Free Equipment - Pros & Cons

[Ninja-Bear]

While we’re on the topic of weapons, I feel that certain weapons (mostly martial art weapons) shouldn’t grant all “powers” just because it’s OAF. You still need the appropriate WF. For example a Sai grants besides its damage, CSL to Block, Disarm & Takeaway. Joe Average shouldn’t have access to those CSLs unless he has the proper WF.  I can see that with other equipment too case by case.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you buy it with points, you have WF with it automatically.  Glue Gun grabbed from opponent?  Buy the WF or suffer non-familiarity penalties.  BTW, how is your ability to maintain the gun and craft new glue ammo?

[Ninja-Bear]

20 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If you buy it with points, you have WF with it automatically.  Glue Gun grabbed from opponent?  Buy the WF or suffer non-familiarity penalties.  BTW, how is your ability to maintain the gun and craft new glue ammo?

Oh I agree with this! I also would say that in case of say swords for example if my ninja bought a Katana but no WF and he uses an Enemies katana- no problem but if he picks up a Claymore then perhaps there is a minor one.

[Doc Democracy]

In almost every game I play now I have dispensed with equipment lists and resources.  It is too much trouble for me and harshes the buzz of the game.  Sometimes, when access to equipment might be an issue I ask the players to write down the things they currently have in their possession based on their character descriptions.  The police officer guy will have a gun as well as a radio without any explanation, the physicist might actually be carrying a geiger counter (though I might make him explain why) and the rock star will not be allowed to have that axe until I realise he was talking about his guitar...

 

I am open to players having the things that they think their characters would have because it helps them better visualise the character in the game.  Most players do not then seek to push the boundaries and they are usually better policed by the other players than by me.

 

In HERO, all this kit is fine to be available without a single point spent, just like it is in other games.  I get the players to spend their points on the things that make their character stand out.  I have moved in a more narrative direction as I got older.

 

Doc

[Killer Shrike]

I wrote up a document debunking the equipment should cost points argument many years ago. It's still available here:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/HEROEquipmentDebunk.aspx

 

Personally, when running 4-color supers, I find it convenient to have characters pay points for reliable and significant equipment that is part of the characters concept, and to just not worry about mundane or trivial equipment. Anything not paid for in points is fair game to be dispensed with as the plot dictates. You drive around in a car in your secret id? Sure, no problem; no points required. It might get trashed if it finds its way into a superbattle, but no big deal. You have a supercar with cool stuff as part of your concept? Pay some points defining its capabilities, and rest comfortably knowing that it wont get handwaved away during heightened circumstances.

 

In other genres, I started using Resource Pools after Dark Champions 5e came out, and find them to be a great tool for balancing characters. Resource pools were introduced in 5e Dark Champions, while in 6e they are in the Advanced Players Guide, on page 191.  You should refer to the rules for full details, but I describe them pretty thoroughly here, under the heading of "RESOURCE POOLS":
http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm_Starting.aspx

 

They are basically a structured approach to handling different kinds of resources in a fair manner somewhat outside the bounds of normal HERO character point accounting. Roughly speaking, resource point categories function very similarly to narrowly defined VPP's, but for perks, contacts, vehicles, bases, and gear. I've found the model to be very serviceable and have put it or variations of it to good use in my MetaCyber, Endless, and Here There Be Monsters settings. 

 

Resource Pools are broadly useful across genres, but to keep things somewhat grounded, I'll use Fantasy as an anchor.

 

Fantasy is a genre where the proliferation of "magic items" and magical abilities is so prevalent that characters that lack "magic" or "magic items" can be at a severe disadvantage. This often shows up in Fantasy games. In D&D up thru 3.5 and Pathfinder for instance the real measure of a character is their magic items. It doesn't have to be like that and a GM can run a more character-focused game, but sadly due to the proliferation of items in the published material and the pressures of player expectations this is rarely the case...at least in my experience. 

 

In D&D and similar games items are not calculated directly into a character's capabilities, they are a net plus added to a character's base capabilities. It is completely unbounded; character A might be a 20th level Foo and have a massively powerful artifact, while character B might be a 20th level Foo and have nothing. Both are legal characters, but character B is not really viable. Let's call this the Asymmetrical Distribution Problem for talking purposes.

 

Further there is very little objective means to measure the comparative power of two items against each other, other than an assessed "gold coin cost" which is an unreliable metric. D&D 3+ tries to address this intrinsic problem after the fact with the recommended wealth per level limits, but it is an imperfect mechanism.

 

The HERO System's point based approach takes the opposite tact. It attempts to account for relative power by point costs. This approach is not perfect either, and there are lots of ways for an experienced player who understands the game well to make measurably more effective characters on the same number of points, but even with this kind of wiggle room there is still a hard limit of points. 

 

This approach works pretty well in general practice, but it still has to solve the same "gear" problem as D&D and other non-point games. The original champions / superheroic version of the game solved it by saying it's all just SFX and if you want something to be part of your character you pay points for it. If you justify a particular ability by saying it comes from an item of some kind you take the appropriate limitations and pay the real cost. Some archetypes of superheroes rely on powers while others tend to rely on "gadgets", but the VPP based "Gadget Pool" addresses that well enough by handling "gadgets" as powers keeping both archetypes on even footing. Problem solved.

 

When HERO went multigenre this didn't work so well as in genres where gear is more prevalent this falls apart. It leads to the classic HERO system misunderstanding that you must model rope and flashlights as powers and pay points for them. This was solved pretty directly by simply saying that in non-superheroic genres "equipment" doesn't cost points, it costs in-game currency, and doesn't count as part of a character's character points. Good deal, problem solved. But wait...now we are right back to where D&D and other non-point based games sit. Hero character A has 250 points and character B has 250 points, but character A also has a pile of "Equipment" and character B does not. It's the Asymmetrical Distribution Problem all over again.

 

There is now an arbitration consideration...is a given item "equipment" or is it a "special ability" that must be modeled as a power? Can it be taken away from the character and redistributed or is it a permanent part of the character? Is it something the character can add character points too directly and improve over time or is it a "manufactured" item with flat pre-determined capabilities? Can a character walk into an in-game store and pay in-game currency to acquire an item, or must they pay character points? If a character whacks an opponent who has an item can the character just pick up the item as spoils or must they pay character points for the item if they want it? Lets call this the Extrinsic Commodity vs Intrinsic Capability Problem.

 

Focusing on Fantasy specifically, since exceptional "magic" gear is prevalent and looting it from others is also prevalent the Extrinsic Commodity vs Intrinsic Capability Problem is not something a GM can afford to ignore or fumble through. It will come up, and you should deal with it in a consistent way that will scale as the game progresses.

 

Then there is a third problem to consider. If a certain archetype of character is based around the concept of gear, and another archetype of character is based around powers, but one type of ability is accounted for largely as "free" equipment while the other is accounted for by finite character points there is the potential for a large discrepancy between the capabilities of these two archetypes, and further it becomes pretty difficult to objectively assess their relative capability. 

 

A basic concept of Accounting is that there are Similar Exchanges and Dissimilar Exchanges. Similar Exchanges deal in real values of comparable things; it is easy to determine equitable comparisons with Similar Exchanges as you are dealing with consistent and objective values. 

 

Dissimilar Exchanges must try to arrive at some kind of comparable value to attempt to approximate a Similar Exchange. One approach attempts to use transitive logic if there are known comparisons between the two dissimilar things and a third thing...thus if in trying to compare the value of A's to B's it were known that 3 A's equaled 2 C's and 1 C equaled 1 B, then it could be said that 3 A's is approximate to 2 B's.

 

However, if there is no transitive conversion possible, another approach is to attempt to work backwards and reduce both things to first principles, which can get quite complicated. In the HERO System, this might be by attempting to point model both things so as to be able to assess a relative point cost, which is a common approach but get's you back to the trap of trying to model ropes and flashlights and other such mundane items to derive a point equivalency so as to be able to assess their value relative to an actual power; this is a step backwards. Further, even if you go thru the effort you are now dealing in two separate concepts; character points and character effective points; one is the number of points a character actually has, and effective points is actual points plus equipment points. 

So...why resource pools in High Fantasy? If you look at the way I used them in Here There Be Monsters, you'll see that they are used to address the three core problems discussed above:

 

Asymmetrical Distribution Problem: all characters get the same number of free seed points with which to fund their starting resource pools; they can distribute these points into any of several resource pools allowing character flexibility. Further characters that want more gear  or "special" abilities can spend their points at a specific ratio to acquire such abilities. There is no Asymmetrical Distribution to speak of; distribution is symmetrical.

 

Extrinsic Commodity vs Intrinsic Capability: there is no special "free" category any longer; a character's Resource Pools are all intrinsic in as much as their capacity is part of the character's definition. The things that go into a Resource Pool may or may not be Extrinsic depending on how they are individually defined but there is no special significance either way. Thus a  character with a Contact Pool of 10 points will always have 10 points of contacts; if a particular contact is lost due to events in play the pool points are recouped and can be used for other contacts or to improve an existing contact. Similarly, if a particular item of equipment is lost sold or exchanged, the resource pool points are recouped and available for a different piece of equipment.

 

Similar vs Dissimilar Exchanges: a ratio of relative value between different kinds of abilities has been established and are accounted for similarly. Assessments of relative value / capability between somewhat dissimilar things are easy as there is a backing model to provide similarity. Attempting to assess the relative capability of a gear based character and a powers based character is simple if using Resource Pools, and it is similarly easy to determine the relative capability of a hybrid character with a mix of "items" and "powers". Better than that actually, even more semi-tangible benefits such as contacts and bases are easier to accommodate and account for.

I started using Resource Pools in MetaCyber and found the model to be a huge gain in ease of accounting and helping to equalize characters of differing archetypes and abilities. We then used it even more prevalently in the Sci-Fi Endless setting but that campaign fell apart pretty early and thus the envelope didn't get pushed very far. With Here There Be Monsters I built the entire thing around Resource Pools. The character submitting process was an open call on the HERO Boards and I think the characters that were provided from a variety of people (plus myself) show the flexibility of the model. The range of power based, skill based, item based, and hybrid characters strongly demonstrates the viability of it.

 

At this point, it has become my default mode of using the Hero System, and future campaign settings will almost certainly use the model. 

 

[RDU Neil]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

In almost every game I play now I have dispensed with equipment lists and resources.  It is too much trouble for me and harshes the buzz of the game.  Sometimes, when access to equipment might be an issue I ask the players to write down the things they currently have in their possession based on their character descriptions.  The police officer guy will have a gun as well as a radio without any explanation, the physicist might actually be carrying a geiger counter (though I might make him explain why) and the rock star will not be allowed to have that axe until I realise he was talking about his guitar...

 

I am open to players having the things that they think their characters would have because it helps them better visualise the character in the game.  Most players do not then seek to push the boundaries and they are usually better policed by the other players than by me.

 

In HERO, all this kit is fine to be available without a single point spent, just like it is in other games.  I get the players to spend their points on the things that make their character stand out.  I have moved in a more narrative direction as I got older.

 

Doc

 

Absolutely. If there are certain situations where it is important for the PCs to list key equipment... say right before a big assault or such, then they can do that, but I don't EVER want to deal with exhaustive gear lists. And, like you, I've found that players tend to push the boundaries less when they know they able to contribute and things are reasonably "yes" when they ask for something and it isn't a competition of trying to "out guess" the GM and what has been planned and trying to cover every eventuality. 

[RDU Neil]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If you buy it with points, you have WF with it automatically.  Glue Gun grabbed from opponent?  Buy the WF or suffer non-familiarity penalties.  BTW, how is your ability to maintain the gun and craft new glue ammo?

 

Exactly... The martial arts gun guy who has paid for a power pool that allows for keeping enemy weapons doesn't have to worry about maintenance or WF. The martial arts gun guy who just picks it up without paying points will have a -3 OCV and god-forbid the thing backfires because he didn't adjust the pressure release correctly.

[Ninja-Bear]

Let’s not forget though that (at least some of my martial art characters do spend point on abilities. For example my Hwrang warrior can do extra damage hitting nerve points with his War Fans. So I had to buy HA with NND advantage and limitations to represent this as a skill.

[BoloOfEarth]

In my Champions game, I allow any conventionally-purchasable gear / equipment / vehicles to be free points-wise.  And even with two (of 7) PCs having Wealth, it hasn't gotten terribly abusive.  (Just moderately so.)  Sure, the rich PCs bought everybody burner cell phones to use in their hero IDs, but hey, one attack with knockback can always smash one of those - not that I've done that, because overall my players haven't abused minor things like that.  Now, if the rich guy decides to buy the team a jet...  They can expect that to get trashed before it's lost its new-plane smell.

 

The PCs have occasionally gotten their hands on other people's gear - most notably the team gadgeteer (Maker) who has collected stolen VIPER 'bots.  But as someone else here said, what the GM giveth, the GM can taketh away.  Or abuse, in my case.  I had a fun story arc where some stolen equipment interfered with the hero team's frequently-used group teleportation - instead of all appearing inside the bank being robbed, they ended up scattered across town.  As a GM, I feel no shame in messing with the players' use of "liberated" gear and weapons.  (And no, I don't make the original owner pay points for the ability to mess with thieves.  I consider it a freebie for the owner not having to specify the Focus is Personal.)

 

The PCs take away Foxbat's Ping-Pong ball gun and want to use it against him?  Well, the Glue Ball might explode just outside the gun's barrel.  With Freddy taunting, "Funny, that never happens to ME!"

[Christopher R Taylor]

The main reason there is no hard and fast rule is because Hero leaves that up to the GM and their campaign.  To give a specific rule for this kind of thing slouches off into AD&D territory where Gygax's personal campaign was the rules for everyone's campaign (and he even insisted for a while in arguments in the Dragon magazine that if you changed anything then you weren't playing AD&D any longer).

[Steve]

Something I didn't see mentioned in those talking about the superhero genre and Resource Point costs is how having agents get free equipment changes things, especially for those paying character points to have them as Followers.

 

While your basic VIPER agent is built on 186 points (per pg 183 of the VIPER sourcebook), his equipment makes up 86 points of that total. Now, if I was an aspiring Nest Leader, I'd much rather acquire my disposable cannon fodder at a mere 100 points each rather than 186 (which translates to paying 20 character points to have that first 100 point agent versus spending 37 character points).

 

If I use Resource Points for buying Contacts and Followers instead, acquiring agents becomes even cheaper and easier (4 character points to add 20 Contact/Follower Resource Points, which translates to the first 100-point agent, versus 8 points to get 37). Once the doubling rules kick in, having a horde of agents becomes quite cost effective for the aspiring mastermind using Resource Points (having 1,024 100-point agents costs only 13 additional character points).

 

Another thing to consider is that if an agent's equipment is free, then every superhero can (and probably should) try to acquire a VIPER blaster or two from any knocked out agents to use as a backup weapon. If that starts happening in a campaign, it does feel pretty different from the source material.

 

While I'm perfectly fine with using Resource Points for most campaigns (and use them in my own), I'd argue there should be some kind of genre exception made for superhero settings, at least those trying to emulate the comics. Looting the supervillains and their agents of their wonderful toys doesn't feel right.

[Durzan Malakim]

10 minutes ago, Steve said:

Looting the supervillains and their agents of their wonderful toys doesn't feel right.

 

It may not feel right for PCs to loot NPCs toys, but there's nothing preventing one NPC group from looting the wonderful toys from another NPC group. Isn't VIPER always trying to get PRIMUS tech? Aren't Dr. Destroyer's and Mechanon's creations the envy of others? Ideally, the PCs feel they have the powers and resources to be heroic without having to loot the opposition, but there are stories to be told about keeping wondrous toys out of the wrong hands.

 

I think the temporarily use wondrous toys you didn't pay points for is fine as long as PCs routinely encounter their side-effects or limitations. Does the press start calling a hero a VIPER agent because he's always got one of their toys? Does that Mechanon-built power rifle hack your base computer? Do the heroes really not have any Psychological Limitations about staying on-brand or being heroic?

[Steve]

29 minutes ago, Durzan Malakim said:

 

It may not feel right for PCs to loot NPCs toys, but there's nothing preventing one NPC group from looting the wonderful toys from another NPC group. Isn't VIPER always trying to get PRIMUS tech? Aren't Dr. Destroyer's and Mechanon's creations the envy of others? Ideally, the PCs feel they have the powers and resources to be heroic without having to loot the opposition, but there are stories to be told about keeping wondrous toys out of the wrong hands.

 

I think the temporarily use wondrous toys you didn't pay points for is fine as long as PCs routinely encounter their side-effects or limitations. Does the press start calling a hero a VIPER agent because he's always got one of their toys? Does that Mechanon-built power rifle hack your base computer? Do the heroes really not have any Psychological Limitations about staying on-brand or being heroic?

 

Oh, I agree that NPC groups stealing tech from each other is part of the superhero genre. A crate of VIPER blasters getting stolen by street criminals and used by them does make for a good story. The last Spider-Man film had this as a plot point with what the Vulture was doing.

 

Being "on-brand" is an interesting way to look at it. From a meta POV, a PC is a fictional character in a comic book, possibly also a toy line. The things they paid points for are considered to be part of their brand. Branding sells toys and comics. In some superhero worlds, the superhero teams even get royalties from comics and toys based on them, which is used to fund their activities.

 

I could just imagine the poor marketing guy/gal who has to call up Superteam X and complain that since one of their superheroes is now using looted VIPER tech, it's tanking sales.

[Steve]

Regarding wizards and their spells, maybe another solution would be to treat spells as just another type of equipment that costs Resource Points, paid for at the same rate as Equipment Points at 1:5? A warrior can thus use his Equipment Points for his stuff like swords and armor, but the wizard uses most of his for spells. Instead of buying Weapon Familiarities and Skill Levels with weapons, the wizard is buying a magic skill and knowledge skills.  

[Ninja-Bear]

Well I also seen the idea that STR should cost 2pt per 1 VAL since STR is so useful and cost effective.

[Hugh Neilson]

With the removal of figured characteristics, I think the case for raising the cost of STR is weakened.  STR does have more value in a game with a lot of muscle-powered weaponry available as "no CP" equipment, but if we tossed in a bunch of wands, say, with an INT or EGO minimum, the value of those stats would also be higher in such a campaign.

 

I do think a review of primary characteristic costs overall would be useful, focusing on what the price of their component parts should be.  STR provides +1 DC to all HTH combat maneuvers.  +1 DC to all Martial maneuvers costs 4 points (also gets those NND maneuvers, but does not boost all components of grab maneuvers and similar).  Its other benefit is lifting things.  Telekinesis is STR at range - is it underpriced?  STR is challenging as its costing links to the cost of other attacks.  What is "you can lift more" actually worth?

 

I've commented on DEX, INT, PRE in the past.  I'd consider them 2:1 stats.  That would be +1 to all rolls based on the stat (5 points; skill levels would scale down from that 5 point cost) and +5 Combat Reflexes/+1 to all PER rolls/+1d6 PRE attack (each now also costing 5 points, and scaling down when limited to specific circumstances).

 

EGO seems like it should stay 1 point, being +2 to all Ego rolls for 5 points and +5 PRE defense for 5 points (yes, sacrilege, remove PRE defense from PRE - being impressive and being hard to impress are not the same thing).

 

I think the other stats got a good review from 5e to 6e (even STR to some extent with the removal of Figured's).

[IndianaJoe3]

 

21 hours ago, Durzan Malakim said:

 

It may not feel right for PCs to loot NPCs toys, but there's nothing preventing one NPC group from looting the wonderful toys from another NPC group. Isn't VIPER always trying to get PRIMUS tech? Aren't Dr. Destroyer's and Mechanon's creations the envy of others? Ideally, the PCs feel they have the powers and resources to be heroic without having to loot the opposition, but there are stories to be told about keeping wondrous toys out of the wrong hands.

 

It's hilarious when a mole in a friendly agency relays the hero's opinions back to VIPER R&D.

 

[Durzan Malakim]

4 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

It's hilarious when a mole in a friendly agency relays the hero's opinions back to VIPER R&D.

 

"VIPERware: villain tested; Champion approved."

[Zephrosyne]

Yeah, I'm in the camp of allowing characters to have normal crap as long as they can justify it (buy it, steal it, whatever) be it a flash light, a cell phone, a blender, or a gun.  However, it is treated as real world stuff and subject to real world rules.  You didn't play for it with points so I am free to do with it as I see fit.  Since you didn't buy it with points, it doesn't really belong to you, it belongs to the campaign world.

[Killer Shrike]

On the subject of looting bits of gear in a superheroic context, one of my players in a past campaign made a power suit hero named Makeshift who's entire shtick was he copied or recovered bits from the power armor suits of published characters in the Champions Universe setting. Personally, I found it amusing that the player took the old problem of gear acquisition in a points based system and flipped it onto its head to make a fun character concept.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/WestCoastChampions/Characters/HighPower/Makeshift.html

 

CATCH PHRASE(S)

"....it's pretty much got everything Ankylosaur's got, except for the stupid tail. I mean, come on, who wears a tail? That shoots grenades? Talk about stupid ideas! I don't know what those UNITY twips were thinking when they tacked that one on..."

 

The player had a list of various characters in the Champions Universe who had power armor suits and supertech that he wanted to somehow find a way to acquire if circumstances permitted. When the campaign halted, he had bits from Ankylosaur, Armadillo, Mantara, and Dr. Destroyer's armor suits incorporated or duplicated in his power armor suit.

[RDU Neil]

On 2/16/2019 at 10:35 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

, but if we tossed in a bunch of wands, say, with an INT or EGO minimum, the value of those stats would also be higher in such a campaign.

 

I love this idea... a lot. I'm no where close to a Fantasy Hero campaign, but I'd use this is a second.

[Lucius]

On 2/12/2019 at 6:43 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

Speaking of Endurance and weapons, I thought it was odd that weapons are bought as 0 END. I think that the weapons should have an END cost with it. Not saying that sword disappears when you run out of END just you’re too tired to swing it. Hmm that would also perhaps cause the warrior to buy more END so he can swing longer.

Btw the nastier combination is Weapon elements add to martial attacks.

 

The reason the sword is bought to Zero END is that it ALSO has STR Minimum. You will end up paying END for the STR to use it. And why would you pay MORE ENDurance to swing a sword than to swing anything else around using that same amount of STR?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys RECovery, claiming it's a means to an END.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 minute ago, Lucius said:

And why would you pay MORE ENDurance to swing a sword than to swing anything else around using that same amount of STR?

Really bad hilt ergonomics? 

[Ninja-Bear]

8 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

The reason the sword is bought to Zero END is that it ALSO has STR Minimum. You will end up paying END for the STR to use it. And why would you pay MORE ENDurance to swing a sword than to swing anything else around using that same amount of STR?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys RECovery, claiming it's a means to an END.

Because swinging swords is tiring? I think weapons are bought 0 end because many heroes from various sources can swing a sword all day long and not get tired. However could that be represented another way in Hero? Btw not at my Enemies books right now but don’t Villains like Black Paladin and such pay for END for his mace? Yes he a super villain but then the question is why does one genre charge it but another doesn’t? And if you say genre tropes, I’m ok with that answer actually. 

[Lucius]

6 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Because swinging swords is tiring? I think weapons are bought 0 end because many heroes from various sources can swing a sword all day long and not get tired. However could that be represented another way in Hero? Btw not at my Enemies books right now but don’t Villains like Black Paladin and such pay for END for his mace? Yes he a super villain but then the question is why does one genre charge it but another doesn’t? And if you say genre tropes, I’m ok with that answer actually. 

 

I don't have the Enemies book but I strongly suspect that Black Paladin's mace does NOT have a STR minimum.

 

You seem to be under the impression that because the melee weapons in fantasy have "0 END" that they don't cost END. The DO still cost END, because they have a STR Minimum. So yes, swinging swords is tiring, because you have to exert STR to swing one and therefore you pay for the STR you exert.

 

Sure you could make warriors pay still more END on top of the END for STR being used, but I don't see a reason to do so unless the sword has really bad ergonomics as someone already suggested.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a palindromedary tagline to show this is the END of the post