Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

[Sean Waters]

So, I’ve been overthinking character points and I’ve come to the conclusion that they serve two purposes in Hero:

• 
  [1]They provide a balancing mechanism for approximating equality in character creation, and
  [2]They provide a way of delineating characters, and approaching better Concept Realisation

I imagine the first one is pretty self evident and the second is, well either a bit ‘Eh?’ or seen as an adjunct of 1. The more I overthink it, though, the more important 2. becomes.

 

Here’s something I’ve been overthinking as an illustration: Indirect

 

So, what does indirect do?

 

Three things, to my mind;

• [1]circumvents intervening barriers between you and your target
  [2]allows a strike to hit from any angle, thus allowing KB in a non-standard direction
  [3]allows an attack to circumvent certain defensive actions, for instance, block or missile deflection

Now there may be some overlap with other advantages, and 3. needs a bit of explaining. My ‘logic’ goes like this: if indirect allows you to ‘start’ an attack anywhere outside personal defences, then you can presumably ‘start’ an attack at the point where those defences begin, thus preventing an effective block or MD. This overlaps with IPE to an extent because you cannot block or MD an attack you cannot perceive – is this the same? Not quite, to my way of thinking, as the mechanical effect is that it is too late to sense the attack, so the number and type of senses you have is (almost) irrelevant.

• [1]Circumventing barriers should come in a number of distinct levels
  • [a]Circumventing barriers in a set way (e.g. a grenade’s parabola path)
    Circumventing barriers in a variable way (e.g. a guided missile finding a way to a target)
    [c]Ignoring barriers (e.g. a phased pulse passing right through that englobing force wall)

• • [a]would cost +1/4
    would cost +1/2
    [c]would cost +3/4

• [2]Certain KB directions are more useful than others, so again we have distinct levels
  • [a]‘Standard’ KB away from attacker OR KB straight up or down
    Non-standard but set KB (e.g. always towards the attacker)
    [c]Non-standard variable KB (e.g. whichever way you like this time)

• • [a]would cost +0
    would cost +1/4
    [c]would cost +1/2

• [3]Avoiding block or MD is a bit all or nothing, so if you can, that is worth +1/4

This increases the total cost of ‘full indirect’ to +1½ BUT gives far more ability to realise your concept. You can define far more precisely what it is your power DOES, in terms of game mechanics.

 

Don’t need it, you might say, CDS, but Hero is ‘The Ultimate Gamer’s Toolkit’, and the point of this exercise is to demonstrate, perhaps, that the more important consideration regarding the game philosophy behind the humble Point, is not character balance in creation (a doomed, if noble, enterprise), but building exactly what you want. I’m beginning to think that, whilst we should certainly strive to achieve a degree of balance, and thus appropriate costing, in the allocation of values to powers and advantages and so on, what we really need to offer is choice, within an appropriate framework to apply such diversity in consistent and fruitful ways.

 

I’m not sure what my point is (pun intended), beyond perhaps getting the old grey matter fizzing (are you SURE it is supposed to do that?) but does this ring any (distant) bell with anyone?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

So' date=' I’ve been overthinking character points and I’ve come to the conclusion that they serve two purposes in Hero:[/size']

• 
  [1]They provide a balancing mechanism for approximating equality in character creation, and
  [2]They provide a way of delineating characters, and approaching better Concept Realisation

I imagine the first one is pretty self evident and the second is, well either a bit ‘Eh?’ or seen as an adjunct of 1. The more I overthink it, though, the more important 2. becomes.

 

I don't have anything to say about your thoughts on Indirect. They seem well reasoned to me.

 

As for points, I see them in these two ways:

 

1. As a currency characters use to buy "stuff" with ("stuff" including Characteristics, Skills, and Powers, but not representing any kind of in-game money except abstractly; there's no 1 point = 1 million dollars or anything like that)
   
2. As a measuring scale for how powerful a character is.
   

 

 

These two pieces are pretty much mutually contradictory.

 

More later when I have time.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

While I agree with the basic premise ... you've sort of over-granulated a bit in your example. In my opinion.

 

The points are for allowing us to model what's in our brains.

 

But, that isn't the end of it. Points are, like with balance, merely a starting place (or point. Laugh - that's funny).

 

Take for instance the following example:

 

Stokes Six-Shooter 1D6 RKA, OAF, Beam, Real Weapon, Charges:6

Heckler & Jokes Pistol 1D6 RKA, OAF, Beam, Real Weapon, Charges: 6

 

no mechanical difference. But then you read the descriptions:

 

Stokes introduced their six-shooter in 1842, it had a distinctive style and a shiny blue finish from the alloy Stokes used in all their weapons. In 1843 Heckler & Jokes was formed and released their own pistol, superficially similar to the Stokes gun (though H&J had a very distinctive hex shape to the outside of the barrel), but the H&J weighed almost a full 1/2 pound less. This reduction in weight quickly made it the weapon of favor amongst Military Officers and gunslingers across the west.

 

Now, we get to the character concept..

 

NPC: A Stoke huh?

JoePC: Yeah, I like the heft. Let's a man know he's carrying a proper weappn. (said in appropriately gravely Eastwood Voice)

 

In this simple little bit we see that Character Concept transcends the idea of Points, and using those Points, to model exactly what it is we want.

 

The biggest question you really need to ask is, "Does such a difference in aspects of what we're modeling really require different point expenditure?"

 

Or - more broadly - at what point does creating granularity in the system start working against us and simply over complicate the matter?

[Checkmate]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

Yeah I'm going to avoid the whole Indirect thing, but as far as points, the way I see/explain them is that they help make sure everyone is equally useful. The two most important words in that statement are help and useful.

 

Help: GM intervention needed. Not all 350pt characters are created equal.

Useful: I uses useful not powerful for a reason. Some players will spend those points on combat effectiveness and some will spend those points on non-combat skills. Both will be equally useful, just at different points in the adventure

[schir1964]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

Yes Sean.

 

Points exist only allow one to create exactly what they want. If they don't, then they must be forced to. (8^D)

Points do not measure or enforce character balance, the GM enforces character balance. (8^D)

More important is that the rules be applied consistently so that the GM can get a better sense of when something is balanced and when something is not. (8^D)

 

Just A Humorous Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Markdoc]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

Points 1 and 2, I'd agree with (I'd go so far as to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident").

 

There's a third aspect though. By its very nature, a points-buy system requires some sort of metasystem that you can use to customise and/or assess the effects of changes system outside of what's presented (much as you have done with Indirect). For my taste, the indirect example is way too granular/complex, but with a robust and explicit metasystem (something most games lack) it's a snap to make those changes and assess their potential effect.

 

It's different from point 1, because it's not all about players and it's not all about balancing - in some games, I've made changes to deliberately *unbalance* powers to shift the game in a desired direction.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

Points 1 and 2, I'd agree with (I'd go so far as to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident").

 

There's a third aspect though. By its very nature, a points-buy system requires some sort of metasystem that you can use to customise and/or assess the effects of changes system outside of what's presented (much as you have done with Indirect). For my taste, the indirect example is way too granular/complex, but with a robust and explicit metasystem (something most games lack) it's a snap to make those changes and assess their potential effect.

 

It's different from point 1, because it's not all about players and it's not all about balancing - in some games, I've made changes to deliberately *unbalance* powers to shift the game in a desired direction.

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

I take that point (I'll stop now, shall I?).

 

A sort of metagame control system - double the cost of strength and you get a lot more energy blasts, for example - it does not unbalance the game (unless it is applied retroactively), and it is not simply about Character Realisation. Excellent.

 

Any more...er...aspects to this?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

Tl;dr

[Lucius]

Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

One must count points; else,

Pointless the game: but know that

Points are not the point.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is too distinctive to be anonymous, but with two heads, it can definitely be an overthinker.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

Holy crap.

 

It's Lucius.

 

Thought you were dead.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Overthinkers Anonymous: the Point

 

So' date=' I’ve been overthinking character points...[/quote']

So, what does indirect do?

 

Three things, to my mind;

• [1]circumvents intervening barriers between you and your target
  [2]allows a strike to hit from any angle, thus allowing KB in a non-standard direction
  [3]allows an attack to circumvent certain defensive actions, for instance, block or missile deflection

Well, point three above is more or less identical to point 1 in my opinion. Barrier = defense. In some cases, you are actually bypassing some kind of defense, such as cover (which my be a Force Wall or some other barrier). In others, you are really doing nothing more than attacking from an angle the target can't perceive, or can't perceive easily, thus denying him the possibility of an active defense (Block, Dodge, Missile Defense, etc.); all he can do is rely on his natural agility and and reflexes (DCV plus CSL in DCV).