Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102609That's a cure worse than the disease.

Given how many campaigns I have seen utterly crushed by min-maxers? I believe it is a completely justified measure to take.

There are plenty of convention games run by Hero System GMs who only allow pregenerated characters. And that works fine for them. It gets rid of the nonsense completely in the convention environment.

While I understand the frustration with the point-buy woes, I guess I can say I've just never experienced it in a real-world context with GURPS (which offers a similar range of potential exploits) for threeish reasons:

1. I don't game with munchkins or people who like to min-max; I game with people I can trust to build well-rounded, grounded characters without intentional exploits and just generally game in good faith.

2. I look over the characters before I approve them, give feedback and have any necessary changes made by the players.

3. I don't run games at conventions or for randoms.

I've used several alternative chargen methods as well such as point buckets, pointless generation using packages, up to and including totally 'balance free' (as in, no points, pitch me your character concepts and if I approve and everyone has their niche and is happy with their perceived place in the group then the players build totally to concept regardless of cost). I've never had an issue with that style of chargen either. (I think point balance is generally a myth anyway; the illusion of it, maybe)

But like I said, I do understand the frustration. For my tables and myself I suppose it's just more or less a non-issue.

Edit: GURPS' Templates are also helpful in this regard, with the biggest benefit being that players' decision trees during chargen are massively streamlined (in addition to sidestepping the char-op problem nicely).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102609That's a cure worse than the disease.

Agreed.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102611Given how many campaigns I have seen utterly crushed by min-maxers? I believe it is a completely justified measure to take.

There are plenty of convention games run by Hero System GMs who only allow pregenerated characters. And that works fine for them. It gets rid of the nonsense completely in the convention environment.

Yeah but playing pre-gens is never as good in non-convention play than making your own PC. Hence the fact that "convention games" are their own thing. What you're alluding to here is having some kind of system that magically keeps players from doing stuff the GM doesn't want.

There is no such system. Supers games do require a disciplined GM to run because the conceits of a Supers game *really* push the envelope of power that players normally don't get to in other genres.

While I don't play "Hero System" - I do run a *lot* of Supers campaigns. The mechanical requirements for "balance" is extremely difficult for any game unless it's specifically designed for "tiered play". The assumptions I have, reading this thread are that the point-totals for Hero should approximate the power-level of the PCs right? Much like they do in M&M (which I'm much more familiar with).

If you think the Multi-Power ability is so overpowered - why not remove it? My casual view of it seems to indicate it exists for people like Green Lantern - not Superman? Surely there's a better way to skin that cat in the system? M&M, FASERIP, Icons etc. don't have these problems, at least not to the case that a GM can't easily fix. But if you're looking for a system that does it on its own? That's never going to happen.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102613While I understand the frustration with the point-buy woes, I guess I can say I've just never experienced it in a real-world context with GURPS (which offers a similar range of potential exploits) for threeish reasons:

1. I don't game with munchkins or people who like to min-max; I game with people I can trust to build well-rounded, grounded characters without intentional exploits and just generally game in good faith.

2. I look over the characters before I approve them, give feedback and have any necessary changes made by the players.

3. I don't run games at conventions or for randoms.

I've used several alternative chargen methods as well such as point buckets, pointless generation using packages, up to and including totally 'balance free' (as in, no points, pitch me your character concepts and if I approve and everyone has their niche and is happy with their perceived place in the group then the players build totally to concept regardless of cost). I've never had an issue with that style of chargen either. (I think point balance is generally a myth anyway; the illusion of it, maybe)

But like I said, I do understand the frustration. For my tables and myself I suppose it's just more or less a non-issue.

Edit: GURPS' Templates are also helpful in this regard, with the biggest benefit being that players' decision trees during chargen are massively streamlined (in addition to sidestepping the char-op problem nicely).

I'm not sure how GURPS 4E Powers worked, but as I recall the 3E Supers supplement like most of GURPS just listed abilities with costs. It didn't have quite the same degree of make your own powers as you see in HERO. That limits the amount of BS players can pull, but also limits the variety of options. One of the reasons I feel GURPS 3E was better at lower level supers, and HERO better at the high end.

I know 4E made changes to address this but as I have not found 4E particularly engaging (too much invested in 3E) and not a being a huge fan of supers I haven't delved into that beyond 4E fans saying it works much better for high end Supers than 3E did. If 4E doesn't have something like the power advantage / limitation similar to HERO then I imagine it still avoids some of the worst behavior, and still lacks the level of flexibility found in HERO.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1102622I'm not sure how GURPS 4E Powers worked, but as I recall the 3E Supers supplement like most of GURPS just listed abilities with costs. It didn't have quite the same degree of make your own powers as you see in HERO. That limits the amount of BS players can pull, but also limits the variety of options. One of the reasons I feel GURPS 3E was better at lower level supers, and HERO better at the high end.

GURPS 4E has been redesigned to have a building-block like system much closer to HERO. I would still favor GURPS at the lower end and HERO at the higher end, but GURPS has largely gotten much better and more usable/customizable in that respect. Particularly with the Powers book (there's also a 4E Supers book, but Powers is the one you really want for building... erm, powers).

Quote from: Toadmaster;1102622I know 4E made changes to address this but as I have not found 4E particularly engaging (too much invested in 3E) and not a being a huge fan of supers I haven't delved into that beyond 4E fans saying it works much better for high end Supers than 3E did. If 4E doesn't have something like the power advantage / limitation similar to HERO then I imagine it still avoids some of the worst behavior, and still lacks the level of flexibility found in HERO.

Yep, scaling and power construction / customization is far more flexible in 4E. It has a very robust enhancement / limitation system and a wide variety of core building blocks to choose from (most 3e powers and advantages have been split out into core components for ease of manufacture, although a couple relics do still exist).

It's not quite as flexible as HERO in some ways (it still doesn't scale as gracefully on the high end, and there are a few minor compartmentalization oddities here and there), but it's obvious it was built ground-up with a close eye on HERO's power methodology.

Edit: If you'd like examples of 4E power build exploitation, there are a bunch on the SJgames forums built up over the years as thought exercises...
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=239055

Read through the whole thread.  I've owned HERO system 5e (regular and FRed) but never actually played them, but I have played a lot of M&M (particularly 2e and 3e).  Honestly, I've never had a problem with Alternate Effects (their version of the Multipower), but then again, M&M combat is simpler than HERO's combat (every character gets one turn per round and no END pool to track).

Those systems do tend to incentivize the min-maxers and powergamers, though those types of players will behave that way regardless of the system you use.  The more out-of-their-control character creation is, the less they can muck about, and randomize charts structured in a particular order seems to be one of the most effective ways for the system to rein in the min-maxers and powergamers.  It also has the byproduct of providing more focused and quicker character creation.  One game currently in development, Sentinel Comics RPG, has this kind of character creation as an option.

Other than that, I wouldn't play with people who just don't give a shit about creating their character to their concept, or make stupid-ass concepts to justify their disruptive characters.  Adopting a more guided character creation process for one's favorite point-buy system may be a useful tool.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1102599Hero System is a lot of work on the GM.  That's true.  But that's because it comes with a lot of flexibility and power.  If the flexibility and power isn't worth the work, then of course you should avoid it.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with bad players or good players.  There's no amount of work you can put into any system that will fix bad players.  If they can be reasoned with, you might be able to guide them into being less bad players, but that's outside the system.

One of the players that caused my last Champions campaign to detonate didn't even make new characters. He always brought in old ones from past campaigns. And would see if the current GM would put up with them and his bullshit. Since I played in other campaigns with that player. I recognized the characters. And I frankly took offense that he refused to even try to make something new for the new campaign. And yes, I was a GM. And yes, this was the very same ruthless min-maxer who had a hand in the game's detonation.

Quote from: tenbones;1102619Agreed.While I don't play "Hero System" - I do run a *lot* of Supers campaigns. The mechanical requirements for "balance" is extremely difficult for any game unless it's specifically designed for "tiered play". The assumptions I have, reading this thread are that the point-totals for Hero should approximate the power-level of the PCs right? Much like they do in M&M (which I'm much more familiar with).

No. It doesn't  That's never been a feature of the Hero System. It puts the ball completely in the GM's court for that. And with structures like the Multipower in play, it makes determining a character's true power level extremely murky.

QuoteIf you think the Multi-Power ability is so overpowered - why not remove it? My casual view of it seems to indicate it exists for people like Green Lantern - not Superman? Surely there's a better way to skin that cat in the system? M&M, FASERIP, Icons etc. don't have these problems, at least not to the case that a GM can't easily fix. But if you're looking for a system that does it on its own? That's never going to happen.

In my view? There is. Others in this thread won't agree though.

Removing the Multipower and all of its derivations would make the system more balanced. And make things a lot easier when it comes to determining the overall character power level.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102631One of the players that caused my last Champions campaign to detonate didn't even make new characters. He always brought in old ones from past campaigns. And would see if the current GM would put up with them and his bullshit. Since I played in other campaigns with that player. I recognized the characters. And I frankly took offense that he refused to even try to make something new for the new campaign. And yes, I was a GM. And yes, this was the very same ruthless min-maxer who had a hand in the game's detonation.

This truly is not meant to be snide or overly critical... but why in the hell would you ever allow that? In any system?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102417I've played classic Tunnels & Trolls. That game has nothing compared to this particular abomination. Those rules are actually consistent.

This thing? It comes up in literally every character made. And is the cause of endless at the table arguments and headaches for the GM. Which detracts from actually having fun with the game.

"For you."

The only discussions we've ever had about that framework is a gentleman's agreement over number of Real points spent for the multipower.  Case in point: 20 point multipower, no building 137 point powers.  I cite 137 points because I quite accidentally built a kung fu superhero who could throw out ungodly damage with like 2x armor piercing, 2d6-1 HKA, etc. etc.  Again, entirely accidental but it happened.  I just wasn't watching the numbers.  We had a good laugh at it, I rebuilt the power into something that couldn't jackhammer a hole through a neutron star, and we continued on.  

I guess what I'm saying is: in 30+ years of playing hero system with the group that I do, Multipower has never, ever, ever been a problem save that one time, when a tired me forgot to move the decimal place.

Quotemake the system more balanced

AH!  Found the problem.  The problem is you're seeking balance in a system that can't be.

Two 200 point characters are in no way a match for a single 400 point character, by default.  Hell, two two-hundred point characters can be grossly mismatched against each other.  Seeking balance as the ultimate goal is a fool's errand.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102633This truly is not meant to be snide or overly critical... but why in the hell would you ever allow that? In any system?

I was part of a two GM team in a game played online. The other GM was far less capable of rejecting the BS than I was. I played "bad cop" until it finally became too much. And I quit.

The other GM wasn't willing to continue without me. And the game closed in less than a day.

Desperation to find someone, anyone to actually be in a game does a lot of bad things to gamers. Especially online.

I'm not trying to excuse it. Simply explain the situation.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102636I was part of a two GM team in a game played online. The other GM was far less capable of rejecting the BS than I was. I played "bad cop" until it finally became too much. And I quit.

The other GM wasn't willing to continue without me. And the game closed in less than a day.

Desperation to find someone, anyone to actually be in a game does a lot of bad things to gamers. Especially online.

I'm not trying to excuse it. Simply explain the situation.

Ah, that makes more sense. I have never been in a multi-GM scenario but I can certainly understand how that could cause a potential rift to abuses and misunderstandings. Hard to put out a fire when the fire extinguisher you grab turns out to shoot thermite.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1102611Given how many campaigns I have seen utterly crushed by min-maxers? I believe it is a completely justified measure to take.

There are plenty of convention games run by Hero System GMs who only allow pregenerated characters. And that works fine for them. It gets rid of the nonsense completely in the convention environment.

I tend to run all my convention games with pregenerated characters regardless of system, so that I can be prepared for what to run and can be familiar with them.

But honestly, this really depends on the players and the social dynamic. In my experience, I never really had a problem with it. Sometimes a player would suggest a character that was too powerful, and I would tell them no. More often, though, I corrected by someone bringing in a character who was too weak - and I'd suggest changes or give them perks to make them more balanced with the group.

The main thing I miss about Hero System games is the variety of characters that we would get. Hero System isn't infinitely flexible, but it can do a huge range. I've had characters like a Time Lord with a dimension-hopping mirror ("The Alchemist"), a tiny starship the size of a dinner plate, someone who channeled social archetypes, a galaxy-hopping teleporter, and a teenage girl who created semi-real illusions. In more rules-light systems, these concepts are usually reduced to fluff over the same mechanical base, or are simply not possible.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102638Ah, that makes more sense. I have never been in a multi-GM scenario but I can certainly understand how that could cause a potential rift to abuses and misunderstandings. Hard to put out a fire when the fire extinguisher you grab turns out to shoot thermite.

Oh, my reaction to the situation was much worse than I told you about here. I even destroyed all of my entries in the campaign wiki that was supposed to be constantly read by the players. This included new articles, profiles on world and political powers. Which I had worked on almost nightly to try to give the campaign world the sense of being a living breathing thing.

It was quite an irrational thing to do. But I completely lost my cool because of the frustration that was built up. And it's something I deeply regret in retrospect.