen it happen.
Cultural thing? Inetersting idea. You're right, we certainly didn't start that way. That, or maybe we had a lot of game creators who couldn't ever seem to roll decent stats in D&D. :)
Zweihander you and Zachary have inspired a question. Does one have to have lived through a bad game to understand what a good one is?
I don't have a answer, just the question at the moment...
Zachary- To me in a world where everything has to be fair no matter the merits, the overwhelming worry about 'equal' characters seem to be nothing but an natural outgrowth the mindset.
There are other theories. RPGs are games, games are close to children, children worry greatly about 'fair' (which is typically little more than a concept for something that happened they didn't like, i.e I didn't get the same size cake).
Or maybe really bad games inspired a thirst for balance as a reaction from those unable to adjust the game toward niche?
I like the first theory myself.
[i]Marco- We'll see more about this when you post about effects-based generic games and whatever the opposite is (powers-based? I forget).[/i]
Certainly a worthly future article. When I started this I thought that there wasn't that much to write about.
Seems there's a bunch.
Zweihander you and Zachary have inspired a question. Does one have to have lived through a bad game to understand what a good one is?
Well, few things teach like experience. When I ran those games, I really didn't have too much trouble with the rules, as I was unafraid to strip out the more constraining complexities. My issue was the disparity of the PCs, espcially in combat. Niche protection was the best and effective solution for me, that and the weaker PCs learning when to get out of the way or fight smarter when combats started.
It was fixed further when the players just decided that blowing stuff up was the whole point of RIFTS for them and all made combat characters the next time around.
Zweihander
The most basic idea is this: if I have 250pts to build a Hero games character I have guide-rails that will give me some decisions to make. I think it's pretty easy to see how having to make decisions can sort of "juice" the creative process (for some people).
If I have no point restriction, even if I don't just take "everything" I may still be more vulnerable to laziness and not making hard choices.
The presence of these choices can, at least in some cases, spur creative thought the same way that being told to write about "anything" can be more difficult than being told to write about something specific.
-Marco
To add a bit to Marco's points, Let's use a more concrete example.
Let's say I'm building a character based upon Nero. If I had unlimited points I may buy him as one of his powers - ForceWall 15 PD, 15 ED and just leave it at that. Cost= 75 points. He can not stop bullets in mid-air.
If however I was trying to fit him in a 250 point build, that's too expensive. So it forces me to go back an apply limits to reduce the cost. It just so happens by looking at the movies again I notice that he didn't move while stopping those bullets and standing still.
Concentration: 0 DCV, is now a limit on the power. It also seem to require gestures. Another limit. And let's make it a Full Phase action. Another limit. Let's say that by the time we're done we have -2 Limits to apply, the power now costs 25 points.
Not only does that fit the budget better, it also happens to better represent what happened in the movie.
In the same way, even for characters not based upon a defined source- trying to fit things within a budget can result in a more interesting power. One different from those of other characters.
Post a Comment