Standard Effect

[Kolava]

Shouldn't the standard effect be 3.5 rather then 3? It would be a more mathmatically sound "average", and the added difficulty in calculation is negligible. Has anyone else house ruled this?

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Kolava
Shouldn't the standard effect be 3.5 rather then 3? It would be a more mathmatically sound "average", and the added difficulty in calculation is negligible. Has anyone else house ruled this? Its set to 3 deliberately. You loose a little effect for the privelege of consistancy. It also makes odd dice increments easier to calc.

[Kolava]

That was intentional? I never considered consistency useful before, though I guess I see now how it aids planning. On the other hand, what about games were players are pushed into using the standard effect rule to speed up combat (the enemies too)? Wouldn't this power-down combat as a whole, or do you think the effect is too small? (5 points off of a 10d6)

[Southern Cross]

No it would have a significant effect.Assuming 20 points in defenses,10d6 attacks & 30 STUN on the average,the average PC in that campaign would take 3 hits to KO instead of just 2.
And it gets worse at higher power levels- a 60 STR brick with a 30 PD & 60 STUN will ignore 10d6 Normal Attacks and even 12d6 Normal Attacks will take 10 hits to KO them,instead of 5.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Kolava
On the other hand, what about games were players are pushed into using the standard effect rule to speed up combat (the enemies too)? Wouldn't this power-down combat as a whole, or do you think the effect is too small? (5 points off of a 10d6) Well, if the GM is just doing average effect for purposes of efficiency thats a different matter.

Standard Effect is at the players options and requires GM permission. Its for players that are trying to model as specific and exact effect or are dice-cursed and are looking for a little consistency, or what have you.

If the GM opts to streamline combats by just applying average effects then thats not the same thing as Standard Effect.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike


If the GM opts to streamline combats by just applying average effects then thats not the same thing as Standard Effect.

It is the same thing as standard effect, its just being used on a global sense as opposed to the local sense it was presented in. What would you call it if every power in the game was built with Standard Effect? You would still call it standard effect.

I've found it incredibly useful for streamlining play. It does take a little more thought at design time, but it makes runtime move much more quickly.

I call it standard effect. I may be wrong, but I don't know what else to call it.

[Southern Cross]

Neither do I. However my comments about powers with standard effect are still valid.I'll use if for Aids & Succors,but its really a limitation on offensive powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

There seem to be two schools of thought here. One values the consistency and sees this as a fair trade off for loss of effect on average . This is a bit less than a 15% loss (3.5 to 3). The other does not see the value in consistency.

I believe it is a fair tradeoff to lose a bit of average effect as the price for consistent, predictable results. Your 3d6 Heal will never roll a 3 just when you need it the most, for example. When most opponents are Stunned, you don't risk hitting him with low damage that has no effect, so he recovers. For the one with defenses in excess of your standard value, how did he get stunned in the first place?

Now, assume you believe it is a limitation. How will you price it? At -1/2, players can now select between a 12d6 EB (average damage 42; 6 END; 60 points) or a 15d6 EB, Standard Effect (guaranteed damage 45; 7 END; 60 points). Which one would you choose? The powers are no longer equivalent. You trade off the chance of an above average roll to be guaranteed no below average rolls and, indeed, a greater average damage. Unless you want to go to -1/8, there's no reasonable limitation for standard effect.

If it's imposed across the board, character design should logically consider this, and average defenses should be a bit lower to compensate.

Personally, I don't like standard effect simply because I don't like removing the random aspect. Players like to roll the dice. And what EB does the same damage every time?

[Gary]

Standard effect Body might be a consideration when dealing with inanimate objects. That would remove the annoying situation where a .50 cal machine gun will eventually shred a tank from the side.

[Monolith]

I think Killershrike is basically correct. 3 was chosen to make the number for odd dice calculate easier. Easier to figure out that a 13d6 attack does 39 STUN then to figure it does 45.5. :)

There are some advantages to Standard Effect, and in some small degree it changes the dynamic of combat. The advantage is that you now can set true immunity levels. Because you know how much fixed damage something does you know at what level you need to set the defenses to be immune to it. If you know bullets can do 35 STUN then you know you can buy a 35 DEF and be immune to them.

One aspect of the game that many people seem to dislike is the randomness of the die rolls. Thanks to things like STUN Lotto or exceptionally good rolls it's possible to unjure people with relatively low dice attacks. It's possible, for example, for someone with an 8d6 attack to actually do STUN to Dr. Destroyer with the randomness factor. Whereas with Standard Effect only someone doing 14d6 had any chance of injuring Dr. D.

In a mainstream game there is not that much immediate effect. Most Champions characters are designed to be beaten in 2-4 hits, with an average being 3. Assuming a 11d6 attack, 20 DEF, and 35 STUN the difference is being knocked out with 2 hits instead of 3. That's not that much of a change when you consider how time consuming gathering, rolling, and adding damage dice are to the flow of combat.

I'm not a big fan of Standard Effect. I think if I wanted to play that way I'd just play the old Marvel Superheroes game. But it does have its uses and advantages.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Southern Cross
Neither do I. However my comments about powers with standard effect are still valid.I'll use if for Aids & Succors,but its really a limitation on offensive powers.

An extremely slight limitation that avoids bad rolls. Hence the -0.

Something else to consider, however, is that people can (and tend) to run correspondingly lower defenses in games where standard effect is, well, standard.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Von D-Man
It is the same thing as standard effect, its just being used on a global sense as opposed to the local sense it was presented in. What would you call it if every power in the game was built with Standard Effect? You would still call it standard effect.

I've found it incredibly useful for streamlining play. It does take a little more thought at design time, but it makes runtime move much more quickly.

I call it standard effect. I may be wrong, but I don't know what else to call it. Im not talking about a situation where the GM decrees that all powers must be SE and its the campaign ground rule.

What Im saying is that if the GM decides at some point in-play to speed up a particular combat with characters that are not built w/ Standard Effect on their powers and wants to just apply averages then its not the same thing as "Standard Effect". The GM is just streamlining at that point and real averages should probably be used or else the GM is short changing players that did not want SE in the first place, and also it will give odd results since most defenses will probably be high enough to resist normal damage spread, but SE does below average damage. In effect, this would make combats last longer in-game though they might be faster in Real Life time due to less die counting.

Different situation than what you are talking about apparantly.

[austenandrews]

In my game I allow players to opt at any time for an "average roll" at 3.5 per die. If they want to go for a higher effect they can. Many's the time they wished they hadn't. ;)

-AA

[Kolava]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I believe it is a fair tradeoff to lose a bit of average effect as the price for consistent, predictable results. Your 3d6 Heal will never roll a 3 just when you need it the most, for example.

Nor will it roll an 18 when you need it the most. I don't think enough credit is given to the lost ability for "high rolls" that SE brings. I like SE being a -0 limitation, and have no intention of increasing the limitation because of the 15% loss. Instead, I think the 15% loss can be corrected with a simple .5, and I maintain that consistency is a double edged sword for reasons mentioned above. Why should a character be punished for wanting their STR Aid to always do 35, rather then a scattered array?

And, if nothing else, the consistency is balanced by the boredom the player faces when they don't get to roll a fistfull of dice. :D

[Dust Raven]

Ultimately, I feel Standard Effect is a GM's tool and it's how I use it. Naturally, it's available to Player Characters as well, but isn't as useful to them.

Here's how I use it:

Agents and low level Villains all use Standard Effect attacks. Sames me time rolling damage and speeds up combat. I also know exactly how much damage is done on every hit, and don't have to worry about some lousy agent knocking out the martial artist in a single shot or having a handful team up on the brick and do no damage.

Then I can decide that one agent/villain is special and stands out from the rest. Maybe he's the leader or just a showoff. He doesn't have Standard Effect, and has the capability to knock that martial artist out in one hit (but also has that chance of not affecting the brick at all). Standard Effect saves me from writing up an additional agent, as I can just use one of the other but with different tactics.