Fair vs Concept

[JmOz]

It is something that has been bugging me for the last couple weeks and I thought a thread on the subject could be interesting. What is more important to you when working with the Hero System, that you keep true to a concept, or that you are fair, meening that you do not favor one concept over another.

 

I was reminded of this earlier today when I was asking about Multiform and trueforms. So as players, as GM's, and as people wishing they could play, what are your thoughts on the two, and can they exist at the same time?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Personally, I want to stay as true to concept as I can though the obverse of that is making sure what you give the player due to concept does not unbalance the game.

 

I have no problem in breaking the rules for concept but I have issues with breaking the game we are playing...

 

 

 

Doc

[JmOz]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Personally, I want to stay as true to concept as I can though the obverse of that is making sure what you give the player due to concept does not unbalance the game.

 

I have no problem in breaking the rules for concept but I have issues with breaking the game we are playing...

 

 

 

Doc

 

I find I am more concerned with what you do not allow based on concept than what you do

 

Personaly I try to find a balance, in a 100% fair game everyone's character would be exactly the same (Think the Captain Marvel Family maybe), but in a game where concept rules the roost, you get characters who are spending more points for the same abililities

 

Going back to the trueform idea, if Normal Guy is the true form, then his Multipower can make him extremly more powerful than his cohorts, not exactly fair...But in concept, and will cause problems most of the time I think

[OddHat]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

in a game where concept rules the roost' date=' you get characters who are spending more points for the same abililities[/quote']

 

Are you mainly referring to NCM? If so, I view that as a campaign ground rules design issue, not a hard and fast aspect of the Hero System. Personally, in my own campaigns and when approving character builds, I don't use NCM as a disadvantage at all (though I do point out what stat levels baseline humans are expected to have). As an example, the Batman Homage isn't spending any more points for DEX X than the Spiderman Homage. If the Batman Homage is given a DEX over 30, and if I'm allowing starting characters with that DEX in my campaign, I will point out that this is beyond what is physically possible for a baseline human, and ask the player to come up with a reason for the exception (possibly changing the concept), but I won't say "your character can't have that".

 

So, I guess in most situations, "fairness" is more important to me than "concept", as I will ask some players to adjust their character concept if the build doesn't make sense for that concept. However, both are important.

 

I have had players drop a character idea based on a request to adjust the concept. I regret that, but some things fit the game I want to GM, and some don't. If I'm not enjoying an aspect of the game, I have no reason to run it. This is a hobby, not paid employment.

 

If it's just an issue of efficient vs inefficient design, I'll help the player optimize the build to be on par with the other characters. However, I'm limited by the tastes and preferences of the player; if he really wants (for example) a 17 INT, even if it has no game effect, my responsibility ends after pointing that out and giving him a chance to adjust it.

[JmOz]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Are you mainly referring to NCM? If so, I view that as a campaign ground rules design issue, not a hard and fast aspect of the Hero System. Personally, in my own campaigns and when approving character builds, I don't use NCM as a disadvantage at all (though I do point out what stat levels baseline humans are expected to have). As an example, the Batman Homage isn't spending any more points for DEX X than the Spiderman Homage. If the Batman Homage is given a DEX over 30, and if I'm allowing starting characters with that DEX in my campaign, I will point out that this is beyond what is physically possible for a baseline human, and ask the player to come up with a reason for the exception (possibly changing the concept), but I won't say "your character can't have that".

 

So, I guess in most situations, "fairness" is more important to me than "concept", as I will ask some players to adjust their character concept if the build doesn't make sense for that concept. However, both are important.

 

I have had players drop a character idea based on a request to adjust the concept. I regret that, but some things fit the game I want to GM, and some don't. If I'm not enjoying an aspect of the game, I have no reason to run it. This is a hobby, not paid employment.

 

If it's just an issue of efficient vs inefficient design, I'll help the player optimize the build to be on par with the other characters. However, I'm limited by the tastes and preferences of the player; if he really wants (for example) a 17 INT, even if it has no game effect, my responsibility ends after pointing that out and giving him a chance to adjust it.

 

On NCM, not exactly, however that is an example, a few others would be allowing low base cost abilities with tons of advantages or a character who nit-picks the special effect for a ton of minor limitations. Also and what really got me thinking about it is the idea of a true form on Multiform. Banner is what 150 points on a good day, but if he is in an avengers game based on 500 points, that gives him 350 points to sink into his multiform, creating a 1750 point Hulk, now I know, lots of disads and GM's can say no, but if everyone else has 500 point characters and big green is 1750 points (Plus advantage of being all combat, and having skill form), well there is something unfair there. Nothing wrong with any of these when everyone is on the same page and doing similar things, but if some players are and some are not, well that is what I started this thread to talk about

[JmOz]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Also I sometimes feel people use "I'm building based on a Concept" as a "I'm better than you" type of thing, and would like to get some of the thinking on when and why to use concept over fair and vice versa is appropriate.

 

What can I say, end of the year I am getting philisophical about gaming...

[Outsider]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

There is "fair", there is "concept" and then there is "rules mechanics".

 

If a character is a mild mannered scientist who, when stressed, becomes a big green fightin' machine, thats concept.

 

The Mutiform math working out to say that this big green fightin' machine can be 1750 points in an otherwise 500 point game is rules mechanics.

 

It doesnt break his concept to have him hulk out from a 150 point scientist into a 500 point monster instead of a 1750 point one, does it?

[Outsider]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Also I sometimes feel people use "I'm building based on a Concept" as a "I'm better than you" type of thing, and would like to get some of the thinking on when and why to use concept over fair and vice versa is appropriate.

 

What can I say, end of the year I am getting philisophical about gaming...

 

 

I sometimes feel that people use "I'm building based on Concept" as a smokescreen to cover "I want to rape the rules, and if you try to stop me I will whine about how you're discouraging role-playing/simulating genre, or whatever"

 

[Doc Samson]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Going back to the trueform idea' date=' if Normal Guy is the true form, then his Multipower can make him extremly more powerful than his cohorts, not exactly fair...But in concept, and will cause problems most of the time I think[/quote']

I think there is room for both concept and fairness. Power levels are relative anyway. Does exerting 100 tons of strength really look different than exerting 200 tons? Someone's concept should not be contingent on the power levels of the other characters at the table (i.e. a concept should never be that I am more powerful than the other PCs). Setting point limits that do not exclude any powers shouldn't affect most concepts. If the character above is really committed to his concept (and not just a power level), he should build his base form on less points than the other characters and build his Multiform on the same points.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

I find I am more concerned with what you do not allow based on concept than what you do

 

Personaly I try to find a balance, in a 100% fair game everyone's character would be exactly the same (Think the Captain Marvel Family maybe), but in a game where concept rules the roost, you get characters who are spending more points for the same abililities

 

Going back to the trueform idea, if Normal Guy is the true form, then his Multipower can make him extremly more powerful than his cohorts, not exactly fair...But in concept, and will cause problems most of the time I think

 

I think that I am a pretty freeform GM. I will allow anything that 'feels' right for the character that I dont think will break the game for the other players. I will allow powers that exceed campaign limits (I think of those limits as something where the players know they have to come to me and ask rather than a definite no) as long as they do not overpower the game.

 

I would never have two players pay different point costs for the same abilities - multiform skews things due to the framework but the point costs are essentially the same once the framework is removed - Dex still costs three points per point for the Hulk form and the Bruce Banner form - active points differ.

 

I make sure that if someone chooses a framework that saves them points that I point out to them why it has saved them points - because it is more limiting in some fashion that they often have not understood/appreciated - and make them aware that the limitation WILL come up in play - even if that completely screws their character. I will then ask them whether they are OK with that and whether they'd like to consider other, more expensive, options.

 

I also try to point out why I think that their character would make the game less enjoyable for me and for other players unless I did enforce the limitations that they have chosen to take.

 

It's like I never banned blade venom in Runequest, just made the players aware that if they used it routinely that they were in effect letting me know that in their Glorantha that blade venom was an common and acceptable thing and that they could expect ALL of their opponents (rather than just the really nasty ones) to use it routinely as well. It was amazing how quickly blade venom became something that was no longer de rigeur for PCs in my RQ games.

 

 

Doc

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

I don't answer design/philosophy questions.

 

Okay, only kidding. Yes I do. Like, all the time. I throw both to the wind; I care about balance. The system is so malleable, and so easily abusable by talented players, that in general, my cats get what they from their concepts and the trick is keeping them reigned in to what the campaign is designed to do. Many games start out like this:

 

"So, Thia, I had this great idea for a character and I want to..."

"No, Chris, you can't do that."

"I haven't even told you what it is yet! C'MON!"

"I know, I'm practicing. What's your idea?"

 

Jason's at the other end of the spectrum; he just uses the points I give him, talks about how he envisions the character, and then generates a build based on those values. So it's comparatively painless. Lysando built his character with no muss or fuss, although Wile_E01 will occasionally suffer from a severe case of 'power game' and go overboard, so we'll battle back and forth from time to time. Generally, though, I'm very lucky.

 

My players know what I expect, they know what THEY can expect in terms of game and execution thereof, so I just try and steer the ship on a straight course and we're golden. So my answer to the question is "Balance." In the line between concept and fairness, there's usually (not always, but usually) a happy medium where everyone can have a good time.

[OddHat]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

a few others would be allowing low base cost abilities with tons of advantages

 

I don't consider that a concept issue, personally; it's usually vanilla min-maxing, and something I'd almost always say no to. It might be enough for me to ask a player to leave.

 

or a character who nit-picks the special effect for a ton of minor limitations.

 

I tell my players that Limitations and Disadvantages are their way of telling me what they want to see happen to their characters; a -2 or more on a power, no matter how many limits they lumped together to get it, is a player telling me that he wants that power to be unreliable or unavailable most of the time. If a limit is something that I as a GM don't care to include, it's also part of my job to tell that to the player, and to reject the build.

 

Not trying to harp on the "Just tell the player no" idea, but meaningless limits are a textbook example of a situation where a build should be rejected.

 

 

Also and what really got me thinking about it is the idea of a true form on Multiform. Banner is what 150 points on a good day, but if he is in an avengers game based on 500 points, that gives him 350 points to sink into his multiform, creating a 1750 point Hulk, now I know, lots of disads and GM's can say no, but if everyone else has 500 point characters and big green is 1750 points (Plus advantage of being all combat, and having skill form), well there is something unfair there.

 

I agree that Multiform is a tough issue. In a Hulk/Banner Homage situation, I'd probably tell the player that the Hulk Homage is the base form, and that Banner Homage is the Multiform the Hulk Homage must pay for; thus, the 30 points or so the Hulk doesn't spend on skills as Hulk gets him a 150 point Banner form, with skills out the wazoo, but his Hulk form doesn't get to be built on any more points than the rest of the Avengers Homage Team. That brings him more in line with the Ironman Homage (who saved a ton with his Foci limits) and the Thor Homage (who gets either a nice savings through OIHID or a similar Multiform setup).

 

Nothing wrong with any of these when everyone is on the same page and doing similar things, but if some players are and some are not, well that is what I started this thread to talk about

 

Everybody on the Same Page is key, imo, and it's not always easy to manage.

[OddHat]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Also I sometimes feel people use "I'm building based on a Concept" as a "I'm better than you" type of thing, and would like to get some of the thinking on when and why to use concept over fair and vice versa is appropriate.

 

What can I say, end of the year I am getting philisophical about gaming...

 

I sometimes feel that people use "I'm building based on Concept" as a smokescreen to cover "I want to rape the rules, and if you try to stop me I will whine about how you're discouraging role-playing/simulating genre, or whatever"

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with Outsider; "'I'm building to concept" sometimes seems to be a mask for "I've got an idea for a broken build, and I don't think your Hero fu will catch it".

 

That said, in the cases where someone isn't intentionally trying to sneak in an Uber character, there are concepts and builds that just don't work in a given campaign.

 

Sometimes you just have to say "Yes, Dave, your idea of an immortal Wizard with vast knowledge of the world's secret history and almost unlimited magical powers does sound kind of interesting; still, this is a Maltese Falcon style detective game in a world without magic. Find something else."

[Psylint]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

I'd have to say balance. If nothing else, because extreme builds trump the concept of other players. Most folks build a character around a concept with "game mechanics" considerations. Examples: I create a brick who shrugs off most damage, how much pd do I buy? There's usually nothing in the concept that directly addresses that, it's based on what the player expects the average range of attacks coming in will be. A brick with 30 rpd in a campaign with no attacks beyond 12 DC's is a lot more invulnerable than a brick with 40rpd where most attacks are 20 DC's+. To create the "artful dodger" character, what's my DCV? it's primarily based on the expected OCV of one's opponents.

 

So if I plunk down 100 pts to get my 30 Dex, and 12 DCV in Hand to Hand, is it really fair for most folks to have a 10 OCV in hand to hand? And more importantly, if such high OCV's are common, how can my character be the "artful dodger" I envisioned?

 

Same thing if I buy invisibility and most have unusual senses, or Mental Powers and everyone and their uncle has mental defense.

 

Using multiform to get a 1750 pt. character in a 500 pt. campaign, in my opinion, is just a patent abuse. Besides, in my campaigns such a character isn't even possible (50 pts. max per disadvantage category, just doesn't add up to 1750).

 

Characters are created with concept on one hand and an understanding of comparative game mechanics on the other. The second part requires clear communication of the guidelines and fairly strict enforcement and well as the whole "GM eyeball" thing (y'know to avoid the munchkin super builds: autofire, aoe entangles, 1 pip RKA AP, Penetrating, Autofire x32, etc.

 

But honestly a Hulk homage at 1750? Why not just give him desolid, persistent, inherent, and affects physical world on his Strength? Pretty sure I could work that in on 500 points.

 

Peace

[jtelson]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

"So, Thia, I had this great idea for a character and I want to..."

"No, Chris, you can't do that."

"I haven't even told you what it is yet! C'MON!"

"I know, I'm practicing. What's your idea?"

 

Wow, Chris'd be right at home with my players.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

I'm inclined to agree with Outsider; "'I'm building to concept" sometimes seems to be a mask for "I've got an idea for a broken build, and I don't think your Hero fu will catch it".

 

That said, in the cases where someone isn't intentionally trying to sneak in an Uber character, there are concepts and builds that just don't work in a given campaign.

 

Sometimes you just have to say "Yes, Dave, your idea of an immortal Wizard with vast knowledge of the world's secret history and almost unlimited magical powers does sound kind of interesting; still, this is a Maltese Falcon style detective game in a world without magic. Find something else."

 

Oh. I see you've met one of my former players, Shaun.

 

"So, Thia, I want to design a wizard spell that allows ressurection."

*Thia takes a long, hard pause*

"Er... Shaun. You do know that any kind of necromantic, or control over life/death magic is illegal in this setting, right? And that if it weren't, it's still the purview of the Clerics, right? You know this, as we've discussed it and I have emails yes?"

"Well, see this is different because..."

"Does it bring people back from the dead?"

*Shaun stares*

*Thia stares back*

"Well... yes."

"Then no."

[casualplayer]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Concept within budget; it's the HERO way.

[JmOz]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

I'd have to say balance. If nothing else, because extreme builds trump the concept of other players. Most folks build a character around a concept with "game mechanics" considerations. Examples: I create a brick who shrugs off most damage, how much pd do I buy? There's usually nothing in the concept that directly addresses that, it's based on what the player expects the average range of attacks coming in will be. A brick with 30 rpd in a campaign with no attacks beyond 12 DC's is a lot more invulnerable than a brick with 40rpd where most attacks are 20 DC's+. To create the "artful dodger" character, what's my DCV? it's primarily based on the expected OCV of one's opponents.

 

So if I plunk down 100 pts to get my 30 Dex, and 12 DCV in Hand to Hand, is it really fair for most folks to have a 10 OCV in hand to hand? And more importantly, if such high OCV's are common, how can my character be the "artful dodger" I envisioned?

 

Same thing if I buy invisibility and most have unusual senses, or Mental Powers and everyone and their uncle has mental defense.

 

Using multiform to get a 1750 pt. character in a 500 pt. campaign, in my opinion, is just a patent abuse. Besides, in my campaigns such a character isn't even possible (50 pts. max per disadvantage category, just doesn't add up to 1750).

 

Characters are created with concept on one hand and an understanding of comparative game mechanics on the other. The second part requires clear communication of the guidelines and fairly strict enforcement and well as the whole "GM eyeball" thing (y'know to avoid the munchkin super builds: autofire, aoe entangles, 1 pip RKA AP, Penetrating, Autofire x32, etc.

 

But honestly a Hulk homage at 1750? Why not just give him desolid, persistent, inherent, and affects physical world on his Strength? Pretty sure I could work that in on 500 points.

 

Peace

 

 

Well thought out and articulate post, in regards to the 1750 points thing, I was trying to show the extreme side of things, it was intentionaly suppose to be over the top. However (and not the point) I would guess a good Hulk should be orbiting the 1000 point mark IME

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Fair vs Concept

 

Well thought out and articulate post' date=' in regards to the 1750 points thing, I was trying to show the extreme side of things, it was intentionaly suppose to be over the top. However (and not the point) I would guess a good Hulk should be orbiting the 1000 point mark IME[/quote']

 

And a good player would refrain from building a good Hulk to play in a 350 point game, cutting his concept down to power levels comparable with the specific game or playing a different concept.