Meta Rule Number 6

[Aroooo]

Just wanted to remind us all of Rule #6:

"If two powers (or other game elements) are equally valid ways to create a particular ability, you must use the more expensive of the two."

Actually, all 8 rules are a good read from time to time. Page 348.

Aroooo
(okay, you can flame me now...)

[keithcurtis]

Ahh, but you can endlessly quibble over which is more "valid".

Keith "no flame hotter than a kitchen match" Curtis

[Doug Limmer]

If you take Rule #6 too literally, then you wouldn't by the power Armor at all, but rather Force Field with 0 End, Persistent, and Invisible Power Effects.

I'd include the idea of how simple/straightforward a construction is as part of the word "valid".

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Doug Limmer
If you take Rule #6 too literally, then you wouldn't by the power Armor at all, but rather Force Field with 0 End, Persistent, and Invisible Power Effects.

I'd include the idea of how simple/straightforward a construction is as part of the word "valid".

True. Valid also applies to the SFX and character concept in question.

Aroooo

[Derek Hiemforth]

I think people worry too much about the meaning of metarule 6, to be honest. I think it's just there to say, "If you're trying to simulate an effect, you're not sure exactly how it "should" be done, and you're considering multiple ways of building it, then you can most safely avoid potential abuse by going with the most expensive way."

For example, let's say you're building a teleporter, and you want to give them the trick of sticking their arm through a mini-spacewarp and punching people (from any direction) up to a certain distance away. You have STR of course, and you also buy Stretching. Stretching has some Indirect aspects by default, but this effect is really Indirect, so you decide you should apply the Advantage. What do you apply it to? STR or Stretching? There are logical arguments for either one.

This is where metarule 6 becomes useful. If you're not sure, apply it to whichever one is more expensive. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
I think people worry too much about the meaning of metarule 6, to be honest. I think it's just there to say, "If you're trying to simulate an effect, you're not sure exactly how it "should" be done, and you're considering multiple ways of building it, then you can most safely avoid potential abuse by going with the most expensive way."


And that, or something like it, would probably be a better thing to put in later editions. I don't know how anyone would misconstrue this explanation.



default, but this effect is really Indirect, so you decide you should apply the Advantage. What do you apply it to? STR or Stretching? There are logical arguments for either one.

This is where metarule 6 becomes useful. If you're not sure, apply it to whichever one is more expensive. :)

Must...not...pick...tangential...nits!

Oh, who am I kidding?

Isn't that already a function of the Stretching Advantage, Does Not Cross Intervening Space? The two dimensional portals thing is one of the examples for it.

[JmOz]

METARULE 6 IS BROKEN

Okay had to say that. It makes no sense, as I can ALWAYS make a power more expensive (why use metascale, NCM with a -1/4 lim no fine control works just as well, and can be much higher, or for that matter buy strait movement)

I beleive in the concept of simplicity of design, if I can use one power to simulate something with no advantages (or adders) or Lims, cool, if it takes 3 advantages one way and 7 advantages another way go with 3, even if 3 is cheeper

So metarule 6, is useless to me.

[austenandrews]

I agree with JmOz on this one.

-AA

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by JmOz
I beleive in the concept of simplicity of design, if I can use one power to simulate something with no advantages (or adders) or Lims, cool, if it takes 3 advantages one way and 7 advantages another way go with 3, even if 3 is cheeper.

Good point. I forgot to mention that last night, although I did imply that in the TUV anchors thread.

Aroooo

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by JmOz
I beleive in the concept of simplicity of designSo do I. Pointing out that you can stack up baroque constructs that are more expensive than simple ones does not invalidate metarule 6, because such obviously contrived constructs can't be reasonably argued to be "equally valid."

Build it the most logical or elegant way. If (and only if) you're not sure what the most logical or elegant way is, or if you have multiple ways that seem equally logical or elegant, then (and only then) you're best off using the most expensive one in order to avoid potential abuse.

[JmOz]

Of course my examples were constructed to be overly obvious (In order to drive home the absurdity of Metarule 6), but here is a more tame one I have encountered:

I wanted a character who could generate a persistant FF. Some people said built it as a 0 end FF Persistent (2 advantages, +1), but instead I chose to do it as Armor: visible (one -1/4 lim), people will debate on what was the "right way" according to rule 6 I did wrong, but the other way is more complicated. Furthermore as far as game balance goes it is closer inline (IMHO)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by JmOz
Of course my examples were constructed to be overly obvious (In order to drive home the absurdity of Metarule 6), but here is a more tame one I have encountered:

Unfortunately, the creation of absurd examples is a logically flawed argument. I wish I could remember the Latin: reducio ad absurdum? But that's neither here nor there, the point is that if you take anything to an absurd extreme it will be, by definition, absurd.


I wanted a character who could generate a persistant FF. Some people said built it as a 0 end FF Persistent (2 advantages, +1), but instead I chose to do it as Armor: visible (one -1/4 lim), people will debate on what was the "right way" according to rule 6 I did wrong, but the other way is more complicated. Furthermore as far as game balance goes it is closer inline (IMHO)
However, here Armor is the more valid construct, so Rule 6 doesn't apply because they are not equally valid. It fits exactly what you want without tweaking.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by GamePhil
However, here Armor is the more valid construct, so Rule 6 doesn't apply because they are not equally valid. It fits exactly what you want without tweaking. And the problem in this construction is not metarule 6... it's the cost of Armor. :) Once you start letting people take Visible (and especially letting them take Costs Endurance) on Armor, then you might as well get rid of Force Field, because no one in their right mind would buy it. ;)

Why would I buy this:

20PD/20ED Force Field -- 40 points

When I could buy this:

20PD/20ED Armor, Costs Endurance (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) -- 34 points.

The cost relationships between Armor, Force Field, and PD/ED/Damage Resistance are messed up, IMO. It really would make more sense to combine these into a single Defense power that could be customized with Advantages and Limitations like Resistant and Costs END and Visible, etc.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
And the problem in this construction is not metarule 6... it's the cost of Armor. :)
That, too.

[Southern Cross]

Of course,if you state that all Powers built with the "Costs END" Limitation are Visible by default,Armor with the "Costs END" Limitation has the same Real Cost as an equally-effective Force Field.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Southern Cross
Of course,if you state that all Powers built with the "Costs END" Limitation are Visible by default,Armor with the "Costs END" Limitation has the same Real Cost as an equally-effective Force Field. Oh sure, drag LOGIC into this whydontya?!? ;)

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
And the problem in this construction is not metarule 6... it's the cost of Armor. :) Once you start letting people take Visible (and especially letting them take Costs Endurance) on Armor, then you might as well get rid of Force Field, because no one in their right mind would buy it. ;)

Why would I buy this:

20PD/20ED Force Field -- 40 points

When I could buy this:

20PD/20ED Armor, Costs Endurance (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) -- 34 points.

The cost relationships between Armor, Force Field, and PD/ED/Damage Resistance are messed up, IMO. It really would make more sense to combine these into a single Defense power that could be customized with Advantages and Limitations like Resistant and Costs END and Visible, etc.

I agree that the defence powers are screwed up (However I think the weak link is FF, and I think FF should go bye bye). However saying the problem is the power chosen as an example is wrong, this error is in many other places.

The basic problem is this, as a sound bite: You can always build a legitimet interpretation of a power more expensively, thus the most appropriate way is the easiest way to build it

[JmOz]

Derek I am going to use your example above, we will asume two methods are under review, one is a EB, Indirect, the other is streatching does not pass through space, you said brick so lets assume Str 50

BY METARULE 6 the more expensive is always right

Distance covered 5"
Streatching method: 31 points
EB method (Includes limited range): 70 Points

Distance 10"
Streatching method: 62 points
EB method (Includes limited range): 70 Points

Distance 15":
Streatching: 94 Points
EB method (Includes limited range): 70 Points

Technicaly the Streatching should be 0 end as the character will still have to pay for Str used (If so 10" will cost more for streatching).

Now according to metarule 6 the most valid way will change when it gets to a certain point, also note that the most valid way will also be effected by the Str of the individual. To me this is broken.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz
Distance covered 5"
Streatching method: 31 points
EB method (Includes limited range): 70 Points
When you add in the 40 extra points to get the 50 STR, Stretching is more exspensive from the very beginning. A lot of that extra cost is for the "perks" which stretching gives you, such as non-combat distance, velocity damage, ect. Your 10d6 EB will always do 10d6 and have a 5" range. My 50 STR with 5" of Stretching will do 11 1/2d6, will at times be allowed to attack at 10" instead of 5", ect.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by JmOz
The basic problem is this, as a sound bite: You can always build a legitimet interpretation of a power more expensively, thus the most appropriate way is the easiest way to build it
So, you're saying that part of your definition of "valid" is "easiest", a statement I can personally find no fault with. Therefore, in every case you have so far presented, the simpler construct is the more valid one. Therefore, Rule 6 does not apply, because it only applies when the constructs are of equal validity.

"Legitimate" or "legal" was never the statement, "valid" was. You could argue the need to define "valid", though I personally think that allowing the gaming group make that decision makes a degree of sense.

[tesuji]

This thread highlights the problems with metarule 6...

1. The meat in the rule is "valid" not "most expensive" and without an objectively defined "valid", the rule has no meaning of consequence. Some will read valid as meaning legal in the rules, while others, as seen here, will add to it many other qualities like elegane, reasonable, and so on.

2. Most expensive goes directly contrary to the hero basic principle number one... points matter and you should pay for what you get and no more. If i can get several different prices for "the same power" then ONE of them is correct... one of them is reflective of how much i will get out of the power in play. (Ugly truth, this is highly variable by campaign to campaign.)

A better writing of metarule 6 for me would be...

When faced with different constructs of the same power which produce equivalent results but differing costs, the Gm should permit the one most reasonable by cost-effect comparison with other SIMPLER powers and characteristics, with the nod going to the simpler power construct.

"Simpler" would be defined as involving the fewest advantages/lims and the least in terms of size, as well as probably eliminating "custom lims" where possible.

However, i would replace metarule 6 entirely, with something even simpler...

"the GM is tasked with making sure that approved powers are worth what was paid for them, so the cheaper "construct gets less benefit in play than the more expensive one. Whether this is due to actual organic differences intrinsic to the powers as built or due to scripting of scenarios, adversaries and challenges is IRRELEVENT."

Example... Cheeser managed to buy his 10d6 firebolt for 25 points while NEWBIE bought his 10d6 firebolt for 50. The GM approves both but amazingly IN PLAY Newbie has more guys with fire vulnerability in his sights than CHEESER does and Cheeser tends to get more guys with fire drains and tossed into "sprimkler situations" than NEWBIE does.

BALANCE is created when a GM makes sure you get what you pay for and no more once he has approved the cost. Balance is much more wrapped up in the challenges you face than they are wrapped up in whether your firebolt is 50 or 25.

Admittedly, this does make the entire hero-esque obsession on points microfocusing down to every single aspect of character creation including "i get more dice for my firebolt if i have hayfever" look rather much an institutionalized, formalized and codified policy of deliberately missing the forest for the trees, but then again, its gotta be that way for those who believe "experience and skill in working the character creation system" is properly rewarded with more capable PCs IN PLAY.

[Agent X]

This meta-rule just stinks.

The most valid way to build a power is the most BALANCED way to build it. How effective is it compared to a 10d6 energy blast. Then, maybe it should cost about the same if it is about as effective. Thus, find the method closest to this cost. The most expensive thing seems to be an poorly thought out overreaction to point-mongers. Based on answers to rules questions, I think Long has pretty much backed away from this one. In electronic "person," he is much more flexible than his rulebook.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji
However, i would replace metarule 6 entirely, with something even simpler...

"the GM is tasked with making sure that approved powers are worth what was paid for them, so the cheaper "construct gets less benefit in play than the more expensive one. Whether this is due to actual organic differences intrinsic to the powers as built or due to scripting of scenarios, adversaries and challenges is IRRELEVENT."

Example... Cheeser managed to buy his 10d6 firebolt for 25 points while NEWBIE bought his 10d6 firebolt for 50. The GM approves both but amazingly IN PLAY Newbie has more guys with fire vulnerability in his sights than CHEESER does and Cheeser tends to get more guys with fire drains and tossed into "sprimkler situations" than NEWBIE does.

BALANCE is created when a GM makes sure you get what you pay for and no more once he has approved the cost. Balance is much more wrapped up in the challenges you face than they are wrapped up in whether your firebolt is 50 or 25.

Admittedly, this does make the entire hero-esque obsession on points microfocusing down to every single aspect of character creation including "i get more dice for my firebolt if i have hayfever" look rather much an institutionalized, formalized and codified policy of deliberately missing the forest for the trees, but then again, its gotta be that way for those who believe "experience and skill in working the character creation system" is properly rewarded with more capable PCs IN PLAY.

Excellent and well thought out analysis. :)

[Agent X]

That is a good one but, if I were the Gm, I would try to use my simplistic balancing method to keep my work down to a minimum.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Agent X
Based on answers to rules questions, I think Long has pretty much backed away from this one.
I doubt it. It's much more likely that he has a similar definition of the "equally valid" portion of the rule as Derek presented earlier.

All Rule 6 is saying is, "If you abuse the rules to get a cheaper power, you need to buy the more expensive one", and never, "If you can come up a power that is more expensive, no matter how much more complex it is than the most obvious one, you must buy it that way." If you somehow get a 20d6 EB with no restriction for 5 points, technically legally, you still have to pay 100. But if you want Persistant Resistant Defense, you buy Armor.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by GamePhil
I doubt it. It's much more likely that he has a similar definition of the "equally valid" portion of the rule as Derek presented earlier.

All Rule 6 is saying is, "If you abuse the rules to get a cheaper power, you need to buy the more expensive one", and never, "If you can come up a power that is more expensive, no matter how much more complex it is than the most obvious one, you must buy it that way." If you somehow get a 20d6 EB with no restriction for 5 points, technically legally, you still have to pay 100. But if you want Persistant Resistant Defense, you buy Armor. That may have been his meaning but he used a bazooka where a fly-swatter would have worked.

[Mephron]

Originally posted by Southern Cross
Of course,if you state that all Powers built with the "Costs END" Limitation are Visible by default,Armor with the "Costs END" Limitation has the same Real Cost as an equally-effective Force Field.

you know, I was just going through and working the math out on this, and about to note just the same thing, when I said, "Hey, this is a multipage thread!" and saw your post. Oh well.

But the issue is that basically, DR = Armor, if you do the math (2 points of PD, made resistant is 1 point; therefore it's 3 for every 2 points).

So if you take Armor, Costs End (-1/2), it becomes 2 points for 2 points... and that's Force Field.

How is Force Field broken when you can derive it properly? They're all balanced with each other.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Mephron

How is Force Field broken when you can derive it properly? They're all balanced with each other.

Can i play?

15/15 armour = 45 ap.
-1/2 costs end real cost 30 rp
end cost per phase 4.
amount of multipower reserve needed to run: 45

15/15 force field = 30 ap
real cost 30 rp
end cost 3 per phase
amount of multipower reserve needed to run 30.

Even HERO 5 rules themselves do not go for the oversimplistic view that as long as RP cost evens out then the powers are balanced against each other.

HERO 5 has this hidden secret thing which only those with the proper decoder rings can know about, but at risk of having large men come and stuff me into my trunk, i will reveal it to you guys. Just don't tell anyone it was me.

Its called active points.

[looks over shoulder nervously before continuing.]

See the errr... non-inactive points affect a great many myriad and diverse properties within the game, including endurance, difficulty with skill checks, and how well or poorly the power goes into frameworks.

Even the hero 5 rules dismiss using real points as a good measure of a power's effectiveness. They have never, as i recall, advised "its an ok power if its real cost is lower then x." On occasion active point limits have been discussed. (though they admit that doesn't work either.)

[Vondy]

D-Man's House Rule #1: Ignore meta-rule #6

I don't care how much it costs. Instead I apply the following criteria:

Is this the easiest way to accurately build this power?
Is this unbalancing compared to campaign standards?
Is this bereft of cheese odors?

Relying on the accounting side for power management and design is devoid of both perspective and common sense.

[Tom McCarthy]

If I might throw in a contentious example...

The Jericho Effect

A superpowered being takes control of another individual's body and uses it as his own. If the body is attacked physically, it takes the abuse (leaving the owner battered when the possessor leaves), but mental attacks hit the possessor.


There have been lots of different ways to build this. One way is as a very large mind control, with some associated powers to cover extra effects. Seems reasonable; it closely follows the Mind Control concept of "making someone do what I want". The extra powers bit can be contentious.

If the possessor becomes desolid, invisible, and clings to the target, then he pays a great number of points to have Mind Control affect the physical world, plus lots of points for the extras.

If the possessor uses extra dimensional movement to another dimension, he pays extra points for transdimensional mind control and plus points for extra dimensional movement and the transdimensional clairsentience to perceive the world through the possessed body's senses.

Clearly, the first is the most expensive. But does that make it the right answer ? I'm inclined to say No. Even the second seems to cost far too much, because this Jericho Effect does not seem inherently more valuable than Mind Control. The mind controller becomes safe from physical assault, but loses the ability to control multiple targets, and loses the advantages of having two bodies (such as fleeing during the mayhem, or using his own phases to support his mind control victim, etc.).

I'm leaning strongly towards the interpretation that this is just Mind Control with unusual side effects (mentalist's body disappears while target is controlled; mentalist not target is affected by mental attacks on target's body while controlled; mentalist's body reappears when breakout occurs; mentalist may cause breakout at any time).

[JmOz]

I like that, add in the character takes an equal amount of stun as the victom does, and I think you have it (In otherwords you will feel there pain), also figure in a Succor to Aid and I think you may have it (They can usualy wake them up if they posses them)

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by D-Man
D-Man's House Rule #1: Ignore meta-rule #6
I don't care how much it costs. Instead I apply the following criteria:
Is this the easiest way to accurately build this power?
Is this unbalancing compared to campaign standards?
Is this bereft of cheese odors?Again, this doesn't violate or ignore metarule #6 at all. Your criteria are simply defining "valid." What would you do if there were two ways to build an effect, one of which was slightly more expensive than the other, and both seemed equally easy and accurate, neither seemed unbalancing, and both seemed cheese-free? Metarule #6 simply suggests that, in such a case, going with the one that's a little more expensive avoids abuse.

I go back to the very first thing I said. People worry too much about metarule #6. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
I go back to the very first thing I said. People worry too much about metarule #6. :)
Eh, if they were REALLY too worried about it, we'd be well past page 3 by now.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Again, this doesn't violate or ignore metarule #6 at all. Your criteria are simply defining "valid." What would you do if there were two ways to build an effect, one of which was slightly more expensive than the other, and both seemed equally easy and accurate, neither seemed unbalancing, and both seemed cheese-free? Metarule #6 simply suggests that, in such a case, going with the one that's a little more expensive avoids abuse.

I go back to the very first thing I said. People worry too much about metarule #6. :)

I admire munchkinism in moderation (elegant point savers as opposed to abusive ones).

I'd let them use the cheaper one if it met my criteria.

Fortuanately I'm the one who looks at the massive point wastes my players hand me (with one notable exception) and makes suggestions on how to do things a bit cheaper (and simpler).

The exception is the reason I have to go over fine characters with a fine tooth comb at all.

[ShadowRaptor]

Before I saw this I was thinking...what is Meta-Rule #6 as I open the thread, then I read the posts and I decided that I am not letting anybody in my group read this meta-rule and therefore save the headaches for something else. ;)