Meta-Rules of the HERO System

[BobGreenwade]

Referring to the concepts on pages 558-559 of 5ER. I only have one remark on these -- at least, at present -- but I thought I'd open it up to the whole batch in case someone else has something. (That way nobody has to open a new thread.)

Regarding Meta-Rule #6, currently: "If two Powers (or other game elements) are equally valid ways to create a particular ab ility you must use the more expensive of the two."

This needs modification, at the very least for clarification on what constitutes "equally valid." For me, more significant than "more expensive" (which, I gather, is to alleviate "minimaxing"), is how far from the base power an ability is. I probably could, for example, heavily modify RKA to simulate a simple Energy Blast, and make it cost more, but using Energy Blast is the more natural way to do it.

So I'd make the prevailing rule that the build that strays further from a base power -- in other words, requires the smallest net Modifiers -- is the preferred method.

[CourtFool]

This rule always did seem arbitrary to me, although I can understand why it was written. Characters need such GM oversight anyway, I usually ignore this rule. If I think the player is abusing a Power, I tell them so.

[Thia Halmades]

This rule always did seem arbitrary to me, although I can understand why it was written. Characters need such GM oversight anyway, I usually ignore this rule. If I think the player is abusing a Power, I tell them so.

I agree with the llama here, completely; while I use and enforce the rule, I only do it as a sort of mental guideline. Is that power "built right" is always my first and most important question. We will bandy about the table at times what does or does not constitute a 'correct' power is up for debate. It's very rare though that we come into this issue; normally I just say "that isn't what you were looking for, it's really this" or "given the choice between these two things, I'm more comfortable with that one."

I like it as a guideline. As always, GM discretion, common & dramatic sense should rule the roost.

[Kenn]

If Meta Rule #6 were valid, we'd see permanantly large characters built with Growth bought 0 END, Persistant, Inherent, Always On.

[GamePhil]

Well, Rule 6 was one that Bruce Harlick advocated, according to Stainless Steel Rat's old FAQ. It may be one of the things that will disappear, it all depends now on whether or not Steve agrees with it.

If it does stay in, it needs some development so that it will no longer be misinterpreted, though.

[Opal]

"Equally valid" does seem to be the escape clause. You could always find a more expensive, if wierd, way of doing something.

[Lord Mhoram]

Well, Rule 6 was one that Bruce Harlick advocated, according to Stainless Steel Rat's old FAQ. It may be one of the things that will disappear, it all depends now on whether or not Steve agrees with it.


A bit of contrast with Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness. :)

[Paragon]

"Equally valid" does seem to be the escape clause. You could always find a more expensive, if wierd, way of doing something.

An example of this is faking Invisibility with Images; sometimes that's the more appropriate way to go, and if it ends up being a little cheaper, there's usually the trade-off that its not as reliable. That doesn't seem a great balance evil.

[Warp9]

Regarding Meta-Rule #6, currently: "If two Powers (or other game elements) are equally valid ways to create a particular ab ility you must use the more expensive of the two."


Wouldn't that essentially rule out most uses of Mega-Scale ?

There are other more expensive ways to increase movement speed: for example, you can buy NCM to increase speed to Mach 50 instead of using MegaScale.

There are other more expensive ways increase area effect: for example, you can buy X 2 radius per +1/4.

[GamePhil]

Wouldn't that essentially rule out most uses of Mega-Scale ?


Depends on how the individual GM interprets "equally valid". I personally use as part of my criteria, "Is this more expensive way of doing things more expensive than it should be?" For things that I would allow Mega-Scale on in the first place, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!", and therefore they are not as valid a means of buying the Power.

[Warp9]

Depends on how the individual GM interprets "equally valid". I personally use as part of my criteria, "Is this more expensive way of doing things more expensive than it should be?" For things that I would allow Mega-Scale on in the first place, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!", and therefore they are not as valid a means of buying the Power.
Looking at the statement:

"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."

It doesn't seem that there is a concept of "more expensive than it should be" in there. In fact, it seems to me that validity is being considered more in terms of game function, rather than character point cost. It seems to me that "what it does" is considered separately from "how much it costs."

It seems that what you are looking for is a re-write of the meta-rule as follows:

"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, unless the more expensive method is too expensive, in that case, use the cheaper method."

But I'm not sure that would work as well.


And I will add this thought: IMO the very fact that some methods are deemed as "too expensive" should perhaps cause us to change those expensive methods so that they have the proper cost.

[GamePhil]

Looking at the statement:

"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."

It doesn't seem that there is a concept of "more expensive than it should be" in there. In fact, it seems to me that validity is being considered more in terms of game function, rather than character point cost. It seems to me that "what it does" is considered separately from "how much it costs."


When you can point out to me where it explicitely says anything about "game function" over "too expensive", I'll be on board with that. If you can't, however, I'll just stick with my own thinking on the matter, thanks. If you can, I'll finally jump on the bandwagon and cross it out of my book, since at that point it's forcing a play style on me, and not one that I care for.


It seems that what you are looking for is a re-write of the meta-rule as follows:

"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, unless the more expensive method is too expensive, in that case, use the cheaper method."

But I'm not sure that would work as well.


Not really. I'm happy with it as it is, as it allows individual GMs to decide for their needs and the needs of their games what constitutes "validity". If in your games Megascale is less valid, more power to you. For mine, it is generally more valid, and I have given my reasons.


And I will add this thought: IMO the very fact that some methods are deemed as "too expensive" should perhaps cause us to change those expensive methods so that they have the proper cost.

Absolutely right. Which is why Megascale was added. If Steve wants to go through and try to root out everything that might have improper costs, rather than leave it in the hands of the GM (basically, what Rule 6 was intended to do), that's great, so long as he can succeed at doing so without making the system a nightmare. I'm not sure even the best game designer in the universe (which could be Steve :) ) could do that.

[Lord Liaden]

As long as this topic is opening discussion of the meta-rules, I've always wondered about the appropriateness of Rule #2:

"Every Attack Power or Power which can be used offensively should have some defense or way to avoid its effects, and the defense should be considerably cheaper." (Emphasis mine.)

Why should the Defense be considerably cheaper than the Attack? If the intent is to reflect the effectiveness of the Power in its point cost, shouldn't the cost of a Defense hew closer to that of the Attack it counters? Many posters here have expressed concern over the relative handful of points in some Defenses (Flash Defense, Power Defense, Lack Of Weakness) that can effectively neutralize Attacks that have several times the Active Points of the corresponding Defense.

Opinions?

[GamePhil]

Why should the Defense be considerably cheaper than the Attack? If the intent is to reflect the effectiveness of the Power in its point cost, shouldn't the cost of a Defense hew closer to that of the Attack it counters? Many posters here have expressed concern over the relative handful of points in some Defenses (Flash Defense, Power Defense, Lack Of Weakness) that can effectively neutralize Attacks that have several times the Active Points of the corresponding Defense.


Well, there are a few things to consider. One is that a point of Defense almost never counters a die of Attack: you need 6 points of ED per die of EB to fully counter it, and 4 to counter it on average. I think that's part of where the "cheaper" thing comes from.

Defenses often must have fewer Limitations to be effective than Attacks do. Not always, but often. Having attacks through an OAF is pretty common, but defenses get OIF, tops, much of the time.

Flash, when it works, is a devestating thing. I think the greater difference in the cost (60 pt Power being almost entirely nullified by 12-15 pt Defense) is because of this fact. Same holds true to some extent for Find Weakness.

[BobGreenwade]

It seems that what you are looking for is a re-write of the meta-rule as follows:

"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, unless the more expensive method is too expensive, in that case, use the cheaper method."

But I'm not sure that would work as well.


And I will add this thought: IMO the very fact that some methods are deemed as "too expensive" should perhaps cause us to change those expensive methods so that they have the proper cost.I don't think this change is necessary; if the more expensive method is "too expensive" then that quality generally makes it less valid than the other one.

[Warp9]

When you can point out to me where it explicitely says anything about "game function" over "too expensive", I'll be on board with that. If you can't, however, I'll just stick with my own thinking on the matter, thanks. If you can, I'll finally jump on the bandwagon and cross it out of my book, since at that point it's forcing a play style on me, and not one that I care for.

I read "valid" as meaning "legal" (as in a valid driver's license). And there are other "game-legal" methods which are more expensive to do the same things you could do with Mega-scale.

You may think that those methods are too expensive, but they are still game-legal, and thus still valid Hero-System methods to build things.



Absolutely right. Which is why Megascale was added. If Steve wants to go through and try to root out everything that might have improper costs, rather than leave it in the hands of the GM (basically, what Rule 6 was intended to do), that's great, so long as he can succeed at doing so without making the system a nightmare. I'm not sure even the best game designer in the universe (which could be Steve :) ) could do that.

I believe that there is a problem with leaving those more expensive alternate methods in the game. You can have a PC who buys something the more expensive way in the very same game as a PC who does things the cheaper way---and IMO, that is not fair.

I believe that what you pay should reflect what you get---always.

[Paragon]

As long as this topic is opening discussion of the meta-rules, I've always wondered about the appropriateness of Rule #2:

"Every Attack Power or Power which can be used offensively should have some defense or way to avoid its effects, and the defense should be considerably cheaper." (Emphasis mine.)

Why should the Defense be considerably cheaper than the Attack? If the intent is to reflect the effectiveness of the Power in its point cost, shouldn't the cost of a Defense hew closer to that of the Attack it counters? Many posters here have expressed concern over the relative handful of points in some Defenses (Flash Defense, Power Defense, Lack Of Weakness) that can effectively neutralize Attacks that have several times the Active Points of the corresponding Defense.

Opinions?

I think there's an applicability issue that comes up here that colors this.

Its easy to "shop for attacks"; in fact, probably is the default use of many multipowers, so that you have an EB, a Flash, an AVLD or NND, and so on. You can't absolutely predict whether a target has the defense before trying it, but once you do, you can shift to another one and just stop using that one if its ineffective. In either case, there's at least theoretical utility of the attack all the time when you're in combat.

Defense is the opposite. Defenses are only relevant if a relevant attack is present; otherwise all they do is sit on a character and suck up points. They're also very hard to selectively apply (i.e. use out of a multipower or variable pool) because you can't count on who's going to attack you and who not most of the time.

This means in practice that even if they stop an attack cold, a given defense tends to vary in its usefulness much more strongly than a given attack form.

[archermoo]

I read "valid" as meaning "legal" (as in a valid driver's license). And there are other "game-legal" methods which are more expensive to do the same things you could do with Mega-scale.

You may think that those methods are too expensive, but they are still game-legal, and thus still valid Hero-System methods to build things.



I believe that there is a problem with leaving those more expensive alternate methods in the game. You can have a PC who buys something the more expensive way in the very same game as a PC who does things the cheaper way---and IMO, that is not fair.

I believe that what you pay should reflect what you get---always.

And my opinion is quite the opposite. If all it meant by valid was rules legal then it would frequently be possible to buy some horribly convoluted version of a power that is "rules legal" but considerably more expensive than buying it in a more straightforward fashion.

[BobGreenwade]

And my opinion is quite the opposite. If all it meant by valid was rules legal then it would frequently be possible to buy some horribly convoluted version of a power that is "rules legal" but considerably more expensive than buying it in a more straightforward fashion.And this is precisely the reason for my original suggestion.

[archermoo]

And this is precisely the reason for my original suggestion.

Yup. :thumbup:

[Tonio]

So I'd make the prevailing rule that the build that strays further from a base power -- in other words, requires the smallest net Modifiers -- is the preferred method.

While I agree with your rationale and intent, using the "smallest net Modifiers" won't work at all. Some Powers, specifically the "catch-all" Powers (ok, Transform), are usually built with few Modifiers, since their clauses are pretty free form. For example, "Transform Target Without LS: Immunity to Poisons into Target Missing Some STUN and BODY" has one Modifier (the Limited Target Limitation), but building the same thing with EB would require several (AVLD to go against PowDef, Limited Power to be stopped by LS: Immunity to Poisons, No Range).

But yeah, I usually don't use the "use the most expensive build", rather I use the one that "feels right". Unfortunately, that's too vague. =/

[Warp9]

And my opinion is quite the opposite. If all it meant by valid was rules legal then it would frequently be possible to buy some horribly convoluted version of a power that is "rules legal" but considerably more expensive than buying it in a more straightforward fashion.
I do agree that you have a point.

I could get behind the idea of looking at whether or not a construct is mechanically elegant in terms of assigning validity to it.

However, it sounds like you are suggesting that one take cost into consideration in terms of validity. That is different from looking at mechanical validity first, and then defaulting to higher cost to decide which option to go with, if two constructs are equal in mechanical terms.

[Warp9]

But yeah, I usually don't use the "use the most expensive build", rather I use the one that "feels right". Unfortunately, that's too vague. =/
That is my problem with these loose definitions of the term "validity."

If "valid" simply means "game-legal" then the meta-rule becomes simple to follow. Otherwise it seems almost meaningless (it basically means whatever you want it to mean).

[Vondy]

I've always gone with: the most elegant build is the one you must use irrespective of costs, which has the following implicit assumptions in play: 1) that "elegant" includes logical in terms of applying the power-set, 2) "elegant" is reasonable in terms of cost-efficiency ratios, 3) "elegant" does not involve weird-ass builds that happen to be cheaper.

[Paragon]

I've always gone with: the most elegant build is the one you must use irrespective of costs, which has the following implicit assumptions in play: 1) that "elegant" includes logical in terms of applying the power-set, 2) "elegant" is reasonable in terms of cost-efficiency ratios, 3) "elegant" does not involve weird-ass builds that happen to be cheaper.

That seems fair to me; while the cheapest build isn't always appropriate, always going with the most expensive is silly, and even the most obvious may not be best if a particular effect is being tried for.