No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

[OddHat]

So, what would be the effect on character design if all power frameworks were eliminated, to be replaced with the following four rules?

1) Alter One Alter All (-1/4, -1/2, -3/4, -1). All powers in this list are Altered simultaneously by any Alteration Power that negatively Alters any one of them (Drain, Suppress, Transfer). This does not apply to Alteration powers with positive effects unless that power is purchased with the appropriate advantage. If there are up to 2 powers in the set the limit is worth -1/4, 4 = -1/2, 8 = -3/4, 16 or more = -1.

2) Lockout (-1/2 to -2). All powers in this list may only be used one at a time. If there are up to 2 powers in the set the limit is worth -1/2, 4 = -1, 8 = -1 1/2, 16 or more = -2.

3) Variable advantages and limitations remain legal.

4) The Power Skill remains legal, and the roll is made at -1 per 5 active points in the effect being used. Max active points = 1/2 the active points in the highest active point power the character has in that special effect.

Thoughts?

[Supreme Serpent]

It's a different way.

Would work out more expensive for some characters, less expensive for others.

Character A with four 60 AP powers (say, four different eye-blasts). With MP and ultra slots pays (60+6+6+6+6) = 84pts. With "Alter One Alter All" and "Lockout" values for 4 powers, pays 30 (-1 in lims total) x4 = 120pts.

Character B with 60 AP power, three 5 AP powers (like laser eyes plus some enhanced visions). With MP pays (60+6+1+1+1) = 69pts. With "Alter One Alter All" and "Lockout" values for 4 powers, pays 36pts.

Existing frameworks favors similar AP costs. Proposed system would favor getting lots of small powers and linking them together.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Well, without the "divide by 5" for multi slots and the "divide by 10" for ultra slots, it's going to make some character concepts outrageously expensive and/or not do-able. It also effectively eliminates the "pull anything out of a hat" types like Green Lantern, Zatanna, and even Batman (gadgeteers, in the latter case).

Sorry, OddHat, but I don't see any reason to desire it as a replacement for frameworks. :straight:

Or am I missing something? :think:

[Thia Halmades]

I can't do enough of the math on the fly yet to wholly follow what you're doing, so I'll ask my normal question:

Why? How would this improve the game? Can you give it to me in an example based format, similar to what Supreme Serpent did so that I can get a better idea of where you're going and what you plan on doing when you get there?

[OddHat]

Well, without the "divide by 5" for multi slots and the "divide by 10" for ultra slots, it's going to make some character concepts outrageously expensive and/or not do-able. It also effectively eliminates the "pull anything out of a hat" types like Green Lantern, Zatanna, and even Batman (gadgeteers, in the latter case).

Sorry, OddHat, but I don't see any reason to desire it as a replacement for frameworks. :straight:

Or am I missing something? :think:

Mostly I'm just fiddling around, but I think I priced Lockout too low. I'll edit the initial post; it should be -1/2, -1, -1 1/2, -2.

Zatanna type would relly on the new (more useful and well defined) Power Skill and Varible Advantage to achieve their effects.

[Super Squirrel]

So, what would be the effect on character design if all power frameworks were eliminated, to be replaced with the following four rules?
Switch to a new game system.

I can see getting rid of Multipower or EC for something different, but VPP is very much needed for game balance in some systems (e.g. Magic Systems for Fantasy games).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Mostly I'm just fiddling around, but I think I priced Lockout too low. I'll edit the initial post; it should be -1/2, -1, -1 1/2, -2.

Zatanna type would relly on the new (more useful and well defined) Power Skill and Varible Advantage to achieve their effects.
So, for example, a Zatanna type should have one 'slot' of each type of power, with a fairly large Variable Advantage and Variable Limitation on each one, so they can accurately simulate anything that can be done now using a VPP? Still sounds insanely expensive.

Guess I'll have to echo Thia Halmades -- could you provide an example? Actually, an example character might help. Could you whip up a Zatanna type character version A (VPP) and version B (your new way) so we could compare, contrast, and discuss?

The VPP should be about, oh, 50 points in size.

[hancock.tom]

I don't see anything wrong with it, as pointed out by supreme serpent it causes some of the point breakdowns to come out a little differently, but if the only change it would cause is encouraging stringing little powers with bigger ones rather than encouraging powers-of-the-same-cost I don't see a problem with it. If thats what you want to encourage in your game, this is probably a good solution for you. It also simplifies some things, but really frameworks aren't that complicated anyway.

[hancock.tom]

I don't see anything wrong with it, as pointed out by supreme serpent it causes some of the point breakdowns to come out a little differently, but if the only change it would cause is encouraging stringing little powers with bigger ones rather than encouraging powers-of-the-same-cost I don't see a problem with it. If thats what you want to encourage in your game, this is probably a good solution for you. It also simplifies some things, but really frameworks aren't that complicated anyway.

[Supreme Serpent]

Maybe instead of relying on power skill and variable advantage, have a half-way point to VPP - "Variable Construct" as an advantage.

"Variable Construct" - Allows character to have a defined power (ex: "Light blast") that can be constructed in a number of ways consistent with the special effect. Say the player buys 60AP of "Light blast" with the Variable Construct Advantage added on. Can then toss out a 12d6 Light EB, a sight flash, a combo EB/Flash attack, change environment (light), and perhaps even missile deflection (blasting object out of way). Would probably not be able to use the light blast to make a force field, to teleport, etc. and should buy those powers seperately.

No idea on what value should be, but +1/2 sounds about right to me, if it's a common thing for the campaign.

[OddHat]

I can't do enough of the math on the fly yet to wholly follow what you're doing, so I'll ask my normal question:

Why? How would this improve the game? Can you give it to me in an example based format, similar to what Supreme Serpent did so that I can get a better idea of where you're going and what you plan on doing when you get there?

To illustrate the idea:

Fire John has a typical four power Fire Control EC with 60 active point powers. He pays 30 (EC cost), +120 (slot costs) = 150 points.

Under the Alter One Alter All system, those same four 60 point powers would cost John 40 points each (AWAA at -1/2), for a total of 160 points.

However, John could have some of his slots at 75 active points, and some at 30, or whatever other combination he liked, without the drawbacks of trying to do this with a standard EC.

If Fire John had 16 fire powers in the standard EC, he’d pay 30 points (EC cost) + 780 (slot costs) = 810 points.

If he went up to 16 slots in his EC (AOAA -1), he’d pay 30 points per slot, for a total cost of 780 points, a bit less than the current system. However, he would again be free to stick powers of any active point cost in his EC.


Jack Wizard has a typical MP with a 60 point reserve and 16 powers, all Ultras. He pays 60 points for the reserve and 6 points per slot, for a total of 60 + 48 = 108 points.

Under the Alter One Alter All system plus Lockout, Jack would pay 240 points if he wanted all 16 slots, which would be much more expensive. He’d need to go down to about 8 slots (18 points per slot, 72 total points) with some having variable advantages, plus a Power Skill at CHA + 6 (15 points), thus spending 87 total points, to have a similar level of flexibility.

The main advantage would be no longer needing to worry about the maximum active point in any given slot. Also, the performance gap between each type of framework (EC, MP, VPP) would no longer be an issue, and the character design learning curve might be somewhat reduced.

[Super Squirrel]

I am curious how you would deal with elimination of VPP with this system.

[OddHat]

I am curious how you would deal with elimination of VPP with this system.

As I said above, variable advantages plus a more useful Power Skill takes the place of the VPP. However, Cosmic VPP users would be losing some power.

Right now, say Zatanna has a 60 point Cosmic VPP for 150 points.

Under the propossed system, she might buy 4 60 point powers with AOAA and Lockout for 24 points each, or 96 points total, plus a Power Skill at CHA + 6 at 15 points, for a total of 111 points. Now she could use any of her four basic powers one at a time, and could use the Power Skill to achieve any 30 point effect in her SFX group. She'd probably need to buy her EB with Variable Advantages, but since there's no active point limit other than the campaign limits she can get close to her power levels under the old system, and that high active point Variable Advantaged EB means that the powers created with Power SKill become that much more potentially useful.

[Zed-F]

I would say that this system would mean you would see a lot fewer characters with significant limitations on their powers. Most of the value of taking a lim on your powers is derived from the first -1/2 to -1. If you're getting that from a power framework anyway, additional limitations are substantially devalued relative to what they are currently.

So Batman and Ironman get a double whammy. Not only do they have large multipowers that become substantially more expensive, but they also derive less benefit from being focus-oriented characters.

Certainly it would change things around... but I don't really see what the benefit is intended to be.

[OddHat]

I would say that this system would mean you would see a lot fewer characters with significant limitations on their powers. Most of the value of taking a lim on your powers is derived from the first -1/2 to -1. If you're getting that from a power framework anyway, additional limitations are substantially devalued relative to what they are currently.

So Batman and Ironman get a double whammy. Not only do they have large multipowers that become substantially more expensive, but they also derive less benefit from being focus-oriented characters.

Certainly it would change things around... but I don't really see what the benefit is intended to be.

Mostly this comes out of the constant "Framework X is broken" debates. It's asking the question "If you wanted to eliminate frameworks, what would the new no framework sytem look like, and how would it compare?"

Just saying "Buy everything at a flat cost" is valid, but it means eliminating a huge range of character types. So, this is another possible approach.

[OddHat]

So Batman and Ironman get a double whammy. Not only do they have large multipowers that become substantially more expensive, but they also derive less benefit from being focus-oriented characters.

Addendum: Batman types would buy a few main gadgets, then rely on Power Skill with a -1/2 limitation (only change in lab) for the minor items.

[Super Squirrel]

I'm not getting something here about your system idea.

Are you saying that a Power Skill can mimic effects?

Fenrir is a Fire Mage. Under my current system, you can use your Fire Magic Power Skill to change your spells after an hour of study. You can gain any spell that would be in your spellbook.

Fenrir has, say, 16 spells. Fireball (RKA Explosive), Fire Dart (RKA Increased Stun Multiplier), Flame Whip (HKA), Fire Shield (EB, Damage Shield), Control Fire Elemental (Mind Control), Create Fire (Transform), Extinguish Fire (Dispel), etc...

Fenrir comes across a spellbook with Fire Wall (Force Wall) in it. How does Fenrir get to use that spell under your system?

[ghost-angel]

I'd have to run through a couple characters (or couple dozen) at creation to see if it can properly model any weird ideas people might have.

It doesn't look like a bad system but I think it might be difficult to model various concepts. Maybe. Like I said I'd have to try it out...

[Zed-F]

Mostly this comes out of the constant "Framework X is broken" debates. It's asking the question "If you wanted to eliminate frameworks, what would the new no framework sytem look like, and how would it compare?"
I don't think the existing system is sufficiently 'broken' to warrant switching completely over to something like this. Some might... but I find it easier to just ignore them. ;)

You'd likely see more people using the STR framework, since its cost won't have changed and thus people will be more comfortable with it. Unless of course you also decided to recost STR to 2 CP per point.

Really, I'd expect this sort of fundamental change would make for more arguments about what is broken relative to what, not fewer, at least until we'd all had time to get as used to it as we are used to the existing rules. :D

[Thia Halmades]

This is back to my original question, really - how is the current system broken? I'm asking because it was the first question that was asked of me in my first days on the boards. "I'll do it the crazy way!" And everyone said "What's wrong with the current way that it warrants a new & crazy way?" Yes, I see that you clearly have a reason for wanting to make the switch, but with three variations to choose from, why dump all of them to build a whole new version that may not offer the same flex as its predecessors?

[OddHat]

I'm not getting something here about your system idea.

Are you saying that a Power Skill can mimic effects?

Yes. It can already mimic very low point total effects under the current system, as per the rules on 5thER p.67 (the example given being a brick carving his name in a wall with his finger using Power Skill). This proposed change to the system takes the brakes off of the current power skill, sets a specific active point total limit, and turns it into a much more versatile ability. This is intended to make up for the loss of the VPP as a separate framework.


Fenrir comes across a spellbook with Fire Wall (Force Wall) in it. How does Fenrir get to use that spell under your system?

He can use Power Skill to cast the Fire Wall (Force Wall) at up to 1/2 the active points of his highest active point Fire Spell, or, if the GM chooses, his highest active point spell of any kind. It's up to the GM to deide whether the Fire Magic SFX or the Magic SFX applies.

If Fenrir wants to keep casting this spell, he should eventually, at the GM's discretion, pay points for it.

[OddHat]

Really, I'd expect this sort of fundamental change would make for more arguments about what is broken relative to what, not fewer, at least until we'd all had time to get as used to it as we are used to the existing rules. :D

Yes. Humans kvetch. It's very annoying. ;)

[OddHat]

This is back to my original question, really - how is the current system broken?

It isn't. This is just one alternate approach.


Yes, I see that you clearly have a reason for wanting to make the switch, but with three variations to choose from, why dump all of them to build a whole new version that may not offer the same flex as its predecessors?

It does offer the same flexibility as the current method, with the drawback that some very flexible character will have their raw power even more reduced in comparison to specialists. This might appeal to those that want to see very narrow character concepts rewarded.

[Hyper-Man]

It isn't. This is just one alternate approach.



It does offer the same flexibility as the current method, with the drawback that some very flexible character will have their raw power even more reduced in comparison to specialists. This might appeal to those that want to see very narrow character concepts rewarded.

I like the idea, it's almost like another 'supers-system' for Champions in the same way there are several 'magic-systems' for Fantasy Hero.

I am curious to see how a rather 'narrow character concept' like Cyclops from X-men would benefit from this since variable advantage doesn't include an off switch to allow for the equivalent to the un-advantaged multipower slot.

HM

[OddHat]

I like the idea, it's almost like another 'supers-system' for Champions in the same way there are several 'magic-systems' for Fantasy Hero.

I am curious to see how a rather 'narrow character concept' like Cyclops from X-men would benefit from this since variable advantage doesn't include an off switch to allow for the equivalent to the un-advantaged multipower slot.

HM

Cyclops might buy his eye beam with Variable Advantages, Limited Group of Advantages, Always On.

He could then buy off the Always On part of that through his OIF Visor.

He might benefit indirectly, because very flexible types might need to spend more points to match his power level in any one attack, but his build would otherwise be very similar to what it is now.

[stan da ork]

I think what Hyper-Man means is that currently most "Single Power" multipowers go something like this:

Multipower, 60 Point Reserve
1) Big Blast: EB 12d6
2) Special Blast 1: EB 10d6, +1/4 advantage
3) Special Blast 2: EB 8d6, +1/2 advantage
...

If you replace this with Variable Advantage, slot 1 goes away, since you can't decide to turn the points spent on Variable Advantage into extra DCs. So the question is, how do you account for the "Big Blast" in your proposed system?

[Supreme Serpent]

I think what Hyper-Man means is that currently most "Single Power" multipowers go something like this:

Multipower, 60 Point Reserve
1) Big Blast: EB 12d6
2) Special Blast 1: EB 10d6, +1/4 advantage
3) Special Blast 2: EB 8d6, +1/2 advantage
...

If you replace this with Variable Advantage, slot 1 goes away, since you can't decide to turn the points spent on Variable Advantage into extra DCs. So the question is, how do you account for the "Big Blast" in your proposed system?

Could buy an extra EB adder of +Xd6, with the limit "cannot be used if advantage used on main blast"

[OddHat]

I think what Hyper-Man means is that currently most "Single Power" multipowers go something like this:

Multipower, 60 Point Reserve
1) Big Blast: EB 12d6
2) Special Blast 1: EB 10d6, +1/4 advantage
3) Special Blast 2: EB 8d6, +1/2 advantage
...

If you replace this with Variable Advantage, slot 1 goes away, since you can't decide to turn the points spent on Variable Advantage into extra DCs. So the question is, how do you account for the "Big Blast" in your proposed system?

Ah, I see. It could be a drawback. For some characters, as Supreme Serpent suggested, +Xd6 blast would do it, though you wouldn't get a limitation. For others, levels with spreading or rapid fire, possibly even a full range martial art, could substitute for Variable Advantage. Still other characters might just buy each special blast individually, taking the AOAA and Lockout limits.

[Derek Hiemforth]

This kind of setup would require much more GM oversight than even the existing Frameworks. For example...

Current Way:
Multipower (100 point reserve)
10u PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast (100 points).
1u Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB
1u Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB
1u Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB
1u Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB
(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)
Total Cost: 125 points

New Way:
PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (25 points)
Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)
Total Cost: 40 points.

I think it needs work. :)

[OddHat]

This kind of setup would require much more GM oversight than even the existing Frameworks. For example...

Current Way:
Multipower (100 point reserve)
10u PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast (100 points).
1u Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB
1u Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB
1u Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB
1u Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB
(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)
Total Cost: 125 points

New Way:
PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (25 points)
Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)
(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)
Total Cost: 40 points.

I think it needs work. :)

"It's not a bug, it's a feature." ;)

[Derek Hiemforth]

"It's not a bug, it's a feature." ;):D

Okay, well, here's a less-extreme example...

Fire Guy wants a 12d6 EB. That's all he wants. Doesn't care about having a Killing Attack.

Current Way:
Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, (60 points)

But with the New Way, he can save points by buying even just one small power, and pretending he really wants it...

New Way:
Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (34 points)
Pinkie Laser: 1 pip HKA vs ED, No STR Add (-1/2), Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (2 points)

All told, he saves 24 points by taking a Power he doesn't want...

[OddHat]

:D

Okay, well, here's a less-extreme example...

Fire Guy wants a 12d6 EB. That's all he wants. Doesn't care about having a Killing Attack.

Current Way:
Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, (60 points)

But with the New Way, he can save points by buying even just one small power, and pretending he really wants it...

New Way:
Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (34 points)
Pinkie Laser: 1 pip HKA vs ED, No STR Add (-1/2), Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (2 points)

All told, he saves 24 points by taking a Power he doesn't want...

I guess I just see this as a case where the GM should say "No". Hero is full of them.

[Supreme Serpent]

Maybe count the largest cost power as one of the powers for the 2/4/8/etc breakpoints, but the largest power itself doesn't benefit from the limitations.

[OddHat]

Maybe count the largest cost power as one of the powers for the 2/4/8/etc breakpoints, but the largest power itself doesn't benefit from the limitations.

Good possibility, and one that even more closely resembles the current framework model.

[Gary]

You would have to combine this change with a repricing of Str and Dex. The one thing that keeps many other characters competive with a brick are frameworks.

[zornwil]

While Gary could be correct, it's noteworthy as Derek begs that the -3 feature for Lockout/Drain One Drain All makes small multipowers much more cost effective (no control cost, you have 3 powers, say, at 1/4 price). So there's a variety of effects. Like OddHat says, this could be a feature, but it definitely skews the system in a new direction, I believe a somewhat dramatically new one, too. Hence to me, while I like how Hyper-man phrased this as a "supers system" similar to what's done for fantasy, I think it would take a lot of playtesting among different groups to see how it really works out. But it sounds worthy of exploring. The first thing I'd recommend is rebuilding the various major Champions characters with this and see how it lands and how off that is. That's also where I left off with the Unified Framework idea Doc Democracy and I worked on. That's the hard part, though, and ended up not working on it as other projects took off. Hope to revisit it sometime.

Anyway, very interesting idea, OddHat, it could work but I think it would really restructure the characters in many cases. As you said, that could be a feature, I just can't tell.

[Mentor]

I essentialy agree with Gary on the issue of frameworks. The versatility and point savings of the Multipower and Elemental Control are necessary counterbalances to the simple efficiency of raw Strength and Dexterity in doing the same damage with different advatages.

Oddhat is right, however, in pointing out that bizarre builds and power effects need to be vetoed by the GM. The game is the thing.

[zornwil]

I essentialy agree with Gary on the issue of frameworks. The versatility and point savings of the Multipower and Elemental Control are necessary counterbalances to the simple efficiency of raw Strength and Dexterity in doing the same damage with different advatages.

Oddhat is right, however, in pointing out that bizarre builds and power effects need to be vetoed by the GM. The game is the thing.
I dunno. That (the first paragraph) implies that if we simply recosted DEX and STR (and perhaps a few related things, as well as probably divorcing figured from basic chars) then the frameworks would be unnecessary. This makes some of the more flexible power constructs still quite difficult, though. Although perhaps Multiforms and Gary's various limitations proposals would work, but I think there's a lot of playtesting required to prove.

The other, and more important, issue is whether this is a good or bad thing. Again, not an easy question. Frameworks (along with the basic+figured chars, really another form of framework) work well, I think, in terms of representing power collections and streamlining things. I was discussing the roots of the system with a couple people who were around for the earliest days of its development, and only Multipower originally existed. EC was brought in as a direct result of playtesting, and directly in the discovery of the over-effectiveness of bricks versus EB types. It's an interesting choice and one made very early on. It was made in the light of a superhero-only system, without regard to notions of universality (although IIRC the idea of applying the system to other genres happened extremely early, too), but was made at a time that things could have been recosted, they weren't set in stone. But consider what that recosting means...STR becomes more expensive than Energy Blasts, which in turn means derived figures have to be rescaled one way or another, and the 1 per 5 standard now has an exception with STR. Perhaps EC was an "easy" solution instead of a well-thought one, in regard to supers, but while remaining controversial it serves a good purpose in ordering many a character and forcing players to think more in conceptually cohesive characters.

Now, outside of supers...maybe these frameworks just aren't that good an idea. Maybe for heroic/non-super-powered games (I would suspect you'd keep them for High Fantasy and "big" Sci-Fi) STR and possibly a few other things can get recosted and it can get left alone.

But I do think, as I consider it more, that frameworks really are a useful tool in defining play experience in games with super powers, and we ought not abandon them for this reason. I fully grant that's not a pure HERO reason, i.e., one could change HERO in this regard and it would still be HERO, so I am not suggesting my position is important from an orthodoxy perspective, but I think it certainly violates no orthodoxy and it highlights an important aspect of the system and one we are, I feel, taking for granted when we look for solutions to "simply" eliminate frameworks for a perceived gain in the system elsewhere.