Hero System: Design and Intent

[Vulcan]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

Oh, I totally agree that Social Butterfly should be able to talk his way through things that Combat Wombat could never manage. That is why I said a good soliloquy should give a small bonus to the rolls.

 

A +1 or +2 to Combat Wombat's 8- base roll is nice, but hardly allows him to overshadow Social Butterfly's 14- base rolls, and the Butterfly likely has complementary skills to give even more of a boost.

 

So with good RP Combat Wombat might be able to fool a low INT goon - if he rolls well. Social Butterfly can do it (most of the time) pretty easily. And SB also has a pretty good chance at fooling much smarter people too...

[Zeropoint]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I'm looking forward to 'Chess- The Role Playing Game!'

 

I'm looking forward to "Chess" the concept album.

 

/me hums "One Night in Bangkok"

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

I thought it was designed to be played with the intent of having fun.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

...of course a player who knows the rules well might well glean a bonus to his roll by' date=' for instance, taking longer to make a social interaction attempt in a non-time critical environment, whereas a less experienced player might not even realise thay can. That is, I suppose, a player effect similar to an articulate or persuasive player influencing characters in game: it is a meta effect.[/quote']

 

That is a meta effect that the less experienced player should be advised of, either by the GM or by other players. Just like a newbie in D&D would probably hear things like "don't forget your Cleric can turn undead".

 

Equally you wouldn't think twice about awarding a skill roll bonus to a player who has been paying attention and remembers that The Capo of the Macaronni Family has a fondness for white lillies and brings some as a gift when trying to obtain a delay on payment of an outstanding loan. That's rewarding a player with good memory or organisational skills.

 

Nor would I have a problem with reminding players of things their characters would reasonably remember, even if the players have forgotten. In respect of more subtle items that would not be obvious, and thus automatically remembered by the characters, I might be inclined to allow either an INT roll or (in this case) a social skill roll, the former because a smart person has a better memory and the latter because someone highly persuasive is more likely to try to consider issues that might enhance his persuasiveness.

 

It all crosses the boundary between player and character. The most obvious example' date=' although one probably not onsidered even similar generally, is that you would not prevent a player using decent tactics in combat, even if the character has little combat training.[/quote']

 

This still depends on the extent. I've run characters who have little experience with combat, or who have minimal experience on teams, and who therefore don't always choose the most tactically effective option. That's just role playing in combat. If my character is impulsive and hot-headed, he's not going to hide in the shadows awaiting the best opportunity to strike, even if that is clearly the best tactical option. If he dislikes a certain villain, he may well focus his attacks on that target even when one of the other villains is clearly the tactically preferable target. Role playing should not switch off just because combat starts.

 

I'm not entirely sure what my point is but it is probably this: you're never going to entirely escape the meta-effect. Moreover' date=' I'm pretty sure that, if you could, the game would not be half so much fun.[/quote']

 

I agree the meta effect can't be totally eliminated. I don't agree with your conclusion that it automatically adds to the fun. I'm sure it's fun for Combat Wombat to be the best in combat, and still able to accomplish the same benefits of sneaking in that Sneaky Sam could, ferreting out facts that Investigating Irving could find and succeeding in the same social situations Social Butterfly could. How much fun is it for the players running Sneaky Sam, Investigating Irving and Social Butterfly to play second fiddle in combat, and also play second fiddle in their own areas of expertise?

 

I fully expect many players will be disappointed to find the campaign is going to be "Combat Wombat and his Amazing Friends" (or "Combat Wombat and his Comic Relief Sidekicks") rather than a game where each character has the opportunity to enjoy relatively equal importance, success and spotlight time.

 

Actually, there's another "design intent" issue. Is the game intended to be co-operative (players and characters working together to accomplish a goal) or competitive (players/characters looking to enhance their individual power and goals, often to the exclusion and/or at the expense of other players/characters). For example, a game where xp gets divided equally is more "co-operative" than one where xp goes to the characters who fought the enemy, or even to only the character who struck the killing or knockout blow. The gaming group can certainly influence this (our group, for example, ignores the D&D theory of treating equipment and magic objects like money, and simply allocates those items to the character who can best benefit from them), but the design can factor this in.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

 

I think we are discussing very different elements.

thats why i asked.

I would consider the fact that the PLAYER is highly articulate, and puts together a very impressive speech to be separate.

Agreed absolutely. When i said "tells a convincing lie" i was specifically referring to as stated things like tieing into recent events and plays well to the audience etc IN GAME. These are basically the equivalent of tactical decisions made for purpose and gain benefits, just like tactical choices if good provide benefits, albeit more indirectly, in combat.

 

the player's own acting and speechifying.... that might get him extra XP for "good roleplaying" or "fun performance" but wont gain the pc material benefits in the task at hand.

 

All the characters have access to the mob boss' flaws, recent events, etc. Assuming these are incorporated into the description of the attempt to persuade the mob boss, the CHARACTER with the 18 PRE and 15- Persuasion skill should be more likely to succeed than the CHARACTER with the 5 PRE and Everyman familiarity, despite the fact that, say, Social Butterfly's player is shy, stutters and stares at his shoes while describing his character's attempt to persuade the mob boss, and Combat Wombat's player is a debating champion/world record used car salesman.

agreed. The player may weel stumble on his pickup line, but the pc whose skill AND ROLL shows he is better than that, doesn't. (and the same in reverse - the player says what his character is TRYING to say and his skill in character determines the success.)

 

The factors set out above constitute use of in-game abilities. The player's personal attributes do not. Just as it is reasonable for a character with an Inventor skill and access to the right chemicals to invent an explosive, but it is not reasonable for a character with no science skills whose player is a munitions manufacturer to invent gunpowder.

 

agreed.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

 

I'm thinking more that there should be scenes that require both a good scoping out of the situation and use of tactics AND some innate skill to succeed. That is, Combat Wombat simply lacks the social skills to pull off even a convincing lie, where Social Butterfly can leverage his knowledge of the situation with his vastly superior social skills, allowing him to shine. Not "Combat Wombat fights our way in with his superior combat skills while Social Butterfly hides in the background. Then, Combat Wombat overrides his utter lack of social skills to also succeed in the challenge which should have been Social Butterfly's forte. Combat Wombat then decides to leave Social Butterfly at home next time as his unique skills don't add anything Combat Wombat can't already succeed with on his own."

In principle i find this to be usually a bad design.

 

In practice i find providing multiple ways to overcome a challenge is critical for ongoing game survival. frequent use of "one way" challenges frankly leads to boondoggled scenarios where for whatever reason the pcs did not find the "gm one solution" and thus things wind up pretty messed up, given these scenes are frequently rather pivotal ones.

 

So I dont for instance often or even hardly ever if ever provide a scene where "if this character is not present you lose this challenge" I especially try to avoid the same sort of scene where there is also "and that one specific character needs to make exceptional choices - like using flaws." These lead to too many chance of just outright failure for me to see the benefits.

 

Instead,, i can provide challenges with mixes of solutions, some requiring exceptional play, some not, and that varying by character.

 

So its not "social butterfly sits and watches brute guy smash opposition for an hour." because social butterfly cannot hurt the bad guys even with his best efforts. Nor is it "brute guy watches as social butterfly handles the complex negotiations for an hour".

 

In either kind of challenge, i can let the big guy SHINE by letting him get more, or more easily, to the solution.

 

for example, in combat i can provide a scenario where the evil dude has minions, who are pursuing important tasks, which the sb can engage. Even if the brute isn't there, they can by distraction draw off big evil and deal with the minions, in a more diversly populated scene. finally, i might provide environmental things like power lines and water mains that serve to enable social but to engage with some chance of success the evil dude. these kinds of scene design let everyone play and still let others shine in their areas.

 

in negotiation scenes, a poor negotiator party might still be able to talk the bad guys into their plan, but without good talker guy they might have to do extra favors or get a lessen share of the loot, etc and when social dude is there he might be able to cut himself a side deal and so on.

 

basically, you can shine in your area of expertise without needing a scenario setup so that only you get to have effect. too many one way scenarios tend to cause breakdowns as players all too often do not wind up with their pcs at the right spot at the right time and in best form.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero System: Design and Intent

 

the player's own acting and speechifying.... that might get him extra XP for "good roleplaying" or "fun performance" but wont gain the pc material benefits in the task at hand.

 

By the same token, if the PC is role playing out of character, that may cost him access to "good roleplaying" XP. If you chose to play a socially inept, low PRE character, then play him as such, even when it's not advantageous.