AsSFXiate

[Sean Waters]

Ok, examine your prejudices. Here I go...

Much chat about SFX and what they can and should do, and do you know what, I am pretty much in the 'they shouldn't do anything but make the game look pretty' camp. A small and lonely camp, but there you go.

A lot of people seem to want sfx to do a lot and be a way of defining powers not only in terms of visuals (or should I say sensorials? No, probably not) but also in terms of actual mechanical effect. I seem to instinctively dislike this idea. Why?

Well, first off SFX get very little coverage in the book. I mean, let me give you an example. We still tend to think of powers in terms of a single SFX, whereas most likely there are at elast two: a source SFX and an effect SFX:

ChillBlame is a mutant who can make things get very cold and make people feel guilty. ALL of ChillBlame's powers are mutant powers: that is the SOURCE SFX, but CB's ice bolts are cold powers, and CB's 'feeling guilty' power is a psionic effect.

So each power has a source (mutant) and effect (cold/psionic) sfx.

How does this help? Well, first of all you already have a better defined character. If there is a mutant power suppression field, and CB is standing int he radius, then no powers will work, but an ice bolt passing throught he field will not be affected as it has cold sfx.

However, generally, it will be a disadvantage to have multiple sfx as you make yourself susceptible to a wider range of adjustment powers, at least potentially.

This needs some thought and discussion.

Anyway, I side track myself.

What I wanted to talk about was broader: I think the reason I don't like the way we apply sfx is because it is so ad hoc. there are no rules for what sfx DO. There is only the briefest bit on sfx in character creation and almost nothing on sfx in play.

I'm thinking that what I dislike about the whole sfx thing is that it just needs to be better defined. The Ultimate SFX, anyone?

What CAN sfx do?

Well, at present, they give a power flavour by adding minor effects and giving mionor drawbacks in a balanced way (in theory). What does 'minor' mean? Well, not worth a +/- 1/4, I'd suggest.

Personally I'd be happy to go a lot further than that. Say, for instance, for defences, you could define one common sfx that the defence was particularly effective against, and one common (or uncommon but obvious) sfx it was poor against: for instance your dark shield is very effective against cold powers but poor against light powers (quite rare, but a very obvious contender): you can get 1.5 times the defence against cold, but halve the defence against light.

Now you COULD certinaly build that with points (extra def, limtied to only use against cold, half the def not useable v light) but I kinda like the idea of doing it with sfx: it certainly makes character creation easier.

I'm thinking of a list of common sfx 'advantages' and 'limitations' with an attached point value that you cxan attach in balance to a power without changing its active point total.

OK. What else?

I'd like to see something on sfx interaction. The above kinda does that, but we could define lists of common (but not compulsary) sfx effects, i.e. if you define your fire blast as a flamethrower (mechanical source sfx, fire effect sfx) you will generally take common fire sfx and limtiations: can spread by igniting flamable materials, rubbish against physical force field sfx (NOT the force field power - I mean the force field sfx, you know, a semi invisible barrier 2" from your skin - fire mainly hurts by conductiona nd convection, and force field sfx largely stop this)....or whatever.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm just enthusing. Is this striking a chord with anyone?

[ghost-angel]

The Ultimate SFX, anyone?

Steve has said this is the generalized idea behind what "The Ultimate Energy Blaster" will be about.

I, for one, would like to see this book pushed up the schedule to early next year. You're right, this is a big part of Hero, and it deserves more focus.

I'm digesting the rest of your post, I'll formulate more response later.

[Doc Democracy]

Much chat about SFX and what they can and should do, and do you know what, I am pretty much in the 'they shouldn't do anything but make the game look pretty' camp. A small and lonely camp, but there you go.


As Ghost Angel said - Steve promised stuff on this in the Ultimate Energy Blaster.

Don't be lonely though - I am firmly in the SFX is flavour camp, unless they do a lot more of definition on the effects of SFX.

I think the problem is that with adjustment powers and NND etc there are quite a few powers that depend on SFX for effectiveness - it creeps in there wherever there are absolutes (eg: Desolid) and that utility begs to be used elsewhere.

I think that if SFX are to be a greater part of teh game then there needs to be some codification - that has been discussed before - but I think what HERO would need is guidance to a GM on how to codify SFX for their own game and how to organise those SFX with respect to value and interaction.


Doc

[SpydirShellX]

Further thoughts on the subject.
1) SFX need firstly to be fairly weak (under a 1/4 advantage/ limitation)
2) SFX should have balance.... For every advantage, there should be a disadvange.

For the first point - this gives us a power range for defining what should be SFX. Assume a 20 base cost power.... there should be less than 5 points of SFX and it should be balanced by about 5 points of disadvantages.

Thus your 12d6 energy blast should gain under a 3d6 points of damage due to special fx and loose the same amount of points.

Problem... most of the things we want to do with powers require greater than that. For example... the fire blast that hits the oil slick is likely going to get continuous (acting as if the oil is an END Reserve) That's a +1 advantage - so we probably have to balance it with a -1 disadvantage. Not something that happens often enough to make somebody pay points for (unless it's a move done all the time). We decide that it's only going to be availible almost never (-2) and whether or not is happens is entirely at GM's discression, so the activing controlled but otherwise NCC (-1). So we act as if we bought the advantage as a naked advantage and it works out to a 1/4 advantage.
Then we get a power loses half power (-1) in water (-1) - 1/2 disadvantage. So we bring it down to only lossing a quarter power. and we get a -1/4.

So we can build SFX similar to building naked advantages or additional powers but only need to be done if the SFX start to seem unbalancing.

Note: No Conscious Control is a great balancer for SFX calculation

[Zephrosyne]

Well, first of all, when I ran a Hero System campaign earlier this year, I required my players have both a "source" and "effect" type special effect for their abilities. So, I totally agree with you there.

I do believe that special effects are pretty much trivial in terms of how they affect game mechanics. However, I do take the special effects into consideration when deciding how a power is going to be designed. For example, a character who blinds a target by geokinetically hurling sand at them is going to be built differently from a character who blinds them with a brilliant flash of light. While both probably use the Power, Flash, they will have to be modified differently. For example, the sand isn't probably going to get through a Force Wall; whereas, the blinding light will, unless of course the wall is opaque.

While I don't want to diverge too much from the original poster's topic, I have noticed a lot of problems can creep up from poorly thought out power design. Often times, the problem comes from the special effect. For example, I have seen builds where paralysis is built as an Entangle. This never made sense to me because an Entangle can be broken out of using physical strength. Unless I am totally missing something--no I am not a doctor--a person who is paralyzed will not become unparalyzed on the merits of his physical strength. I feel that such a thing is built better using either the appropriate Drain or Transform.

Barring a blatant issue of common sense, the above points, as well as the impact of special effects on adjustment powers, are pretty much where special effects begin and end as far as I am concerned.

[Sean Waters]

Further thoughts on the subject.
1) SFX need firstly to be fairly weak (under a 1/4 advantage/ limitation)
2) SFX should have balance.... For every advantage, there should be a disadvange.

For the first point - this gives us a power range for defining what should be SFX. Assume a 20 base cost power.... there should be less than 5 points of SFX and it should be balanced by about 5 points of disadvantages.

Thus your 12d6 energy blast should gain under a 3d6 points of damage due to special fx and loose the same amount of points.

Problem... most of the things we want to do with powers require greater than that. For example... the fire blast that hits the oil slick is likely going to get continuous (acting as if the oil is an END Reserve) That's a +1 advantage - so we probably have to balance it with a -1 disadvantage. Not something that happens often enough to make somebody pay points for (unless it's a move done all the time). We decide that it's only going to be availible almost never (-2) and whether or not is happens is entirely at GM's discression, so the activing controlled but otherwise NCC (-1). So we act as if we bought the advantage as a naked advantage and it works out to a 1/4 advantage.
Then we get a power loses half power (-1) in water (-1) - 1/2 disadvantage. So we bring it down to only lossing a quarter power. and we get a -1/4.

So we can build SFX similar to building naked advantages or additional powers but only need to be done if the SFX start to seem unbalancing.

Note: No Conscious Control is a great balancer for SFX calculation


This is an intresting approach that takes a lot of the guesswork out of sfx, but is going to take a long time to do on a case by case basis. It would be nice to see a list of 'pre-costed' positive and negatives for sfx. You would not even need to necessarily define which onea apply in advance - just note each time they come up and make sure that there is balance between the advantages and limitations that sfx bring to a power. :thumbup:

[OddHat]

I'm in the SFX matter camp. I agree that the advantages and limits imposed by SFX should be fairly trivial (as per the worth less than +/- 1/4 rule), but they should also be fairly instinctive. Your flame blast ought to be able to light combustable materials on fire. In actual play, that should sometimes help (if you're clever) and sometimes cause problems (if I set the fight in an oil refinery). If you want control over this aspect of your power, you need to spend points on it; if you don't, then it's my call. Trying to number crunch the exact value of each and every special effect as applied to every power in every combination is pure wankary.

[Sean Waters]

I'm in the SFX matter camp. I agree that the advantages and limits imposed by SFX should be fairly trivial (as per the worth less than +/- 1/4 rule), but they should also be fairly instinctive. Your flame blast ought to be able to light combustable materials on fire. In actual play, that should sometimes help (if you're clever) and sometimes cause problems (if I set the fight in an oil refinery). If you want control over this aspect of your power, you need to spend points on it; if you don't, then it's my call. Trying to number crunch the exact value of each and every special effect as applied to every power in every combination is pure wankary.

Hmm. Maybe that last word means something quite different in America.

Maybe not :)

Anyway, as a number cruncher, I'm not suggesting you necessarily need to do the computation when you design the characters, I'm suggesting that it would be nice to have a list of pre-approved sfx of balanced aspect.

Moreover, the example you give is a very sensible one, but a lot of sfx application seems to be of a potentially far more munchkineque nature. It is for this reason that I think a more in-depth discussion in the rules of the limits of sfx/game interaction might be instructive.

In addition the scenario you describe is not necessarily a sfx of the fire blast, but possibly the sfx of the scenery: combustable items, may well catch alight if exposed to fire. I'm just saying. I mean, if we look at sfx in terms of environmental modifiers, you are probably going to wind up with a reasonably balanced game. If you look at it in terms of self reference only (no, you can't drain that - it would not make sense in terms of my sfx) then you are not.

There just isn't enough by way of either rules or examples or plain, simple discussion, about how sfx work and why. i understand from other posters that my wish may well come true sometime next year.

[OddHat]

Hmm. Maybe that last word means something quite different in America.

Maybe not :)

UK loan word, meaning retained. :)

One of these days and in a more appropriate thread, I'll tell you a story about the use of the word "fanny" by an American English teacher in Taiwan.


If you look at it in terms of self reference only (no, you can't drain that - it would not make sense in terms of my sfx) then you are not.

I actually come to a similar place on this specific example but look at this problem the other way; adjustment powers are well defined in terms of mechanics, but poorly defined in terms of SFX. Both adjustment powers and power defense should probably fall into broad "Classes of Power" in the same way that EGO powers fall into "Classes of Mind", with Doc Bioelectric only able to drain STR from living, organic beings by default, and Magic Steve's Power Def again by default only protecting from magic based Drains and having no utility against nerve gas unless he buys an adder.


There just isn't enough by way of either rules or examples or plain, simple discussion, about how sfx work and why.

Advantages and limits too trivial to merit +1/4 or - 1/4, and Common and Dramatic sense would seem to cover it, but I'm willing to read more.


i understand from other posters that my wish may well come true sometime next year.

Be careful what you wish for. ;)

[PhilFleischmann]

Well, first off SFX get very little coverage in the book. I mean, let me give you an example. We still tend to think of powers in terms of a single SFX, whereas most likely there are at elast two: a source SFX and an effect SFX:

ChillBlame is a mutant who can make things get very cold and make people feel guilty. ALL of ChillBlame's powers are mutant powers: that is the SOURCE SFX, but CB's ice bolts are cold powers, and CB's 'feeling guilty' power is a psionic effect.

So each power has a source (mutant) and effect (cold/psionic) sfx.
This is a very important distinction you mention here. I often see people getting these two separate things confused, and it annoys me. I would not call what you're calling "source SFX" SFX at all. I call "mechanism." SFX is what the power itself is/consists of/looks like. Mechanism is the reason for its existence. A wizard's fireball spell and a flame thrower both have the same SFX - fire - but they have different mechanisms: magic, technology.

Both mechanism and SFX can have these "minor positive and negative effects" in the game. And either could be used for NND defenses, Adjustment powers, Advantages, etc. But they are not the same thing.

[stmichaeldet]

I dunno; I don't think I want to see codified lists of special effects, what they can do, and how they interact, and I can think of two reasons why not.

First off, the number of possible types of SFX is potentially limitless, bounded only by the imagination of the person creating the characters. Sure, there are plenty of common ones, but also plenty of characters with unique concepts whose SFX aren't used by anyone else. Just one example - I have a villain (Monopole) in my campaign who can generate and control magnetic monopoles (crazy, mixed-up theoretical particles that have a magnetic charge - north or south, but not both - and generate an electrical field). If I should need to make an SFX call for Monopole, I'm making a judgement call about how mm's interact with ordinary, electrically-charged matter, and I'll bet I wouldn't find much help in any defined system of SFX interaction.

Secondly, I prefer the use of SFX as a narrative device to allow sensible, minor effects of a power set to be available without having to stat them out. The mechanics are there to provide the standard, reliable effect of a given power, while the SFX allow me to push the mechanics aside for a moment when something a character should be able to do is just screamingly obvious, and I can just say, "Yeah, you can get away with that."

[zornwil]

I don't think that to "codify SFX" you need to have a "codified lists of special effects, what they can do, and how they interact." I don't think that's necessary to ensure that people understand how to use SFX in a reasonable matter.

That being said, and consistent with that, I think the treatment needs to abstract and open-ended because SFX inflection is really where the GMs and players most deeply personalize the system and play to their own group prejudices. For example, I would explore concepts like contrasting and coordinating SFX and indicate "many would use fire and ice as contrasting, while fire and heat might be said to be coordinating" while carefully abdicating systemic decisions on which SFX necessarily would constitute those.

However, I do not see this as urgent a manner as some, for partly that reason. Most of the narrative-heavy systems I have seen leave SFX almost 100% to the players and GM with anywhere from brief to no reference as to how to manage - and it works really quite well, even better than SFX in HERO (although that's apples-to-oranges, as HERO is a more granular and mechanically-minded and simulation-oriented game).. And that parenthetical comment does lead me back to say I do fundamentally agree with doing something around best managing SFX so as not to be capricious and unbalancing - because the system is heavily oriented towards enforcing simulation (I'm not really using game theory terms per se, I'm being more general here), so it makes sense to counter mechanical "war gamey" tendencies and flat-out balance errors by giving instruction.

[ghost-angel]

I think a discussion on SFX, how to make SFX interact, when to break out numbers or narrate and such would be helpful.

I think quantifying SFX is pure madness on a truly epic scale.

The idea of a Mechanism (credit to PhilFleischman for that) that causes the SFX and the actual Effect itself should be clearly defined by the Player. The Player and GM need to then decide (on the fly, before hand, whenever) how that Effect interacts with the world.

Keeping in mind the Mechanism the generated it. If someone is susceptable to Magic then a Magic Fireball may hurt them - but then the GM may decide that once the Effect is created the Mechanism no longer applies and it may not. So is it Real Fire or Magic Fire. They might have different connotations within the game world. A Magic (Mechanism) Fire (Effect) may not cause a barrel of oil to light up, but it may severely injure the guy susceptable to Magic.

SFX should matter, a great deal. I think we just need to pay attention to what happens when we start letting them mingle.

[Frenchman]

I agree with Ghost Angel, Sean Waters (for once!) and the others who have said that the difference between Source (or Mechanic) sFX and an effect sFX. Like GA said, sometimes it doesn't really matter, but sometimes it does. Does Magic Fire act like Fire?
I would personally suggest that in *some* games, codifying a set list of sFX would be a good thing. In a Fantasy Hero game I'm working on (always working on games, never playing them...) I'm going to have all spells fall into one of six 'elemental categories.' Lightning, wind, and weather go into Sky, Light, Healing go into Holy, etc... If (more like when) I'm approached with something that doesn't fall neatly into one of those, I'll tell the player to pick one, and it will interact with other sFXs that way.
So each of these elements will have a small benefit against one other element, and a weakness against another. This will be codified before the game starts, and players will know about it.
If you can't tell, I think codifiying sFX can work quite well, but only if the GM restricts them a relativly short list. For most games it would be a futile exercise to try and come up with every possible contigency for sFX interactions. Add to this that some sFX are going to work 'better' than others more often than others, just by their nature, and it becomes pretty impossible to do it (without artificially restricting them, at least).
So good luck in your endeavors and all that jazz. Back to homework.

[casualplayer]

Sometimes a Darkness field is inky black and sometimes it's persistent blinding light. If Dr. Spotlight takes a limitation or a Susceptability to Darkness then they are leaving themselves open to impairment by any old SFX of Darkness that comes down the pike when they were originally thinking just light-supression areas.

Conditional/Limited Power and Susceptability/Vulnerability should always be defined in terms of SFX rather than Power-specific terms. The ubiquitous E-M Field could be Change Environment, EB, TK, a funky version of Stretching, Drain, anything.... Defining any of these in Power-specific terms is asking the GM to make on-the-spot judgment calls that can only leave someone feeling cheated.

However the "reason from effect" crowd is also a pain. If Chillblame didn't take a Susceptability to heat attacks he doesn't have one! Trying to force-feed weaknesses down someone's throat is the quickest way to make a game unfun.

As an example I once had a character with Armor OIF with no activation roll. He picked up a Destroyer minion's firearm, not realizing it had an autodestruct. BOOM! My GM did not let me have my Armor's protection because he did not believe that the Armor could have been effective protecting my hands. I asked him to point out where my character sheet said that the Armor wasn't full coverage, but had to let the matter go or bring the game to an ugly, screeching halt. Later I revenged myself on the GM's flower garden. :sneaky:

The best way to address this problem would have been for Powers to not have implied SFX, just effects, and also to insist that Conditional/Limited Power and Susceptability/Vulnerability should always be defined in terms of SFX rather than Power-specific terms.

[Sean Waters]

Just to be clear (and I can be so unclear sometimes) what i am advocating is NOT forcing people to take a list of positive and negative aspects of a particular sfx, but providing a base set of expected sfx for a given effect that should only be deviated from if appropriate and, possibly at some cost (the unexpected is often worth SOMETHING), even if only a small adder.

The idea is not to constrain the imagination but to make the game world more consistent whilst allowing for the unusual andextraordinary.

On of the biggest UnFuns I encounter is the game world NOT working in a predicatable way for no good reason. You can still have fire powers that work more like cold powers, or darkness or fish (fish?). But if you just want fire powers, then you pick upt he package and go with it.

There is no reason given the flexibility of Hero that there should not be a series of 'off the shelf' constructs that you can slot together into a coherent whole if you don't feel like building fromt eh ground up this time.

[RDU Neil]

I think a discussion on SFX, how to make SFX interact, when to break out numbers or narrate and such would be helpful.

I think quantifying SFX is pure madness on a truly epic scale.



Totally agree with this.

I'm in the SFX matter side of thing... and I define SFX in the same way I do "environmental factors."

Meaning... they matter in a "makes sense" kind of way that is ruled by the social contract and adjudicated by the GM. The player can suggest uses/effects, but they have no direct CONTROL over those... because they spent no points.

If the player wants to have reliable, quantifiable control over an SFX... that is what points are for.

Example: Just as a GM would have to adjudicate a player saying, "I run out into the rain to try and douse the flames on my cape. (Use of environmental effect), the GM would be in charge of adjudicating in a "makes sense" way the player saying "I stand in front of Hydro-Man's blast so that the water puts out the fire." The SFX is an environmental factor just like the stated "it is raining today" is.

If the player wants to always count on Hydro-Man being able to put out fires... then pay points for CE or Suppress or whatever.

SFX do matter... can have significant impact on a scene or plot or character... but the impact/effect is NOT controlled by the player... but as an environmental effct... adjudicated by the GM in a "makes sense" manner.

[OddHat]

Totally agree with this.

I'm in the SFX matter side of thing... and I define SFX in the same way I do "environmental factors."

Meaning... they matter in a "makes sense" kind of way that ruled by the social contract and adjudicated by the GM. The player can suggest uses/effects, but they have no direct CONTROL over those... because they spent no points.

If the player wants to have reliable, quantifiable control over an SFX... that is what points are for.

Example: Just as a GM would have to adjudicate a player saying, "I run out into the rain to try and douse the flames on my cape. (Use of environmental effect), the GM would be in charge os adjudicating in a "makes sense" way the player saying "I stand in front of Hydro-Man's blast so that the water puts out the fire." The SFX is an environmental factor just like the stated "it is raining today" is.

If the player wants to always count on Hydro-Man being able to put out fires... then pay points for CE or Suppress or whatever.

SFX do matter... can have significant impact on a scene or plot or character... but the impact/effect is NOT controlled by the player... but as an environmental effct... adjudicated by the GM in a "makes sense" manner.


Repped, and this sums up part of my feelings on the matter as well.

Part of the concern over SFX "Abuse" that I sometimes read on the boards comes from a failure to distinguish between Player control and GM control over the character and game world.

Say the player of "Doc Golden Goose" defined DGG's PD EB as producing eggs of solid gold which she then flings at the bad guys.

As the player, she has only paid for EB. If she decides to try to bribe the bad guys to go away in exchange for a couple of golden eggs, the GM might think that idea is a laugh and allow it. Or he might decide that the bad guys are rightly unwilling to trust the market value of bio-organic golden eggs, and disallow it. If she keeps trying to pull off the same trick, he might tell her to spend some points.

In any case, she has only spent points on one trick; a PD EB. Anything else is the GM's call until and unless she spends more points (on, say, Wealth, Mind Control: You Want to Get Your Hands on My Eggs, etc.).

If the GM chooses to give her free Wealth ("Everyone wants my eggs"), power defense ("No one can steal my eggs"), etc., he's probably making a bad call, but for G_d's sake, he approved a golden egg flinging character concept; does anyone really think that all the rules exposition in the world is going to help him at that stage?

;)

[Sean Waters]

Totally agree with this.

I'm in the SFX matter side of thing... and I define SFX in the same way I do "environmental factors."

Meaning... they matter in a "makes sense" kind of way that ruled by the social contract and adjudicated by the GM. The player can suggest uses/effects, but they have no direct CONTROL over those... because they spent no points.

If the player wants to have reliable, quantifiable control over an SFX... that is what points are for.

Example: Just as a GM would have to adjudicate a player saying, "I run out into the rain to try and douse the flames on my cape. (Use of environmental effect), the GM would be in charge os adjudicating in a "makes sense" way the player saying "I stand in front of Hydro-Man's blast so that the water puts out the fire." The SFX is an environmental factor just like the stated "it is raining today" is.

If the player wants to always count on Hydro-Man being able to put out fires... then pay points for CE or Suppress or whatever.

SFX do matter... can have significant impact on a scene or plot or character... but the impact/effect is NOT controlled by the player... but as an environmental effct... adjudicated by the GM in a "makes sense" manner.


To be meaningful, any contract has to be defined, or the control of it inevitably goes to the one with greater bargaining power, in this case the GM. For a true 'social contract' to work, there has to be some points of appropriate reference. That is what I'm talking about. I really don't understand the hostility to the idea.

[Sean Waters]

Repped, and this sums up part of my feelings on the matter as well.

Part of the concern over SFX "Abuse" that I sometimes read on the boards comes from a failure to distinguish between Player control and GM control over the character and game world.

Say the player of "Doc Golden Goose" defined DGG's PD EB as producing eggs of solid gold which she then flings at the bad guys.

As the player, she has only paid for EB. If she decides to try to bribe the bad guys to go away in exchange for a couple of golden eggs, the GM might think that idea is a laugh and allow it. Or he might decide that the bad guys are rightly unwilling to trust the market value of bio-organic golden eggs, and disallow it. If she keeps trying to pull off the same trick, he might tell her to spend some points.

In any case, she has only spent points on one trick; a PD EB. Anything else is the GM's call until and unless she spends more points (on, say, Wealth, Mind Control: You Want to Get Your Hands on My Eggs, etc.).

If the GM chooses to give her free Wealth ("Everyone wants my eggs"), power defense ("No one can steal my eggs"), etc., he's probably making a bad call, but for G_d's sake, he approved a golden egg flinging character concept; does anyone really think that all the rules exposition in the world is going to help him at that stage?

;)

So good GMs would not have a problem with better definition and the excesses of bad GMs will be reined in by definition. What is the problem with that? The point is that a 'rules exposition' as you chose to put it, at that stage is bolting the gate after the horse has run away. Had the gate been properly bolted from the start, the problem of missing horses would never have arisen.

[OddHat]

So good GMs would not have a problem with better definition and the excesses of bad GMs will be reined in by definition. What is the problem with that? The point is that a 'rules exposition' as you chose to put it, at that stage is bolting the gate after the horse has run away. Had the gate been properly bolted from the start, the problem of missing horses would never have arisen.

If the gate were "properly bolted", we'd be playing GURPS Supers 1st Ed, with every power tied to a fixed special effect save in cases of explicit GM intervention. That has its advantages, but it's not a system I find particularly appealing.

[Lucius]

If the GM chooses to give her free Wealth ("Everyone wants my eggs"), power defense ("No one can steal my eggs"), etc., he's probably making a bad call, but for G_d's sake, he approved a golden egg flinging character concept; does anyone really think that all the rules exposition in the world is going to help him at that stage?

;)

Don't tempt me, or I'll write up the silly goose and inflict it on everyone.

By the way, I'm told GURPS Supers makes a very clear distinction between a power's origin, and appearance - the distinction some of us are trying to clarify here between where a power comes from, so to speak, and how it manifests. I don't recall the technical terms GURPS uses, but it sounds like one idea HERO could swipe from them, for a change.

Lucius Alexander

[OddHat]

Don't tempt me, or I'll write up the silly goose and inflict it on everyone.

By the way, I'm told GURPS Supers makes a very clear distinction between a power's origin, and appearance - the distinction some of us are trying to clarify here between where a power comes from, so to speak, and how it manifests. I don't recall the technical terms GURPS uses, but it sounds like one idea HERO could swipe from them, for a change.

Lucius Alexander

I don't see anyone objecting to that; so far as I am aware, most of us have been making the distinction between "SFX:Power Armor", "SFX:Gauntlet Mounted Laser Glove" and "SFX: Laser Bolt" as long as we've been playing Champions, and adding additional detail ("Mutant Genius Created Power Armor" vs "Bio-Organic Alien Power Armor") can be fun. I also don't see anyone objecting to the idea of talking SFX issues out. It's when the conversation starts swinging towards "bolting the gate" that a caution against overly restrictive lists of SFX and excessive linkage of SFX to specific powers seems appropriate.

[Utech]

I think that special effects should have a very strong impact on the game. They are, after all, what makes powers "special".

When someone assigns special effects to a power at character creation they are not just putting on a little window dressing. They are letting everyone know what makes them interested in playing this character. Special effects written up at character creation imply some very important things about how the player would like their character to function in the story everyone is working together to tell.

Someone who creates an energy projector with a suite of fire attacks, fire based force field, and fire flight is (in my opinion) practically shouting out a few things:

I want my character to really stand out!
I want my character to be seen as dangerous!
I want my character to be in situations in which fire comes in handy!
I want my character to be in situations in which fire could lead to explosively bad consequences!In my opinion, special effects choosen at character creation don't really imply anything about specific mechanical positives or negatives. I don't think the player is saying:

I want my character to do an extra 2d6 damage vs. ice Entangles.
I want my character to be able to keep a room at 30 degrees centigrade just by having his powers running.
I want my character's Flight to be at -2" in the rain.During game play it may be ruled that all those mechanical thingys are true. Each such decision would be made by the GM and players working together and based on how special effects can make a specific incident more exciting. While I'm not opposed to having a list of suggested positive and negatives for certain special effects, I find it unnecessary. Those positives and negatives ought to flow naturally from the game experience. If they make logical and dramatic sense, they should be applied.

[Sean Waters]

I reckon that a lot of people who have played this game for a long time, or have a lot of experience in different games over time and who 'get' Hero will have no problem assigning some broad brush special effects and just getting on with it.

New players, casual browsers and anyone with a munchkin in their group might appreciate some guidance on the limits of sfx. Although it is the sort of heresy that makes some squirm, having definition is not a bad thing. It is not constraining you or limiting your freedom to make stuff up. I'm not suggesting we change the core rules to require sfx to be defined when the character is created. I am suggesting that, for a lot of less experienced players and GMs, knowing that '2d6 extra damage against ice entangles', or 'maintaining a room at 30 degrees' is an appropriate power level for sfx could be very helpful.

Whilst we probably have been defining flamethrowers as mechanical source/fire effect SFX for years, IF YOU ANALYSE IT, to eb honest I don't think many people think in terms of multiple SFX for a single power and you certainly don't have it suggested in the core rules.

Moreover, what is the use of having mutiple sfx for most players: it makes your flamethrower vulnerable to a wider range of adjustment powers without making it more effective against defences, necessarily, so how do you adjudicate a 'drain mechanics' or a 'drain fire': do they both affect the flamethrower, one of them, neither?

Of course you can come up with rules covering the situation (or maybe calling them rules is not appropriate: solutions, perchance). I won't trouble you with how I'd balance that - it is not the issue - this issue is, as far as I am concerned, that a discussion of sfx in far more detail AND a list of appropriate effects, if only for comparison purposes, is not going to hurt the game, or prevent the wise and experienced from doing what they do (including ignoring rules that don't appeal to them).

For God's Sake, think of the children.

Right I'm off before I get accused of being a number cruncher again.

[Sean Waters]

If the gate were "properly bolted", we'd be playing GURPS Supers 1st Ed, with every power tied to a fixed special effect save in cases of explicit GM intervention. That has its advantages, but it's not a system I find particularly appealing.

No, we wouldn't.

[Sean Waters]

....and another thing....

Whilst I can appreciate the desire to protect the virgin genericness of the system, I firmly believe that once to translate the character creation process into an actual game, there should be ground rules and there is nothing wrong with defining them otherwise you'll wind up with the generic when you want the specific. Part of that definition could well be in terms of the expected side effects and special effects of powers.

The difference between Hero and other game systems is not where we end up - I'm sure we are all capable of enjoying a well run game in almost any game system (note the almost: there are some beyond redemption) - but how we get there. To me, Hero is all about the journey. You can build it so that it runs like GURPS (pretty much) or WOD, or DnD if you want or your own finely crafted gaming experience. The point is with Hero that the choice is yours - it has not been made by a game designer on your behalf.

However, by the time you get down to actual play, you really should have made the choice, bolted the gate, nailed your colours to the mast, and committed to something. Even if you have decided not to decide, you should still make the choice.

[OddHat]

No, we wouldn't.

You oversimplify, I oversimplify. It's the way of the world.

[zornwil]

To be meaningful, any contract has to be defined, or the control of it inevitably goes to the one with greater bargaining power, in this case the GM. For a true 'social contract' to work, there has to be some points of appropriate reference. That is what I'm talking about. I really don't understand the hostility to the idea.
The "hostility" (speaking for myself, not for the others, though I think RDU N. and OH and GA and I are more or less aligned) is to a codification of specific SFX as opposed to a codification of how SFX shouild be handled - two different things. I believe that you raise the issue well, as evidenced by the response, and I think what the disagreement with you here is in regard to the methodology of managing SFX, not that they shouldn't be explicitly handled. I think there is a broad agreement among many of us with you that the issue needs a "contract" (rules), but I think that making those rules/that contract based on some sort of explicit categorization of SFX makes a mistake at odds with the nature of HERO by pointing people down particular simuilation experiences as opposed to enforcing an understanding of the lmiitations and appropriate uses of SFX. The latter we need; the former is an intrusion to play experience that at worst makes HERO become less open-ended and customizable to the group's needs and at best creates a layer of detail that becomes too much compared to the essential need (to ensure SFX are fairly applied and consistent with the mechanical underpinnings of the system).

[SpydirShellX]

Hmmm... I'm just going to add in here, that the two SFX limit per power is not neccessarily the case. You can break SFX down even further.

Ex. A fencing sword and a gun are both weapons. They both use kinetic energy to penetrate their opponent's defenses. A fencing sword and a bullet pierces. However a bullet is powered by chemical energy, while the sword is powered by muscle. Guns leave behind bullets as evidence of their use. Swords tend to leave only the injury.

Basically, you can actually increase SFX to quite a few more than two. What happens if you have a power that weakens metal... your sword my rust, but your plastic gun (must be hunting Magneto) would be unaffected. A character that uses magic which suppresses the affects of science around him.... suddenly that gunpowder is a useless bunch of dust. You might have armor like chain mail where the bullet might be too large to pentrate and the point of the blade might go through without hinderance.

I agree that the two SFX is a good idea for generalites, but I want to point out that there are so many ways a power's SFX can be broken down that there's no way to totally enumerate them all.

[RDU Neil]

To be meaningful, any contract has to be defined, or the control of it inevitably goes to the one with greater bargaining power, in this case the GM. For a true 'social contract' to work, there has to be some points of appropriate reference. That is what I'm talking about. I really don't understand the hostility to the idea.

I didn't mean to be hostile... I just think your steps toward definition go too far. As for social contract, it is often undefined but mostly can be summed up as "GM makes the final call... as long as it makes sense to the group as a whole. It may not be to the benefit or liking of any one player, but it should make sense for the context of play."

To me, the definition is what I wrote.

"SFX have an impact in play of the game. It is important to understand that this is different than the impact of the power mechanic. The impact of the SFX is an environmental effect whose impact is determined by the GM. Such determinations should be consistent and generally neutral over the course of play... meaning sometimes the SFX are a benefit to the PCs and other times a detriment... as long as it makes sense for the circumstances of play."

There... done. Don't have to say more than that, but give a variety of examples (Interpreting lightning powers in water, say... or the Golden Goose description from above would be great.)


This provides direction and definition without defining a specific play experience.

[RDU Neil]

When someone assigns special effects to a power at character creation they are not just putting on a little window dressing. They are letting everyone know what makes them interested in playing this character. Special effects written up at character creation imply some very important things about how the player would like their character to function in the story everyone is working together to tell.




This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped.

This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins.

Here is my thought process on this:

1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters.

2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case.

3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw.

4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX.

5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation.

These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player."

That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.

[ghost-angel]

Hmmm... I'm just going to add in here, that the two SFX limit per power is not neccessarily the case. You can break SFX down even further.

Ex. A fencing sword and a gun are both weapons. They both use kinetic energy to penetrate their opponent's defenses. A fencing sword and a bullet pierces. However a bullet is powered by chemical energy, while the sword is powered by muscle. Guns leave behind bullets as evidence of their use. Swords tend to leave only the injury.

Basically, you can actually increase SFX to quite a few more than two. What happens if you have a power that weakens metal... your sword my rust, but your plastic gun (must be hunting Magneto) would be unaffected. A character that uses magic which suppresses the affects of science around him.... suddenly that gunpowder is a useless bunch of dust. You might have armor like chain mail where the bullet might be too large to pentrate and the point of the blade might go through without hinderance.

I agree that the two SFX is a good idea for generalites, but I want to point out that there are so many ways a power's SFX can be broken down that there's no way to totally enumerate them all.

I don't think anyone's advocated limiting the number of SFX - especially not to two. We may be doing so in conversation to keep it simple.

What we are advocating (I'm pretty sure everyone is in alignment here) is that there are Two Types of SFX: The Source and the Effect.

Take the Bullet, it's Effect is "The Bullet" and whatever connotations that has in the game: forensic evidence, kinetic damage, uses metals.

Now, take the Source:
Most common is, naturally, The Gun used to shoot it.
Or, a Telekinetic who can hyper accelerate the bullet to normal bullet velocities and "shoot" it at you.

Suddenly - it may be come very important Where the Bullet came from, not just that a Bullet was shot at you.

That's the "two" I think you're picking up on.

As for all the other stuff, others have done a good job of explaining where I (and they) sit on this.

I don't think any kind of quantification needs to be done. You don't need to worry about a +/- 1/4 of Benefit/Detriment for SFX.

But you should keep in mind how the SFX in question affects the world around it. Sure the fire may light the barrel of oil - but then what? Does it spread? sit in the barrel and burn? explode? Can it be controlled? What other consquences occur? Does the smoke start causing problems for people to see and breathe in the area?

These are all questions that need to be answered, either quickly in game or by the GM and Players discussing major points of their SFX and the world around them.

I think somewhere in Hero there is room for a discussion that goes over looking at the consequences of SFX from a dramatic, common sense and practical point view. But not a numerical one.

[zornwil]

This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped.

This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins.

Here is my thought process on this:

1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters.

2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case.

3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw.

4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX.

5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation.

These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player."

That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.
Which is a pity, because I firmly believe that this approach requires very little in the way of number of pages/verbiage while it eliminates the need for many extremely nuanced rules.

[zornwil]

I want to expand a bit, too, in regard to SFX management and might take long enough I don't want it to be missed for being an edit.

I am the type of GM who lets a lot slide mechanically, in terms of how a structure might be defined versus the mechanic it's based on, and allowing for various perhaps-questionable ways to allow a character to pay for something. What I do not let slide are SFX; I try to understand the SFX, and I denote wherever it seems questionable as to my take on it. I take an active control over that in my games. I find players quite responsive - and where they disagree, then I know we need to go deeper and resolve it before play starts. Not to say I always get it right on this account, but I think I do a reasonable job, and it results in almost zero arguments over the last several years of play when I've said "your magic doesn't work that way" or "your target is unaffected." When I say those things, the players generally trust me, and where they are questioning about a judgement call I can almost always answer them satisfactorily in a sentence because we have a good mutual grasp of how the powers work, regardless of the mechanical underpinnings. I think that's one of the big reasons behind why Lemming once referred to my games as the "most balanced unbalanced games" or something to that affect, meaning that while there may be on the surface disconnects in that some people may have more raw power or may be technically exploiting mechanical opportunities, I use SFX and environmental interaction with these to ensure some form of balance in resulting impact that the PCs have on their world.

[Sean Waters]

This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped.

This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins.

Here is my thought process on this:

1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters.

2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case.

3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw.

4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX.

5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation.

These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player."

That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.

I think this is a very interesting analysis (and rep would be forthcoming if you hadn't made so much sense recently), and it has helped to clarify my own thoughts somewhat.

In the design process I see no problem with the player having complete control over the character and how it works, what sfx apply and how they can be expected to operate. Then, however, once the PC enters the game world, the character 'sets' and is largely defined and under the control of the GM as far as the environment goes (which can include the inanimate, NPCs and also the effects and sfx of their own actions and powers).

Just as the players need definition of environmental effects to be able to take meaningful decisions about play, so both player and GM need to know where they stand on sfx as that is part of the environment, as much as gravity is or the DEF of certain common objects.

Now let us not get this out of proportion - Hero has survived a long time without a 'SFX Bible'. I'm not saying that it is essential to the core of the system, or that the game is not playable without it. That would be daft. I DO think that some more discussion over what I see as a quite central but reletively neglected area would be beneficial.

Now to take things a step further, let me say this: I don't particularly mind if sfx have an enormous effect on play so long as the effect has defined limits and applications. I don't mind whether those limits are rigidly defined or just discussed so that everyone will be starting at roughly the same spot, but I do think we need more than we have at present.

Moreover it would be nice to see discussion of sfx in different games - point but what you CAN do with what could be a very useful mechanic.

For example, anyone remember Villains and Vigilantes? They had defined powers and a table that showed how each attack and defence interact. the combat system was a sort of DnD 'Armour Class' system, and depending on what attack you were using and what defence was being employed, you had a different 'to hit' number.

In Hero you would need a set of 'campaign acceptable' SFX that lpayers would ahve to chose from to set up this sort of 'attack/defence interaction'.

Now I am not suggesting this is how Hero SHOULD work, I'm saying it would be nice in a trulu generic system to have the option for those who want to run it that way. One advantage of this sort of approach is that it reduces the 'homogenous' nature of some campaigns where all attacks and defences are at similar levels near campaign maxima: if an acid spray and a rubber bullet both do 10d6 damage but the former is at a penalty against force field sfx (not force field power) tehn the 'same attack' mechanically will have quite different effects in game.

Just to stress, I'm not saying this is how 'Core Hero' should work, but it would be nice to have a reference approach to allow you to build a game as carefully and with as much detail as you can currently build a character. This is NOT meant to constrain the system, but to allow coherent expansion in new directions IF that is what the individual players and GMs want.

[Sean Waters]

I want to expand a bit, too, in regard to SFX management and might take long enough I don't want it to be missed for being an edit.

I am the type of GM who lets a lot slide mechanically, in terms of how a structure might be defined versus the mechanic it's based on, and allowing for various perhaps-questionable ways to allow a character to pay for something. What I do not let slide are SFX; I try to understand the SFX, and I denote wherever it seems questionable as to my take on it. I take an active control over that in my games. I find players quite responsive - and where they disagree, then I know we need to go deeper and resolve it before play starts. Not to say I always get it right on this account, but I think I do a reasonable job, and it results in almost zero arguments over the last several years of play when I've said "your magic doesn't work that way" or "your target is unaffected." When I say those things, the players generally trust me, and where they are questioning about a judgement call I can almost always answer them satisfactorily in a sentence because we have a good mutual grasp of how the powers work, regardless of the mechanical underpinnings. I think that's one of the big reasons behind why Lemming once referred to my games as the "most balanced unbalanced games" or something to that affect, meaning that while there may be on the surface disconnects in that some people may have more raw power or may be technically exploiting mechanical opportunities, I use SFX and environmental interaction with these to ensure some form of balance in resulting impact that the PCs have on their world.


I think that your approach is adirable and I applaud you for being able to keep balance in what can be an extremely chaotic game. To be honmest event he point balancing of Hero does not really acheive balance in a lot of cases - some powers are disproportionately cheap or expensive anyway. I am not trying to increase the rules count for Hero, I'm trying to increase the options count. I think that might well make it a more attractive game to a wider range of players.

[zornwil]

Thanks, Sean, enjoy these conversations with you. :)