Starting Points

[BASHMAN]

I agree that hero dice are really useful. It is individual hero points used to modify rolls that I do not fight particularly useful.

I had thought it was a hero die used for attack weak point - not a hero point. That would be a great use for a hero point.

Yes- it is a single Hero Point to make your Hit Roll into your Damage Roll- and in that instance, it doesn't matter how much you hit by. This is by design because the low point cost characters will have the most need of Attack Weak Point, and the most Hero Points to spend on it. Could you build a 40 pt charcter with AWP? Yes. But he'd get less use out of it than a 25 pt character would.

[kevperrine]

These points may be *important* enough to start their own threads for - for other readers/users of BASH!

I'm considering these concerns from points mentioned here, but if they'd be better served/answered in new threads - please do so.

Okay...
Two concerns/questions I have about this line of thinking. I want to QUALIFY my questions and comments here by saying first:
- I am not a power gamer, not a mini-maxing player/GM
- I believe and encourage solid concepts


That said.

FIRST CONCERN
I think it's a little bit of a cop-out when players suggest that role-playing GAME characters (and the players that build them) should NOT be built EFFICIENTLY.

I used to rail against mini-maxing character stats. I hated playing games (as GM or fellow player) with gamers that knew the rules SO WELL and would squeeze (even bend/cheat the spirit of the rules) the most effectiveness out of stat creation.
After watching and playing with a dozen folks that tended to do that... I "learned" that using the system to maximize the opportunities my character (or NPCs as the GM) should have is not only my responsibility to my character, but also to the group I'm in (ie. the Team).

My caveat (which now I see goes across many of my fellow players): do not bend/break the concept in favor of making efficient rule choices. But do the best you can within the system.

I feel that doing all that one can to build a character toward the theme and the concept does NOT need to be a cop-out at lacking on efficiency in the build.
In a vacuum, two players can make the same character with the same awesome concept.

One can hamstring himself by not focusing and learning and creatively constructing the best options for what the rules can give to the character concept.
While another person can make the same concept using the best options with a little effort and still NOT "break" or even bend the SPIRIT of the rules or game.

In that vacuum, when the PCs come out to play in the game that character (and their player) suffers from the poor building of the first.
Just because the latter build is efficient does not mean it doesn't fit the concept.
Now...
When you BREAK or bend the concept completely in favor of a stat benefit. Then THAT is where I agree with my dislike of "efficiency" in mini-maxing stats.
That's a fine line.
But luckily - it's a big shiny bright line to be able to SEE the concept being broken.


Overall.... I still stink at building uber efficient stats for game characters. I have 3-4 friends that can run circles around me. And that's great! I don't mind. The trick is to do my best to use the rules given so that my character is not SO FAR BEHIND, just because I'm either lazy or purposely hamstringing my PC. It's unfair to the character and the team, in my humble opinion.

So question.
WHY would one build a PC that is not built efficiently as long as the stat creation still holds true to the concept?


A stupid simple but appropriate example:
My friends and I are playing Monopoly. I'm playing the "Thimble". Because I feel a Thimble should not be as fast as the Racecar, I choose to roll D4s instead of D6s like everyone else playing because it represents my concept better. Clearly my concept is met with a average slower speed at moving around the board. But that unnecessary choice hamstrings my chances to get to spaces before my fellow players playing the game...

Comparatively.
In BASH! I can make a character with the concept of using an invisible hand that can grab opponents. I could build it using Telekinesis and rely on the grapple rules or I could simply use the Force Field power.


Why would anyone do that? It doesn't break the concept, it's just efficient and elegant use of the rules.




SECOND CONCERN

"Attack Weak Point".
I'm growing really really concerned at this power. It seems (not just from this thread) to be a common fall-back power that EVERY weaker character needs as a MUST HAVE, to be able to stand up and shine on a team of bigger powers.

So my question is... If Attack Weak Point were NOT in the game, not an option ... could my lower level character still shine? What powers/options would I take to allow them to do so?

[BASHMAN]

I think there is a difference between "bean-counting" and "ham-stringing yourself". I don't like either one and don't advocate either.

I don't see the point you're making about Force Field vs. TK. Neither power is inherently better than the other- they are used for different things and have different effects.

Instead if you're asking why should I take Special Attack 3 (+3DM) when I could take Special Attack 5 (+5DM) the answer is "does it make sense for the character"? If the answer is no, don't do it. If the answer is yes, then do it.

Attack Weak Point: It's not needed for weaker characters. The example of the guy who hotwired the tanker truck. He didn't have it.

The hero who climbed onto the back of a giant robot and reprogrammed it to shut down... he didn't have it either.

My patriotic shield leader build doesn't have it; and doesn't need it (but because he has so many extra hero points, he can easily power stunt for it whenever he needs it).

If you have an Unobtainium Shield that can do +5DM, you really don't need attack weak point. It's just a useful ability to have. Not mandatory.

The only time I'd say someone NEEDS attack weak point is if their attack does no more than x2 damage. But that's ASSUMING that they are going to be a combat build. Plenty of characters aren't combat focused builds and have no need of it.

[kevperrine]

I don't see the point you're making about Force Field vs. TK. Neither power is inherently better than the other- they are used for different things and have different effects.

Okay. Correct me if I'm missing something...
A character that has a giant hand of force that regularly likes to grab opponents and hold them down could:

- build the power exclusively with Telekinesis
- build the power with the addition of Force Field



With TK alone, say you want to grab a villain and hold them down. The player would need to use their power in combination with the Wrestling rules.

Telekinesis: "Treating Telekinesis as Brawn for damage, lifting, or wrestling and Mind as Agility to hit."
+
Wrestling - Grab: "You grab your enemy and hold them fast. If you succeed, you have the opponent in your iron grip. From this point forward, it is Brawn against Brawn only. Each page, on his panel, your victim can try to break free."
... (then a page later) ...
"Each page, on your panel you may do one of the following moves to a grabbed opponent:"
"Restrain Them: Make a Brawn contest with the foe."


OR...


Simply build it with Force Field:
and "...trap an unwilling target, make a Mind contest against their Defense (Deflect is of no use). The force field lasts until it is destroyed by damage."



Not Efficient vs. Efficient.
Lots of unnecessary rule/rolls for a similar (if not better with FF) conclusion. (Note: that either could be "stunted" with Hero Dice on the other, which is an awesome option of HD)

That's the obvious example that comes to mind. But there are a number of ways that you might build any character inefficiently toward a concept that could be built equally worthy of the concept but a much more efficient use of your points, powers and rule usage.




To step up on my soap box...
(NOTE: not not not against anyone here, especially BASHMAN, whom I respect and think we're actually ON the same page on this)

My problem with mentioning building things toward a concept vs. efficiency is the mistake in thinking they are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape or form.

My problem is (honestly) less with the people that talk about this and more with the MESSAGE it sends to new players to the games. I get concerned that this jaded (and I feel incorrect) talk can color a game-player's attitude and ability before they try.

And many times those folks that say they'd rather build a character more to concept than focus on effectiveness are either doing the game system option/ability to build efficiently a disservice or are speaking from a position of:
- inability (they just aren't good at building)
- unwillingness to try (they don't care about their own PC or the team)
- laziness (they're unwilling to take the time)
- patronization (they think following "concept" is a superior attitude in game-play and won't/haven't consider concept and efficiency aren't exclusive)

[BASHMAN]

My guy has claws. Should I make them be +1 DM or +5DM? My answer: pick whichever makes the most sense. The answer that irritates me is "Why would you ever pick only +1- that is inefficient compared to +5."

[kevperrine]

My guy has claws. Should I make them be +1 DM or +5DM? My answer: pick whichever makes the most sense. The answer that irritates me is "Why would you ever pick only +1- that is inefficient compared to +5."

LOL
Totally sir!

I 100% completely agree with you there.
That is a choice of "concept" to determine a stat not efficiency to choose the rule to fit the best of use FOR the concept, in my opinion.


I'd much rather have a player describe their character idea as:

"I have 3 Razor-honed foot long blades made of unobtainium that 'snikt' out of my forearms!" +5DM
vs.
"I've sharpened my finger-nails to surprise the corrupt cops that try an' hand-cuff me." +1DM


Then again...
With the conversation on "Attack Weak Point", the "good intention toward concept" mentioned here sort of breaks down some with the guy that "chose" to have a +1DM if they're constantly using their AWP power or stunting it with a Hero Die.

[Nestor]

I should shut up because Kev is doing a slam-bang job of reading my mind and writing them (in much better prose than ever I could achieve).

But I feel I need to contribute this bit, since it is based on personal experience and with the hope that it will help in the concept vs. inefficiency debate.

I create a character that, by concept, is of normal everyday intelligence. He's not a moron, but not a PhD either. Based on the description in the book, I give him a Mind of 1.

But because the Mind stat is used for a number of effects that are not directly intelligence-based, I find the character comes across as sub-par as opposed to "normal" (for instance, he's automatically intimidated, cannot break out of a Daze, can barely make any Mental skill rolls, and so on). The rule mechanics don't jive with the concept.

So, to better define the concept, I need to look at how I can use the system to more efficiently model it. As Kev said, efficiency and concept are not mutually exclusive.

[drkrash]

I should shut up because Kev is doing a slam-bang job of reading my mind and writing them (in much better prose than ever I could achieve).

But I feel I need to contribute this bit, since it is based on personal experience and with the hope that it will help in the concept vs. inefficiency debate.

I create a character that, by concept, is of normal everyday intelligence. He's not a moron, but not a PhD either. Based on the description in the book, I give him a Mind of 1.

But because the Mind stat is used for a number of effects that are not directly intelligence-based, I find the character comes across as sub-par as opposed to "normal" (for instance, he's automatically intimidated, cannot break out of a Daze, can barely make any Mental skill rolls, and so on). The rule mechanics don't jive with the concept.

So, to better define the concept, I need to look at how I can use the system to more efficiently model it. As Kev said, efficiency and concept are not mutually exclusive.

(I figured I'll join this conversation since my original question has been totally lost along the way!)

Yeah, but if those things you mention are important to the concept, you could easily give him Boost: Mind (only when strong will comes into play). Because BASH plays fast and loose with the relative power of limitations (unlike Champions), you can get away with this.

[BeardedDork]

Also a person of average mental acuity can be reasonably expected to have those same limitations, or else they would only work on the mentally feeble.

It's unreasonable to make a character who is of average intellect and force of will and then complain that the things that work on people with average intellect and force of will affect him.

That's very much like shooting yourself in the foot and then complaining that your foot hurts it's hard to walk, and there's blood everywhere.

x1 is average, that is the baseline normal, any superpower at all is by definition superhuman, complaining that baseline normal doesn't defend against superhuman is beyond ludicrous. As frustrating as it may be to be affected by these powers it is for the most part super easy to get clear of them once affected, it would be much worse to spend the points on the powers and not have them work ever because even a basline normal person can easily resist them.

Would this discussion even be happening with a different stat in the same situation? if you have a character with an average brawn are you going to also complain that he can't escape from immobilize?

[dugfromthearth]

I will complain when my character has an average intelligence, only 1 skill, can rarely succeed even at those things he is supposedly skilled at and finds it almost impossible to succeed at everything else.

And I will complain when my character is dazed and finds it almost impossible to undaze.

The problem is that you are defining "works on a people with average intellect" as being "must work on them or is useless" rather than "should work on people with average intellect because that is the concept".

You are ignoring concept and concerning yourself only with efficiency and power level. Daze must work on an Int 1 or it is useless (and by work it means virtually impossible for them to break free).

We are starting with: what should a person of average mind be able to do, and finding that the rules do not allow them to do it.

[Nestor]

So BeardedDork, following your logic, the intent of the game mechanics is for normal people to be fully and permanently disabled by Daze?

Never mind. The point I'm trying to make is not to complain about the x1 Stat, but that building a character that best models the desired concept requires planning and design, and that one can achieve a pessimal build that fails in doing so. Efficiency is not a bad word if the goal is to achieve the concept.

To move back somewhat in the direction of the original topic, the question is: does the Hero point mechanic successfully model the intent behind it?

In my (admittedly limited) time playing BASH, I just haven't seen the margin of success or failure with rolls be frequently close enough to make having a handful of Hero points that useful. I'm perfectly willing to admit that this viewpoint may be skewed by circumstances (such as my infamous bad luck with die rolls and my incomplete knowledge of the rules), but it's nevertheless based on actual experience.

[BeardedDork]

I am not ignoring concept, I am not saying must work every time, I'm saying must work often enough to be worth doing.

You are doing exactly the things you are accusing me of doing by saying "this sucks because my character can't undaze simply by making a roll" (remember there are Many other ways to do it)

You are comparing average to superhuman and finding average lacking, what do you expect? If you don't want to be subject to daze, that seems to be the power everybody complains about, then take boost mind to resist mental effects, spend some hero points on the roll to resist, or spend some hero points on the roll to snap out of it, or take the never surrender advantage, or mind shield, or have a team mate tap you on the shoulder and say "yo buddy, snap out of it", or spend a hero die. I'm most likely forgetting some options other than make the roll.

If you choose to be average you get the entire package that comes with that including being susceptible to the superhuman. This is such a logical truism that it absolutely baffles me that people complain about it, and offer that it should work some other way.

So BeardedDork, following your logic, the intent of the game mechanics is for normal people to be fully and permanently disabled by Daze? Confused

Yup that's exactly what I just said, in those exact words, and that tone of vice

Would you like me to go through the list again?

[drkrash]

First, my original topic was not about Hero Points, but rather campaign baselines. Fortunately, my question has been answered by Chris, although I would have appreciated other anecdotal responses that were never forthcoming, and which were then derailed by a lengthy discussion of Hero Points.

But that does lead to a curiosity I have, and it's really critical for me to point out that I am not trying to bait or antagonize anyone here, but it seems odd to be on a designer's forum and have such critical comments almost to the point of "the game fundamentally doesn't work in several important ways." With so many options available for supers, why struggle with BASH when you could find something that works more to your liking? Character builds and hero points seem rather intrinsic to what BASH is. Again, I'm not complaining; I'm genuinely curious given the apparent fervor of some of the frustration expressed here. I'm more accustomed to a game's personal forums being far more fanboi.

FWIW, I have no problem with the mechanics and have seen them work quite admirably in my limited play time.

So anyone else want to offer their campaign starting levels and why?

[BeardedDork]

For my campaigns I tend to run around 25-30 points, mostly because that is what I and my players are the most comfortable with.

It seems that for our group more points than that and things start to just get muddled, and some of the players get confused with what their characters can do. One of our players is a little addled at the 25 point level.

It's a find what works for you and your group thing.

[Nestor]

We are starting with: what should a person of average mind be able to do, and finding that the rules do not allow them to do it.

Precisely.

Since someone brought up Champions, let's look at that system for a second. A hero with normal intelligence (8 to 10) has a base roll for any INT-based skills of 11 or less on 3d6, which is more than a 50% success (62.5% IIRC) for a typical task.

In contrast, a person with normal intelligence in BASH (x1 DM) has less than 20% chance of success (approx 17% if my math is right) against a Typical Difficulty task (10).

Is that the intent of the system?