Incomplete Characters 6th Edition (Consolidated Character Creation)

[GamePhil]

Introduction
I am making this its own thread, as I have a number of ideas as well as wild conjecture on the concept. As it is a cross-topic subject, touching on Disadvantages, Characteristics, General Power, and Perks (so far), it doesn't fit neatly into any other topic except possibly General Rules, which I don't want to clutter up. Depending on how things go, it may turn out that it is not as cross-threaded as I believe it will be, at which point I'll find the appropriate home for it.

Keeping the thread on forum
While this thread is mainly about my obsession with merging the character building rules, what I'm hoping for is that the synergy of various rules proposals being used for a specific purpose will generate new ideas and further proposals, without having it scattered all over the place. I also hope to showcase advantages and possibly disadvantages to the proposals I am working with. As we go along, I will try to put specific ideas in the appropriate threads. If this plays itself out to the point where that synergy no longer exists, I will move the bulk of the thread to my blog in case anyone wants to reference the overall discussion. If anyone wants to point out an idea that has use here, feel free: I think in this case a link will be sufficient, as the proposal is presumably already in the correct thread.

Premise and History
For some time now, I have toyed with the idea of merging all of the items that are built like characters into the mainstream character rules, with contributions from a number of others. This resulted in the Incomplete Characters Rules, and a form of this (which adheres to the official rules significantly more than previous versions) was published in Digital Hero #10. It attempted to use the same character building rules for everything that is built similarly to a Character, such as Vehicles and Automata.

The advantages: Fewer different types of characters means fewer total rules, in theory, and provides a system for creating new character types from existing rules rather than making new rules for them.

The disadvantage: It's esoteric.

The basic idea is that the primary difference between ordinary characters and things like Vehicles, Computers, and so on is that these "characters" lack one or more Characteristics that full Characters enjoy. There are some other differences, but that's the odd one and the most important. However, with one exception, all of these differences are covered by Steve's suggestions somewhere.

Sixth Edition Proposals
With 6th Edition, Steve has made a number of proposals that actually make this possible, and if all of them are instituted effectively make the Incomplete Character Rules into something that can be done in the core rules.

Essentials from Steve's proposals
Remove Negative Characteristics, and adopt that a 0 in a characteristic means you don't have it. It is not necessary to start from 0, just sell it back.
Allow all characters to take Automaton Powers. Alternatively, use Absolute Effect with Stun to create a creature that does not take Stun damage, but the Automaton Powers are more straightforward and have a lot of history.

Non-essentials from Steve's proposals
Decouple Figured Characteristics. Not strictly necessary, but it will make some builds cleaner.
The addition of a Size characteristic. This is consistent with the goal of making Bases and Vehicles built like everything else, although Powers could also be used to do this.
Use PD/ED for everthing. DEF for everything would work, but I'm going to use PD/ED for examples. Mainly for consistency across character types.
Add an ability that works like Force Wall for personal defense. This is especially important for anything without a Stun score (they have Automaton Powers).
No Points for Disadvantages, but some other reward system. This is because many Incomplete Characters are going to lack senses or have different rules for their Life Support, and it makes it a bit easier to take this into account if you're not getting, say, 80 points of Disadvantages for being a computer.
Some method of making a character indestructable/unkillable. This is only valuable for character types that aren't already part of 5th Edition, such as Spirits from 4th Edition. In my examples to come, I am using the Absolute Effect Rule with Body rather than an example of making an Invulnerability Power.


In addition to these, I have suggested reworking Cargo to be more generic and allow it for all characters. Just being able to have a space inside your body is probably not worthy of a new Power, but something that could cover bags of holding as well as vehicle cargo probably would be. This allows you to, among other things, hold things "inside" (depending on special effect) so that it gets the Defense of the character/container. While my suggestion, it is in keeping with making Automaton Powers available to all characters, and is helpful for this thread.

[GamePhil]

My initial samples and comments, in no particular order and not fully developed.

A 4th Edition Spirit is gotten by selling back all but DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, maybe COM, and SPD. It then buys Desolidification and other Powers to "be a spirit", or is defined as being on the Spirit Plane. Take a Physical Limitation for Destroyed If Ego Is Drained To 0/-Ego.
And so on. Things without a Body score need a definition of what a 0 Body means: does it mean you're dead, or simply that you have no Body to affect? Possibly, rather than having a 0 Body, Body might be bought up sufficiently to be covered by Absolute Effect (a body of X means you can't be killed/destroyed).
I also like the idea of more detailed Foci: once the Focus is bought, you get a certain number of points, perhaps based on the Active Point cost, perhaps having to be bought separately, to create an Incomplete Character that is the Focus' physical form. Irreplacable Foci need to buy whatever method of being Indestructable may be in the rules, a sentient focus needs INT and EGO (at least), and so on. By designing the "character" for a Focus in such a manner, it combines several options for it in one set of rules, and solves Derek's rock problem (if you pick up some rocks, they have X DEF and X Body, but if you buy it as a Focus they have Apts/5 DEF and 1 Body, and so on). This would likely be an optional rule if adopted at all.

[GamePhil]

Here begins the wild conjecture. These could be taken as suggestions to Steve, but are really for the discussion of the Incomplete Character concept, as we don't yet know how he is going to handle this if it goes in.

I am currently ignoring the problem with 0 Characteristics meaning you lose them and how Drains will interact with that, as it is not germaine to the discussion.
Strength: The character simply has no intrinsic ability to apply force.
Dexterity: The character has no coordination and no ability to hit targets using CV, and has a DCV based solely on its size and/or velocity. If it has actions, it acts after everyone else.
Constitution: The character has no ability to resistance to being Stunned. It can't be targeted by Powers that work vs. CON, but if they have an appropriate special effect they might work against a different Characteristic.
Special note on Constitution: It may be that Mental Powers that work against CON might have a Class of Body rule, in the same way that Mental Powers have Classes of Mind. In this case, a character without CON would have a different Class of Body, and would not be affected by ones that affect the Human Class of Body. Like the original Class of Mind, this concept should be used with caution.
Body: The character has no physical form, and thus nothing to destroy. Effectively, it starts out "dead". In the current rules, the only example is a Base, which has no centralized body but buys walls and buildings instead.
Intelligence: The character has no Perception nor ability to process information, quickly or otherwise. I am assuming Perception will not be split off.
Ego: The character has no free will. A Mental Power that works against its Class of Mind will function against a different Characteristic. Presence Attacks must go against the character's Presence.
Presence: The character has no ability to influence those around them. If it also has a 0 Ego, it has no defense against Presence Attacks.
Special note on Presence Attacks: Having an Ego of 0 might mean it is immune to Presence Attacks, as the creature has no will and only responds to some form of programming/orders. For this discussion, it is assumed that immunity to Presence Attacks is bought as enough limited Presence to count as an Absolute Effect.
Comeliness: The character's appearance has no impact. I am assuming COM will be kept and be unchanged for purposes of this discussion, so it has little impact on most Incomplete characters in any event.
PD/ED: The character has no defense against physical/energy attacks.
Speed: The character can take no actions.
Recovery: The character cannot recover Stun or END, nor can it heal Body, except by using Powers.
Endurance: The character cannot spend Endurance. If it has Stun, it cannot spend Stun as END.
Stun: The character is not conscious in the normal sense, although it may be aware of its surroundings in the same way as a person at 0 Stun if it has INT. It can take no actions of its own, although it may have Persistent Abilities that function or abilities that can be used by some form of controller.

The 0 Size Characteristic will be dealt with when I find or write a version of Size I like.

Characters with 0s in one or more Characteristics can buy Limited forms of them, for example to defend from Presence Attacks if it has no Presence. Examples of this will be created with sample Incomplete Characters.

[Steve Long]

A note from your friendly neighborhood Line Developer: GamePhil politely asked permission to open a new thread and I provisionally granted it. Please don't take this as a license to start opening threads willy-nilly. The established threads cover the vast majority of material appropriate for this forum. ;)

[GamePhil]

And I thank you kindly.

[Opal]

I had a minor epiphany over in the characteristics section. But, I didn't go into it as deeply as I might have liked, because it started to hit the incomplete topic.

Primary characteristics bought 'as characteristics' give you figured characteristics. You can't sell back the figureds, at all, because that's part of it being a primary characteristic. You can't put limitations on characteristics, at all, either. Draining a primary characteristic proportionally drains the figured. If you buy up a figured, draining the primary to 0 won't bring the figured to 0, and further draining the primary also won't reduce the bought-up figured. If you have NCM, or it's instituted in the game, it aplies to characteristics bought as such.

Then, you allow primary characteristics to be bought 'as powers.' When bought 'as powers,' they don't give you figureds. The Active Cost doesn't change, but you can place limitations on them, put them in frameworks, and when a pirmary bought as a power is drained, only it is drained (well, unless it's in an EC).

This would be comparable to buying your EB inside or outside an EC. To put it in an EC, you have to find one or more other powers of the same Apts to bundle with it, you accept a higher impact from drain, and you and the GM have to work out what powers are OK to add to the EC. If you buy it outside such a framework, you just buy it straight, with no restriction.

Players wanting a character to lack certain characteristics should have a reasonable option to do so. Players wanting fully decoupled characters could sell back thier primaries, and use the points to buy characteristics as powers - it would be expensive, but, as with eschewing frameworks, total freedom of design does tend to cost you a bit more. And, they won't loose 4 stats every time someone drains thier STR.


If you wanted to be even more radical, you could make Characteristics powers by default, starting them all of at 0 (except SPD which should have a hard 'floor' of 1), and have the Primary/Figured relationship be a framework that the GM (or, with permission, players) can use to design different species. Characters built this way would have 125 additional points - the cost of buying all your primaries from 0 to 10. Such templates should 'save' about 50 pts (current saves 52), when the 125 pts are spent to bring the character to 'average' for the species. You could concievably even include powers as figureds in such a thing. Mystaarans might get 1d of EGO blast per 5 EGO or Cyclopeans 1d of EB eyebeams per 5 PRE or something - but not get much for STR, because of thier radically alien biology.

Growth or shrinking could be SIZ bought as a power, with Costs END. That is, if you go with the idea of SIZ as a characteristic figured from STR and BOD, and costing points to /change/ (up or down).Apologies, as it was kinda rambly. That's inspiration for you. :o


While human and essentially human-like characters could be left to work as they do now - with the addition of SIZ and/or elimination of COM or whatever - with Primary and Figured Characteristics bought as powers. More exotic characters could use rules to delete characteristics, forge different relationships among them, or even create new 'characteristics' from powers or existing ones. Thus you could even give, say, a Vehicle new stats like Accelleration, or a turning circle (DEX-SIZE). The system could be left as a 'behind the curtain' thing for designers, an option for GMs to create new races, or, even something a player could use, with the GMs permission and a big STOP sign, to make a more quixotic character more viable.

What I have not even started to consider in detail is what kind of 'framework' "characteristics" would constitute. But, if it could be worked out, you'd have a system for building a set of characteristics to model - and, if you wanted to encourage it in your campaign as a GM, fascilitate - any sort of character. If you wanted humans as PCs in your world, but weren't absolutely adamant about it, you could use the standard characteristic set, but let players sell back thier primaries and re-build exotic characters from scratch. If you wanted humans to be side-by-side with Robots, Plasmoids, and Fuzzy Blue Creatures from Alpha Centauri, you could provide Characteristics for each, that can all give a cost break form figureds, while being quite different from eachother.

[Chris Goodwin]

Special note on Constitution: It may be that Mental Powers that work against CON might have a Class of Body rule, in the same way that Mental Powers have Classes of Mind. In this case, a character without CON would have a different Class of Body, and would not be affected by ones that affect the Human Class of Body. Like the original Class of Mind, this concept should be used with caution.

In fact, maybe Class of Body could be a useful concept to add.

Classes of Body: Living, Undead, Spirit, Animate Machine, Inanimate Machine, Inanimate Object.

Living: Encompasses humans, animals, aliens. Possesses all stats.

Undead: Animated dead things. Skeletons, zombies, liches, etc. Possesses all stats except CON, END, REC, and STUN. Must buy END Reserve if it has Powers that use END. Does not suffer from STUN effects. Edit: Must buy Does Not Take STUN.

Spirit: Ghosts, other spirits built using (or not) the Spirits rules, or the Incomplete rules. Possesses DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, SPD. Could potentially possess "spirit" versions of the physical stats, in the event "spirit plane" combat is handled with an analogue of physical world combat.

Animate Machine: Robots, androids; any machine that could potentially be treated as a player character. Computers and AIs could be considered animate machines. Objects with a mind of some kind and a power source. Possesses minimum of DEX, INT, SPD, plus BODY, either PD and ED or rDEF. Potentially could possess STR, CON, EGO, PRE, END, REC, STUN. Edit: Must buy Does Not Take STUN if it does not suffer from STUN effects.

Inanimate Machine: Vehicles, firearms. Mindless objects with moving parts and/or power sources. Possesses minimum of BODY, PD and ED or rDEF. Could possess STR.

Inanimate Object: Doors, rocks, buildings. Corpses, unless you want to create a "Formerly Living" Class. Mindless objects with few or no moving parts and/or no power sources. BODY and PD/ED or rDEF. Could conceivably possess a STR score (a table might), but doesn't have DEX, CON, INT, EGO, PRE, SPD, REC, END, or STUN.

[Chris Goodwin]

Questions:


Could you Aid a target to have a stat that it does not possess?
Could you Transform a target from one class to another? I recommend not without an adder. (Note that we have an Adder for Healing to "transform" a target from "dead" to "living"; it seems reasonable we could provide one for Transform to do something similar. Which might turn Resurrection into a variant on Transform. At any rate, it should take an Adder to add or remove stats.)

[Chris Goodwin]

If Size becomes a more generally used Characteristic, inanimate objects might possess a Size stat instead of BODY and/or STR.

[GamePhil]

There are going to be sample Incomplete items that I want to be indestructable/unkillable, and there is currently no rule that does that in the manner I wish. I am not necessarily talking about "indestructable" in the sense that it takes no damage, but only that it can't be destroyed by conventional means. That is, it has an effectively infinite Body. One method of modeling this is to buy so much extra Body that it would take more force than the GM is ever likely to bring to bear on the object, and use the Absolute Effect Rule. This value will obviously change depending on the game setting, and when I use it in this thread I will simply refer to it as Absolute Body rather than assigning a specific number or cost.

Other Powers are also appropriate to make a character effectively unkillable, of course. Desolidification comes to mind, as does Armor bought up to Absolute Effect levels. I wanted, however, a single number that prevented the target from being killed, not a list of powers, and did not want it to be Invulnerable (for example, a Toon can be damaged, but not killed, unless you have the Dip). To do this with Defenses would also require getting every type of Defense that a character might be killed for not having, and having the Body Only Limitation, another list. So, Absolute Body seemed a reasonable choice.

Most other Characteristics can have some interesting Absolute Effects. For example, Absolute Strength might mean there is nothing you can't lift. However, most of them I don't see specific applicability to Incomplete Characters, so I didn't define their effects here. Absolute CON and STUN might be good ways to get the Automaton Powers, but since we've already got them, I chose to use them, instead, leaving only Body as relevant.

[GamePhil]

In fact, maybe Class of Body could be a useful concept to add.


I like your analysis of the idea, although it's an oddball notion to begin with. The concept allows Mental Powers to be used against things that technically don't have minds, and could be used for an Activate-like power and the ability to take control of a vehicle from a distance. I do wonder if that would be worth any kind of Limitation, as this originally came up because of CON's interaction with Based on Con. I wouldn't think so.

I think that should be marked as something to be moved to another thread if and when this one has played out, I'm thinking General Powers since it affects the Mental Powers in general.

Questions:

Could you Aid a target to have a stat that it does not possess?


That's one of those currently muddy areas. If the 0 Stat == not having the stat idea gets in, it means that Draining a Characteristic to 0 logically removes it, so Aiding it should logically add it. I'm not sure either of those are desirable, but I'd rather not have to make an exception to avoid it. After all, Draining your EB down to 0 means you no longer have it. But requiring an Adder like you describe below might be fix this up.

Questions:

Could you Transform a target from one class to another?


I would think so, though some form of restriction might be necessary as you say. Actually, I feel more comfortable with Transform adding or removing a Characteristic than Aid/Drain, I just haven't come up with a reason not to allow those powers to do so.

If Size becomes a more generally used Characteristic, inanimate objects might possess a Size stat instead of BODY and/or STR.

That's a good point, I haven't come up with my "example" (read: wild speculation) for the Size stat yet. And for that matter, have no ideas for it yet, and I'm going to need one of those as its one of my second list. Any thoughts on how Size might work? It would seem odd for it to give bonuses to Body and STR in a world with no Figured Characteristics, but then again, you lose the Size, you lose those too.

[Opal]

:nonp: You kind of blindsided me there, as I was going in a specific direction and now need to absorb this and see how and if it can fit into the puzzle. I kind of surprised myself with it, too. I don't think there's really a new idea in there, they just all finally meshed in my little brain.

Certainly being able to design your own Figured Characteristics is in the spirit of the discussion.Cool, I would hate to derail this thread.

As I'm thinking about it, maybe it could be thought of as 'Characteristics' /being/ a framework.

Characteristics are abilities that all normal members of a type of character (all humans, all zomies, all elves, all robots, all vehicles, all spirits, etc) have, and, that vary smoothly (within limits) around an average. Sight, for instance, wouldn't be a characteristic for humans, since it doesn't vary /smoothly/ around 20/20 (and there's not much of a way to quantify 20/30 from 20/15 in the game even if it did). All the regular characterisitics would count for humans - as would Running, possibly even swimmimg.

Primary Characteristics are not derived from other Characteristics, Figured Characteristics are. When you buy a Primary Characteristic you get the corresponding figured characteristic, whether you want it or not, and you can't sell it back. If you want more of a Primary Characteristic without the corresponding figured, you buy it as a power, outside the Characteristic Framework.

The Characteristic Framework not only steers players towards particular types of characters, but towards particular abilities within those types. Humans, for instance, recieve a great deal of synergy from figured characteristics when they buy up STR, CON and DEX. This means that human 'adventurers' tend to be quite physical, and even those not focused heavily of physical adventuring can develop such abilities pretty easily if they like. A different Characteristic Framework would focus characters of that type in a different direction. For instance, if Mystaarans recieve figured characteristics based on thier CON, INT, & EGO, adventurers of thier species would tend to be healthy, quick-witted, and willful, but not strong or physically agile. Or, alternately, if Egalitarian Elves recieve 1 Apt of figured characteristics for each 3 Apts they have in any (and all) Primaries, thier adventurers might tend to be rather well-rounded in thier primary stats - lotsa straight 14's.

Of course, if a GM didn't mind, he could let a character be built without the 'Characteristic Framework' at all, or decline to use any, meaning that all characters would be by up any abilities they wanted from a clean slate, and simply not have any they didn't want.

[Opal]

That's one of those currently muddy areas. If the 0 Stat == not having the stat idea gets in, it means that Draining a Characteristic to 0 logically removes it, so Aiding it should logically add it. I'm not sure either of those are desirable, but I'd rather not have to make an exception to avoid it. After all, Draining your EB down to 0 means you no longer have it. But requiring an Adder like you describe below might be fix this up. Still thinking about the 'Characteristic Framework' thing, here, but: If a Characteristic is something every character of your type has, it should probably only go down to 1. If it's bought as a power, it could be taken down to 0 and just be gone. An adder on the drain could give you the ability to eliminate a characteristic, effectively changing the victim on a fundamental level. A Discoroporation Ray drains your BOD to 0, you no longer have a body. A Spell of Immobility drains your SPD to 0, you no longer act.

[GamePhil]

This post or another more developed one in the same vein may eventually go into the Characteristics thread.

This is a development of Opal's suggestion about Characteristics, Figured and otherwise. It will be used for some examples of Incomplete Characters, as it is a strongly related concept, especially with regard to the stated purpose of the thread: to unify character building into one system.

Much of the list seen in this post are directly from Opal's suggestions, with modifications from Chris Goodwin, restated here mainly to have them all in one place.

This is a proposal to subtly change the nature of Characteristics and their relationship to Figured Characteristics. One way to look at this is that Characteristics aren't separate from Powers, but are Powers bought through a new type of Power Framework. The qualities of this Framework could be:

1. Each Power bought in the Characteristic Framework helps to define what the character is at its most basic level. For example, the Characteristic Framework may indicate you are a Human, a Vehicle, or a Thing Man Was Not Meant To Know, and then you would also buy other abilities (or buy up Characteristics) to create an individual.
2. You can only have one Characteristic Framework, as it will define your basic character.
3. The Characteristic Framework is divided into two types of Characteristics: Primary and Figured.
3A. Primary Characteristics are bought normally, though they may have a base value determined by the GM (usually 10 each).
3B. Figured Characteristics are also bought normally, but have a starting value derived in some way from the Primary Characteristics. In general, the total value of starting Figured Characteristics should be about 2/5ths the total value of starting Primary Characteristics. The specific relationships are up to the designer, but the list of traditional Figured Characteristics is a good place to look for ideas on what is reasonably balanced.
3C. Figured characteristics should be affected along with the Primaries in the same proportion as they had when bought. That is, if you lose 5 STR, you lose 1 PD. This continues until the Primary reaches its minimum (usually 1), points invested to buy up the Figured Characteristics must be affected separately. A possible exception is for Primaries that represent damage that can be taken, such as Body, which may or may not affect their Figureds.
3D. Figured Characteristics provide the traditional cost break that Power Frameworks generally enjoy.
4. Abilities not bought in this Framework have a starting value of 0 (that is, you don't have them at all), even if they are commonly Characteristics, and if bought as Powers can be Drained down to 0.
5. Primary Characteristics can only be modified down to 1, not 0, barring special Adders or other rules that allow them to be removed completely. A human can be made so weak as to not be able to do much, but not actually made to have no STR at all without special considerations.
5A. Possible exceptions to this rule are any Primary Characteristic that indicates how much damage the character can take, such as Body for a Human or Ego for a 4th Edition Spirit.
6. Figured Characteristics should be examined to determine how much they can be Drained or otherwise modified, as they do not so strongly define the Character as Primaries. Most can be Drained to 0.
7. A typical setting will use one Characteristic Framework as standard. To change to a different such Framework, simply sell back the Base Characteristics the GM granted and use those points to buy entirely separate Powers or a different Framework.
8. The Characteristic Framework suggests what Class of Mind/Body/Spirit the character belongs to.
9. Any Powers, including traditional Characteristics, could conceivably be used to develop new Characteristics for this Framework, whether Primary or Figured.
10. Primaries can be bought down from the base the GM provides, Figureds cannot. The only place where the point cost for Figureds comes into play is in determining how many of them are provided from Primaries.

Notes:
1. This post gets a bit further into esoteric game design philosophy than I'd like for this forum, but appears to have turned out all reasonably straightforward, except for how Figureds would be defined for a new Characteristic Framework. I plan to still use the outline from the first post for my examples initially.
2. I don't much care for 3B, as it promotes arbitrary connections between Characteristics that, more importantly, have no testing behind them. The traditional Figured Characteristics may have originally been likewise arbitrary, but they have withstood the test of time and so are less worrisome in that regard. However, it is a system that allows almost the traditional Characteristics Block (it is actually 2 points shy on how many Figured Characteristics it gives). Just waiting for a better idea to come along.
3. Note that this does not give the same results as decoupling Figureds in getting a new character. If using the Human Characteristic Package, you only get 125 points for selling back Primaries, and nothing for selling back Figured, whereas you would get 177 points for selling everything back if decoupled and the current costs are used. This is a feature of most Frameworks, however: saving some number of points, so I'm not worried about it for the moment.

[GamePhil]

No, not Xavier's school.

As many Characters presented here have no Mind, per se, I propose expanding the concept of Class of Mind in the same way Transforms work, so that you have Class of Mind/Body/Spirit. This has the effect of allowing Mental Powers to be used in unusual ways, though Telepathy and Mental Illusions might not be of much use against a target without a Mind to read or send illusions to. Mind Control and Mind Scan, however, could be used to control/find various other things, respectively.

As with the original Class of Mind, any rules similar to that must be used with caution. Whether Classes of X constitutes a reason to buy an Adder, as in the official rules, an Advantage, or a Limitation I leave to other threads, as it is not germaine to this one.

Classes of Mind are already covered well by the official rules, while Classes of Body were covered well by Chris Goodwin's earlier post.

Classes of Spirit is a bit odd, and may not be very useful, as most entities of a purely spiritual nature would still have minds as they are usually conceived. However, there are such entities that might not: mindless ghosts forever repeating their last actions in life, revenants out for revenge, and spirits embodying some pure concept or emotion might not have minds in the traditional sense. Also, individuals with their minds somehow removed might nevertheless retain their spirit, as might spirits that have been "processed" and are ready for the next stage of their existence.

Further, I propose that Mental Powers be allowed to work against any Primary Characteristic, chosen upon the Power being built. If that Characteristic is not possessed by a target that is nevertheless in the right Class of X, another appropriate Characteristic is chosen. No Limitation would be provided, and Based On CON would then be eliminated, its Limitation value split (and perhaps increased) by its limited range, more common defense, visibility, it targeting DCV rather than ECV, and it lacking Mental Awareness (though I'm assuming that relationship will be removed).

[GamePhil]

Basically, a Power that provides a personal defense that works like Force Walls, a proposal Steve has brought up in [one of the main threads, I'll track it down]. In the old version of Incomplete Character Rules, this was called Rigid Armor, which I'll use here to describe it.

My assumptions about what such a Power would include:
1. Defense that if not penetrated with the Body of the attack will not let any Stun through.
2. If penetrated by the Body, works just like any other Defense, subtracting from the Stun and Body normally.
3. If penetrated, the Rigid Armor will not drop.
4. Rigid Armor is a Persistant Power, more like Armor than Force Field.

I assume 3 and 4 because the Power is most useful to the Incomplete Characters rules if they are true, not because they are any more likely to be than if the Defense dropped or had to be maintained with END. If these assumptions do not describe the base Power, it is possible that Advantages will let them work this way.

I am going to go with a cost of 7 points per 2 points of defense of Rigid Armor, if it becomes necessary to have a value for a character sample. That's based on Force Wall, 0 END, Persistent, Trigger (no time to activate, resets immediately and automatically, +1); No Range, Self Only.

I assume that, between Force Wall's normal use as an attack (among other things, but that is a possibility) and the Trigger Advantage constantly renewing it that this build does not need Usable As Attack to make it move with the character. If that's needed, it increases to 10 points.

[Vondy]

A note from your friendly neighborhood Line Developer: GamePhil politely asked permission to open a new thread and I provisionally granted it. Please don't take this as a license to start opening threads willy-nilly. The established threads cover the vast majority of material appropriate for this forum. ;)

Steve,

You might consider changing the forum name to be "6th Edition Mechanics Discussion." The current title implies it is a general discussion. I know you made a post with instructions for the forum, but people are creatures of the herd and many will just read the forum title and proceed apace without reading the instructions. The change might narrow the conceptual field on a psychological level for such dear innocent lambs and diminish, though not eliminate, the number of "out of scope" threads that get started.

Just a thought,

David

[Vondy]

GamePhil,

I have a request.

I find normative message board post formatting difficult to follow when the posts become relatively long. My eyes glaze over. Could you divide your posts into sections with bolded titles or paragraph heads (where apropos) and indent your lists (numbered or bulleted). This would be very helpful for me.

[ajackson]

Another way of viewing Rigid Armor would be to define +1 Def as:
+1/+1 Armor (3)
+4 PD/+4 ED, Not if Armor Penetrated (this might be as much as -1.5; it's very rare that the top point of PD/ED is actually needed).

Overall, 6-7 points sounds right. Alternately, just call it a +1 advantage on armor/force field:

'Rigid: +1. Any attack that fails to do body also does no stun'.

[Opal]

That's based on Force Wall, 0 END, Persistent, Trigger (no time to activate, resets immediately and automatically, +1); No Range, Self Only.What about needing Indirect to fire out of it? Does Self Only on a FW eliminate that?

[Vondy]

Okay, here are my initital thoughts.

1) The buy back aspect is a turn off for me. Its basically busy work at the outset. If characteristics had a zero base it wouldn't be an issue. As it is, its a hoop I don't currently have to jump through. Also, I think the points gained in the buy-back might exceed the value of some objects. Even if they don't, they may lead to balance issues as every such object starts with a negative character point value.

2) defining a zero stat as not having it for these objects is a special rule that causes them to function differently. Otherwise it would theoretically be affected by adjustement powers (or mental powers) aimed at its zero stats. Yes, you can just say "SFX," but its going to have to be spelled out in the rules somewhere or some yahoo is going to error in their orgiastic fits of cleverness.

3) This seems like a more convoluted version of the current rules for these objects, or the old spirit rules. If you define a 0 stat as not having it (for these objects), then what's the practical difference (other than the buy back hoop) between this and the current rules?

I'm interested in ideas for dealing with these builds as a feel the current system works, but needs improvement to be competitive with other games (esp. vehicles). At the same time, I don't see the benefit in this method. Are there benefits I'm not seeing (other than shortening the rule book)?

[Tonio]

What about needing Indirect to fire out of it? Does Self Only on a FW eliminate that?

Not as far as I know. Self Only on FW, if I remember correctly, means it only protects you. The Trigger, though, might fix that (FW triggers just before the attack hits, and "fades" immediately afterward, so you're free to fire except in the exact instant you're hit). Could be considered abusive, though.

[Opal]

Okay, here are my initital thoughts.

1) The buy back aspect is a turn off for me. Its basically busy work at the outset. If characteristics had a zero base it wouldn't be an issue.While these rules could be used to generate a single very unusual character, they're primarily for modeling whole classes of characters. Robots, Vehicles, Spirits, etc in a unified, generic system. The overhead for the vast majority of characters would be nil, you'd just build a character the way you do now. Similarly, if you're using an established type, like a vehicle, the 'selling back' has already happened.

2) defining a zero stat as not having it for these objects is a special rule that causes them to function differently. Otherwise it would theoretically be affected by adjustement powers (or mental powers) aimed at its zero stats. I think GamePhil is assuming no stats below zero (other than damage-tracking stats), so that shouldn't be an issue. But, yes, it does create a special case. If you have a power as a characteristic, you always have it, even if it's been drained down to 1 point. If you have it as a power, it can be drained down to zero, and you no longer have it, at all - as with any power currently.

3) This seems like a more convoluted version of the current rules for these objects, or the old spirit rules. ... Are there benefits I'm not seeing?Like getting rid of figureds and a number of other proposals for changing Hero, this idea is largely driven by the desire to make the game more elegant, more flexible and more generic. (I can say this with some confidence as I was in on it when GamePhil first came up with it.)

[GamePhil]

1) The buy back aspect is a turn off for me. Its basically busy work at the outset. If characteristics had a zero base it wouldn't be an issue. As it is, its a hoop I don't currently have to jump through. Also, I think the points gained in the buy-back might exceed the value of some objects. Even if they don't, they may lead to balance issues as every such object starts with a negative character point value.


I'm thinking about the issue even now. For the hoops: If you want to start off with 0 Characteristics, it's just a matter of having 125 more points (or more, depending on which form Characteristics ultimately take). That level of complexity I'm not too worried about, but if a way to eliminate or moderate it comes up, I'm not going to be disappointed.

I think it may actually turn out to be a bad idea to sell them back: some "characters" don't need the stats they lose, so possibly shouldn't get points for losing them, and it's possible that like Opal said, it might be better to just start them off with a different package of stats for no points.



2) defining a zero stat as not having it for these objects is a special rule that causes them to function differently. Otherwise it would theoretically be affected by adjustement powers (or mental powers) aimed at its zero stats. Yes, you can just say "SFX," but its going to have to be spelled out in the rules somewhere or some yahoo is going to error in their orgiastic fits of cleverness.


It is one of the proposed changes to the rules that Steve has put up, however. Yes, it has some potential balance issues, so it may eventually be dropped, but I'm working from the assumption that it will be in and showing how it can be of benefit. I am not discussing the potential balance problems in this thread because it is not germaine, but I acknowledge the issue.



3) This seems like a more convoluted version of the current rules for these objects, or the old spirit rules. If you define a 0 stat as not having it (for these objects), then what's the practical difference (other than the buy back hoop) between this and the current rules?



The main practical difference is this: The current rules only allow you to build what they cover. The Incomplete rules, or something like them, or even just the proposals that Steve has made that support it, allow you to build something outside of that list, and do so in a manner that is consistent with other characters.

As for convoluted, on the off chance that these guidelines or ones like them were to be adopted in the official rules, I would expect them to be "behind the scenes". That is, they would be used as the basis upon which the rules for Vehicles and Automata are created, but those would have their own sections (or perhaps be fully realized examples of these rules, if they are presented in this manner). So, you have the greater flexibility and consistency while at the same time not having to deal with the complexity unless you want to.



I'm interested in ideas for dealing with these builds as a feel the current system works, but needs improvement to be competitive with other games (esp. vehicles). At the same time, I don't see the benefit in this method. Are there benefits I'm not seeing (other than shortening the rule book)?



Consistent rules for everything you might want to build is something that I am in favor of, and shortening the rules is a bonus. However, I also believe it will give more options for all characters (for instance, making Automaton Powers and some form of Cargo available for everyone) and open up new possibilities (more detailed Foci, Spirits, cartoons, Organizations, and so on) for character concepts. But, we'll see, I haven't had time to work up proper samples, yet.

Ultimately, fond as I am of the idea of building the "non-Character characters" this way, my goal is not to convince people that it is the one true way. My goal with the thread is to showcase potential use for some proposals. Basically, if Steve's proposals go in (or Opal's for Characteristic Frameworks, for that matter), Incomplete Characters are do-able from the official rules even if they aren't adopted as the official method. As such, I'm not making a case for inclusion, I'm just presenting a way to use the new proposals to potential benefit.

[GamePhil]

Similarly, if you're using an established type, like a vehicle, the 'selling back' has already happened.


I'd love to see a method whereby, for example, a starting Vehicle balanced out to 0 points, but I'm not going to be too broken up if it doesn't. Once the examples start coming in, we'll know.

Like getting rid of figureds and a number of other proposals for changing Hero, this idea is largely driven by the desire to make the game more elegant, more flexible and more generic. (I can say this with some confidence as I was in on it when GamePhil first came up with it.)

True, that, but remember that when it first came up we also started seeing a bunch of things it was actually useful for, aside from potential balance and consistency issues :)

[GamePhil]

What about needing Indirect to fire out of it? Does Self Only on a FW eliminate that?

Probably not, that was the problem with starting with Force Wall last time, as you know. The Trigger might do it, as Tonio said (flickers off, fire, flickers on), or it may be a matter of, "Eh, close enough".

It might also be that the improved defense against Stun turns out to be, like Desolidification, something you just need to take an Advantage on your attacks for. It's still a lot less at +1/4 than +2, after all.

For Automata, which are the primary reason the subject is here (my current opinion is that most or all characters that don't take Stun should have to take Rigid Armor), their cost has gone down for the Defense at 7 points, so it should work out. Vehicles will have to pay more, though.

That reminds me: Since people are arguing that inanimate objects should be able to take non-resistant Defense, and I agree, I'm wondering if there needs to be a non-resistant form of Rigid Armor. Of course, since many such objects are things like trees and rubber bands, it may not matter, but you never know.

[GamePhil]

Another way of viewing Rigid Armor would be to define +1 Def as:
+1/+1 Armor (3)
+4 PD/+4 ED, Not if Armor Penetrated (this might be as much as -1.5; it's very rare that the top point of PD/ED is actually needed).

Overall, 6-7 points sounds right. Alternately, just call it a +1 advantage on armor/force field:

'Rigid: +1. Any attack that fails to do body also does no stun'.

That's very likely a better way to do it (the extra PD/ED thing), you might want to put that ... hmm, don't remember which thread had the proposal about Force Wall for Personal Defense, but put it there, also. Gets the same effect without needing to worry about the Indirect problem.

I'm glad to see the cost is about the same either way, though since you put that up before examples that use it have been done I suppose it didn't matter :D

[Opal]

Probably not, that was the problem with starting with Force Wall last time, as you know. The Trigger might do it, as Tonio said (flickers off, fire, flickers on), or it may be a matter of, "Eh, close enough".It makes sense for vehicles - characters inside shouldn't be able to fire out of the vehicle while being protected by it's defesnes. For vehcile weapons, accessible foci could be outside the defense, while inaccessable ones are portected by it, I guess. But for a general case, it's a harder call to make.


It might also be that the improved defense against Stun turns out to be, like Desolidification, something you just need to take an Advantage on your attacks for. It's still a lot less at +1/4 than +2, after all.
That could work. As you remember, I had the Rigid Armor bearing the cost for that. I guess today that would be an NPA.


That reminds me: Since people are arguing that inanimate objects should be able to take non-resistant Defense, and I agree, I'm wondering if there needs to be a non-resistant form of Rigid Armor.I suppose so. At least the cost relation between resistant and non-resistant is well established.

[Opal]

A further thought on abilities bought in the Characteristics Framework vs those bought outside it, this one provoked by discussion of NCM.

Maybe they shouldn't stack with eachother. If you buy up a characteristic, you're improving something that is innate in your type of character. If you buy the same thing, but not as a characteristic, 'as a power,' it's something /else/. This would make perfect sense with some things, like a powered exoskelleton, less sense with others. It wouldn't aply to PD/ED as PD/ED from different powers and sources already stack all the time, anyway. This would also, sadly, be consistent with the way END reserve currently works. (REC for an END reserve only recovers the reserve, END for it can only be used for specific powers, it doesn't add to your total END).

[GamePhil]

So, a quick example of the Characteristic Framework idea. I have deleted and re-posted this to make it easier for people following the thread to keep track of it. Until I get to some examples of characters using the 1st posts guidelines, I will probably not develop this concept too much barring suggestions. I don't want to drift too far.

Humans and Human-Like Creatures
So, the GM decides to use the traditional Human template that we have used, at the Heroic starting level, eight Characteristics with the usual costs and a base of 10 each. That's 125 points, but he also decides to use Running and Swimming as Characteristics, bringing it to 139 points, so that comes to 56 points worth of base Figured Characteristics (2/5ths of 139, rounded up).

The traditional Figured Characteristics come to 52 points. Adding Leaping (STR/5) and Mental Defense (EGO/5) in as Figured Characteristics brings that to a total of 56.

:nonp:

Vehicles
I will now present a set of Characteristics for creating a Vehicle. This draws mainly from 5th Edition vehicles, but are modified for this discussion. I'm making up Size from scratch for this example, what I use for SIZ with sample characters later in the thread may bear no resemblance to it (I am assuming SIZ is the length of the objects in Meters in this example, so it comes to 2 for a typical starting vehicle)

DEX 10 (cost: 30 points)
BODY 8 (cost: 16 points, assuming consistent cost)
DEF 2 (2 PD 2 ED Armor, cost: 6 points)
Movement 6" Ground (Running 6", cost: 12 points)
Size 2 (Cost: 10 points, costs 5/level to increase it)

Total cost: 74

Using the (untested) system created previously to get some idea of how many Figured Characteristics it should start with, we get 30 points.

Figured Characteristics include STR and a bonus to Body, because they each got a bonus from SIZ in 5th Edition.

STR SIZ*5 (10 points)
Bonus BODY SIZ*1 (4 points)
SPD 1+(DEX/10) (10 points)

Now, that's only 24 of the 30 possible points, so the GM developing it adds the Figured Characteristics: Maneuverability to the block. This will work like 3 point Skill Levels with the Vehicle's Movement Powers, so cost 3 points each.

MAN DEX/5 (6 points, costs 3 points/level to buy up)

Other Notes
I am not defining here how you get from Human to Vehicle, or what Powers Vehicles start with, because this is only an example of the Frameworks themselves.

I assumed here that most characters get that first SPD point for free, because you can't really get a playable character with a 0 SPD. I may abandon this (doing so is consistent with the proposed de-coupled CHAR block for 6th Edition, and may be useful for characters that don't need SPD or who act less often than a 1 SPD indicates), but for the examples at this early stage it should do the job all right.

I didn't originally like the 2/5ths of Primary Characteristics concept for this, but considering that Humans came in perfectly, I may change my mind :D

[GamePhil]

It makes sense for vehicles - characters inside shouldn't be able to fire out of the vehicle while being protected by it's defesnes. For vehcile weapons, accessible foci could be outside the defense, while inaccessable ones are portected by it, I guess. But for a general case, it's a harder call to make.


I'm planning on revising the Internal Spaces for vehicles in the thread some time, which would certainly require Indirect (or a rolled down window) for people inside. Other cases might be covered by not using Force Wall as the base, as ajackson suggested.

[GamePhil]

Maybe they shouldn't stack with eachother. If you buy up a characteristic, you're improving something that is innate in your type of character. If you buy the same thing, but not as a characteristic, 'as a power,' it's something /else/. This would make perfect sense with some things, like a powered exoskelleton, less sense with others.

I commented on general issues for this in the appropriate thread. I don't think that such a change would impact Incomplete Characters, however they are built, much more than any other, but I could be wrong.

[Opal]

BTW, isn't there still some kind of rule against powers in one framework stacking with powers in another framework?

If 'Characteristics' become a framework, that might reasonably aply, also.

Of course, as I often have to remind myself, the game already has Aid, so I really shouldn't worry about stacking all that much.

[GamePhil]

BTW, isn't there still some kind of rule against powers in one framework stacking with powers in another framework?

If 'Characteristics' become a framework, that might reasonably aply, also.

Of course, as I often have to remind myself, the game already has Aid, so I really shouldn't worry about stacking all that much.

Interestingly, yes, and it even goes so far as to disallow an Adjustment Power in one Framework to affect Powers in another Framework. So you wouldn't even be able to use your Aid slot on your Characteristics under this system. I don't see this as making the system unworkable, though, just an interesting aside.

[Opal]

OK, I'm going to try building an alternate Characteristic Framework. This one is for the 'Mystaarans' - Mystaarans are alien brains encased in a pastel membrane that telekinetically float about thier homeworld.

Mystaarans:

Primary Characteristics

Mental Attack 2d (20)
EGO 10 (20)
INT 10 (10)
PRE 10 (10)
DEX 10 (30)
CON 5 (10)
BOD 5 (10)



Total staring cost: 110

(2/5th of 110 is 44)

Secondary:

SPD (1 + INT/20 + EGO/20) = 2 (10)
Mental Defense (Mental Attack dice) = 2 (2)
REC (CON/5 + Mental Attack dice) = 3 (6)
END (CON*2) = 10 (5)
STN (CON/2+BOD+Mental Attack Apts/4) = 13 (13)
Flight 0 END/Persistent (Mental Attack dice) = 2" (8)

Cost of Secondary Characteristics derived from Starting Primaries: 44

Mystaaran NCM:

Mental Attack: 4d
EGO: 20
INT: 20
PRE: 20
DEX: 20
CON: 10
BOD: 10
SPD: 4
Mental Def: 8
REC: 8
END: 30
STN: 30
Flight (0 END/Persistent): 8"

[Opal]

So you wouldn't even be able to use your Aid slot on your Characteristics under this system. Somehow, I'm not sure if that'll be a bug or a feature... ;) But it certainly would limit abuse.

[GamePhil]

This should be the last of the conjecture about how changes might be implemented before I start on examples of Incompletes. It took a while, but until we know how (and if) the proposals this is based upon will be implemented, we need some form of structure for the discussion.

Recent changes
Added some notes about varying the Mass or the Volume from what SIZ gives you.

Assumptions
I am assuming that SIZ:
Will not have any Figured Characteristics. No bonuses/penalties to STR or BOD.
Will give/take away Reach, if the character has limbs.
Will increase/decrease mass and length/width/height.
Will start at 10.
Will provide a base of Knockback Resistance.
Will use doubling/halving of the above (except KBR) per some number of levels.

First Pass
Cost: 2 points.

Basics
Size represents how large and massive the character is. At the base value of 10, the character is assumed to be at or around 2m in its longest proportion, up to 1m in other proportions, and about 100kg. For each point above or below that, mass is approximately doubled/halved. For every three levels, height (the longest proportion) is likewise approximately doubled/halved. These are all approximations, and some variance is allowed.

Very small characters will generally have a SIZ of 1, define their mass and proportions as they like, and may take further Powers or Skills to simulate extremely small size.

Knockback
For every point less than 10, the character takes an extra inch of Knockback if those rules are used. For every point more than 10, one less inch of Knockback is taken.

Combat Value
For every three levels less than 10, subtract 2 from OCV in HTH combat and add 2 to DCV in Ranged Combat. For every three levels over 10, add 2 to OCV in HTH and subtract 2 from DCV in Ranged.

Reach
A character with a SIZ of 10 or less has about a 2 m reach. Even if the character does not have limbs that reach that far, it is assumed that he can move far enough to get that much distance, although this may be at a penalty to OCV. Every three levels of SIZ over 10 doubles that reach.

Characteristics
Several Characteristics are appropriate to buy up for large characters: STR (at least enough to carry half the character's mass), Body, Running, and so on. Except for STR, there is no requirement to do so. While small characters might very well sell some of these Characteristics back, again, there is no requirement.

Varying Mass and Volume
If the two are greatly different, define SIZ by the higher of the two. The character will have the effects of SIZ differently for Mass and Volume. For example, an animated holiday float might have the Reach associated with its Volume, but the Knockback Resistance associated with his mass, and should take the SIZ level for its volume. With the GM's permission, the higher level of SIZ might be worth a -1 Limitation.

Final Notes
Shrinking and Growth work per 5ER rules for purposes of examples.

Size 0: The character has no volume or mass. It has no reach, and cannot engage in HTH combat. This may impact the character in further ways, depending on character conception. For example, an incorporeal creature might also have to take Desolidification, while a character with no physical form might also have to sell back BODY and STR to 0.

Absolute Effect for Size: Some characters may be truly immense. In these cases, the GM can establish a SIZ level that is effectively infinite using the Absolute Effect rule. This should probably never be done for normal characters, but might be used for galaxy- or even universe-spanning Bases, for example.

[GamePhil]

Some suggestions for SIZ from the Characteristics forum. I just don't want to lose track of them. The text in the quote boxes is not actually that of the posters, but a summary I put in so that the pointers would appear.

Thoughts primarily on comparitive scales, rather than absolute bonuses/penalties.

Scales again, this time changing them (a la Megascale) for SIZ.

[Teflon Billy]

I'd remove the requirement that Internal Spaces require the use of any other power.

Just set it that to have the internal space exceed the external the power would require an adder or advantage permitting it to exceed the external volume.

It greatly simplifies things and doesn't force any one type of power conception onto the player.

TB

[Opal]

I have a thought on SIZ. I'm thinking it could make a good figured characteristc, figured from STR & BOD. Rather than SIZ costing points, deviating from your figured SIZ could cost points. Leaping could be based on your STR - SIZ, so if you paid to reduce your SIZ, you'd improve your leaping.

[GamePhil]

I have a thought on SIZ. I'm thinking it could make a good figured characteristc, figured from STR & BOD. Rather than SIZ costing points, deviating from your figured SIZ could cost points. Leaping could be based on your STR - SIZ, so if you paid to reduce your SIZ, you'd improve your leaping.

I was thinking of doing a Characteristic Framework for Humans that worked SIZ in, but had actually thought the opposite, that STR & BOD would be a Figured Characteristic for SIZ. But either way.

My second stab at the SIZ Characteristic, still going with the original assumptions

[GamePhil]

Quoting an excellent summary of what the Human Template might look like if we actually were starting from nothing. Has similarities installed to the Characteristic Frameworks idea, though it goes even farther (this is a superset of that idea).

Well, I'm going to comment on some things and summarize on what I think would be a compromise for allowing for both methods of handling stats and so forth.

The problem of course is that to have mechanics be generic enough to build anything but still allow for the Human-Centric builds to remain easy or straight forward.

Personally I would prefer the mechanics to be more flexible and thus support the decoupling of the figured characteristics. But I also recognize that we need to make the Human-Centric builds easy which is why there would need to be mechanic to associate characteristics (I'm repeating for the benefit of new readers).

Other mechanics that would need to be created would be an actual Reach Mechanic and a Manipulation Mechanic. These two mechanics would allow for elimination of Extra Limbs as a separate power and grants more flexibility for creating Non-Human Templates.

What would need to be created whole cloth is a "Human Template" overlay that would have all those associated characteristics prefigured.

What things would make the Human Template unique?

2d6 Damage
1" Reach (Arms/Legs)
Fine Manipulation (Hands) - This mechanic needs to be fully defined for various levels
Rough Manipulation (Legs) - This mechanic needs to be fully defined for various levels
Mass
Perception (Binocular Vision 120 Degrees, Ranged)
Perception (Binocular Aural 360 Degrees, Ranged)
Perception (Smell ???)
Perception (Taste)
Perception (Touch)
6" Movement (Requires Manipulation: Legs And/Or Arms)
2" Climbing (Requires Manipulation: Hands And Arms And/Or Legs)
Leaping (Requires Manipulation: Legs)
Lift (Requires Manipulation: Arms And/Or Legs)
Strength Associations: Reach, Manipulation, Leaping, Lift, Damage, Figured Characteristics
Dexterity Associations: ...
Constitution Associations: ...
Body Associations: ...
Intelligence Associations: All Perceptions, ...
Ego Associations: ...
Presence Associations: ...
Comeliness (or other Appearance implementation) Associations: ...


Just a quick summary of what would need to be evaluated for the Human Template. The template would have all the costs prefigured as needed so that creating Human-Centric characters would be no more difficult that with existing system, but would allow for the extension of creating whatever is needed for other Non-Human-Centric campaigns.

Also notice that I included mass but not size. If the additional mechanics were created and detailed enough, then a Size Stat would be only be needed as Guideline to show what levels each of the other mechanics would have at different levels of size. In short, different size characters would simply be Sub-Templates off the Human Template.

Anyway, I hold no expectations that such radical changes will ever be implemented, but to remake the system from scratch, it would seem the most logical approach in order to have generic mechanics and still have the ease of Human-Centric builds.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

And continued:
Let's not forget the Disadvantages of being human, that serve to balance out the cost of the basic "Human Template":

Dependence (food)
Dependence (water)
Dependence (oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere)
Dependence (sleep)
Susceptibility (extremely high temperatures)
Susceptibility (extremely low temperatures)
Susceptibility (radiation)
Susceptibility (poisons)
Psychological Limitation (human condition) [what specific PsychLims define the "Human Condition?"]
Physical Limitation (made of meat)
Normal Characteristic Maxima (maybe?)
etc...

Note that the first few of them are the inverses of the Life Support Power, and should be costed appropriately. In fact, seen from this point of view, LS is just the "buying off" of these basic human Disadvantages.

I am probably not qualified to define the specific PsychLims that should be included to define the Human Condition, but I think that there should be some -- if for no other reason than to differentiate human psychology from that of apes, or cheetas or dogs.

Are there any Physical Limitations that are necessary to define humanity? Many PhysLims are defined as the lack of something, so from this point of view, most PhysLims are just "selling back" parts of this template.
Should NCM be included? All "normal" humans have it, but including it would require supers to buy it off -- the inverse of the current philosophy.

Just some things to think about.

I'm actually assuming that some of that one is meant facetiously, but who am I to turn down a free list?

[Opal]

Just set it that to have the internal space exceed the external the power would require an adder or advantage permitting it to exceed the external volume. That's how I originally wrote it up a dozen years ago - an advantage for "doesn't carry mass" and another for "doesn't carry volume." Both give you a container that's completely independent of what it can hold, it stays the same size and weight regardless of what you put into it. Thus you could do a vehicle like the TARDIS (bigger inside than out), or a grav sled (items on it weigh nothing but still take up space).

Shrinking on the contents, though, gives you the same effect as both, and gives you a reference between the outside world and the inside of the spaces.

[GamePhil]

Further Assumption
In addition to the assumptions in the first post, I am assuming that COM will be dropped as a Characteristic. This is not because I am against keeping it, but simply because it has no impact on Incomplete examples, and dropping it seems to be the way Steve is leaning currently.

Update
I am going to use the 2nd pass at SIZ until something better and more fully realized is presented to me. While flawed, the current presentation in Characteristics is good enough to go forward for creating Incomplete sample characters. This reduces the cost of SIZ and the total cost by 10.

Explanation
The Characteristics are all listed at base levels, so the cost levels may be odd, but they are the points you get for selling them back, not the costs to buy them. All assumptions from the first post are being used, including the lack of Figured Characteristics. A Characteristic Framework version of humans can be found earlier in the thread.

This is being presented primarily because it is the base from which all other Incomplete Character examples will be created from. I am using my sample write-up for SIZ. I am assuming that basic Movement are close enough to Characteristics to be included in the block, though they may not technically be counted.

The Human Characteristic Block
Val Char Cost
10 STR 10
10 DEX 30
10 CON 20
10 BODY 20
10 SIZ 10
10 INT 10
10 EGO 20
10 PRE 10
2 PD 2
2 ED 2
2 SPD 20
4 REC 8
20 END 10
20 STUN 20
12m Run 12
4m Swim 2
4m Leap 2

Total Cost: 208

[GamePhil]

The Human Characteristic Framework
Primary Characteristic Block
Val Char Cost
10 STR 10
10 DEX 30
10 CON 20
10 BODY 20
10 SIZ 10
10 INT 10
10 EGO 20
10 PRE 10
12m Run 12
4m Swim 2
4m Leap 2
Total Cost: 146
Base Figured Characteristic Guideline: 58

Figured Characteristic Block
Val Char Cost
2 PD 2 (STR/5)
2 ED 2 (CON/5)
2 SPD 10 (1+DEX/10)
4 REC 8 (STR/5+CON/5)
20 END 10 (CON*2)
20 STUN 20 (STR/2+CON/2+BODY)
2 MD 2 (EGO/5) (Mental Defense)
4m Leap 2 (STR/5)
Total Cost: 56

Notes
This Framework is currently unfinished, as I believe that adding Figured Characteristics to the assumptions changes how Size should be created. With Figured Characteristics, SIZ should possibly only give you Mass and Volume, and all other stats based on it should be Figured. It becomes the new CON at that point, giving as its primary benefit Figured Characteristics.

So, proposed possibilities as new Figured Characteristics for frameworks including SIZ:
0 KNBR 0 ((SIZ-10)/5)
2m Reach 2 (SIZ/5)

Or something like that. This shows the Framework may need an adjustment to take into account Figured Characteristics that cost no points at base. Alternatively, SIZ could be moved to the Figured Block if a suitable formula and definition can be devised.

[Opal]

As I've said elsewhere, SIZ = (STR+BOD)/2 sounds pretty good to me. If you're stronger, you're a little bigger, if it takes more disentegration ray to reduce you to powder, you're a little bigger.

What SIZ does should be prettymuch based only on, well, size. It determines how large you silhouette is, and thus how easy a target you are. It determines how much you weigh, and how much space you take up - both largely negatives, though being heavy enough could keep someone from martial throwing you. It determines how long your limbs are, too, assuming you're proportional.

I've been thinking players should pay a little to be bigger or smaller than thier figured SIZ - if bigger people will overestimate you, and being smaller is convenient in a variety of ways - that is, you always pay for SIZ, never sell it back. That'd make it very wierd for a figured characteristic, I admit. Slightly less wierd would be to pay only to buy it down, and recieve a disad for being larger than normal for your STR/BOD (and there'd presumably be a limit on how much larger, you wouldn't have to be very much larger than your figured SIZ before you'd be unable to shift your own weight).

The idea strikes me as more reasonable for heroic games that use NCM, than for supers, where Growth is often a power, and size is rarely a relaible clue to a characters STR - making it a good candidate for an optional stat.

[schir1964]

GamePhil,

Have you ever looked over my Size Stat document?

If you haven't here's the link to where you can find it: Size Stat

I'm sure you have probably covered most of this ground before, but there might be couple of things you might find useful in it.

- Christopher Mullins (New Mechanic Ideas)

[Tonio]

As I've said elsewhere, SIZ = (STR+BOD)/2 sounds pretty good to me. If you're stronger, you're a little bigger, if it takes more disentegration ray to reduce you to powder, you're a little bigger.

What SIZ does should be prettymuch based only on, well, size. It determines how large you silhouette is, and thus how easy a target you are. It determines how much you weigh, and how much space you take up - both largely negatives, though being heavy enough could keep someone from martial throwing you. It determines how long your limbs are, too, assuming you're proportional.

I've been thinking players should pay a little to be bigger or smaller than thier figured SIZ - if bigger people will overestimate you, and being smaller is convenient in a variety of ways - that is, you always pay for SIZ, never sell it back. That'd make it very wierd for a figured characteristic, I admit. Slightly less wierd would be to pay only to buy it down, and recieve a disad for being larger than normal for your STR/BOD (and there'd presumably be a limit on how much larger, you wouldn't have to be very much larger than your figured SIZ before you'd be unable to shift your own weight).

The idea strikes me as more reasonable for heroic games that use NCM, than for supers, where Growth is often a power, and size is rarely a relaible clue to a characters STR - making it a good candidate for an optional stat.

Should DEX be (100 / STR), so that baseline is 10, but it goes down as your STR goes up, to reflect how the added bulk makes you clumsier? Or maybe (200 / (STR+BOD)), since added bulk from BOD would also make you clumsier? Or maybe ((INT+10)*10/(STR+BOD)), since a smarter guy would know how to work around the extra bulk? How would that interact with having INT be figured at (100 / STR) to reflect stronger guys being (stereo)typically dumber? Or with BOD being figured at (5 + STR/2) to reflect how stronger guys are also bulkier?

Seriously now, you don't see a problem with having so many characteristics be figured off each other? You don't see the pidgeonholing it causes? How it turns an otherwise freeform system into one resembling a class-based one?

[schir1964]

This is where a Manipulation mechanic would resolve some issues. If a Manipulation mechanic existed, you could use it to reflect how being bigger could result in penalties to handling things due to increased STR vs objects that may now be considered "fagile" as far as the character is concerned.

Just a thought.

- Christopher Mullins

[GamePhil]

Introduction
This is a draft of a new Power that allows the Character to have spaces "inside" himself, or possibly inside a nearby object. It is in this thread primarily to be used for Vehicles, but it has other uses. This is not meant to be a full Power write up, but just an outline of how it could work, which should be sufficient for this thread.

Recent changes
I have deleted and reposted the Internal Space to make it easier for interested readers to keep track. Recent changes:

Added No Volume and No Mass.
Changed the use of Shrinking to take into account No Mass/No Volume.
Changed doubling the Size of the space beyond the Character's to a flat cost instead of an Advantage.

Internal Spaces
The character has a space within his body that can contain other objects. This space can be up to 10% of the character's Size per point invested in the Power up to 10 Points, which can represent an entirely hollow character. From there on, the character can have double the amount of space for every 5 points. Any space beyond the Character's SIZ should be taken as External or have the No Volume Advantage applied to it.

The character must have the appropriate STR to lift the objects within the space. Objects in the space gain the container's Defense. To break out is just like breaking out of a Grab, but objects contained within are otherwise allowed to move about unless the container initiates an actual Grab.

Defensive Powers: Any Defensive Powers being used by the container apply to the contents, including Life Support, most Defenses, and Shrinking. Shrinking can be used as an alternative to No Volume/Mass, and also gives the contents of the Space its DCV modifier.

Only For Contents is a -1 Limitation that may be applied to Defensive Powers or to STR (for carrying the mass inside the Space more easily).

If bought through a Focus, the space could be inside that Focus instead of the character.

Internal Spaces is a Persistent Power, and will frequently be bought Inherent.

No Volume: The Internal Spaces can be a great deal larger than the object containing them. Likewise, things put inside them take up no space in the world, just in the Internal Spaces. It may be necessary for objects to be put in the Spaces be no larger than the container, however. This is a +1/2 Advantage.

No Mass: The container does not need to exert STR to carry what is in the Internal Spaces. This is a +1/2 Advantage.

External: Space associated with a character but not protected by its Defenses can be bought as External for a -1 Limitation.

Examples:
A Bag of Holding can be bought as Internal Space with No Volume, No Mass, through a Focus.

Any vehicle or base that is bigger inside than out could buy Internal Space with No Volume, No Mass.

A base could have grounds that are External Spaces.

A Vehicle could take an amount of Internal Space for passengers and cargo. If it also had some form of flatbed area or similar unprotected cargo space, that could be bought as External.

A character that can trap someone "inside" himself in some way could buy some Internal Space. This could be a form of extra-dimensional containment, swallowing the target whole, or simply stretching around the victim.

Notes
I added in No Mass/Space to have a simpler way of simulating these properties. I'm not entirely satisfied with them, because there are ways to do the same already in the rules, and this gets around them.

[GamePhil]

Explanation
This write up assumes that abilities are "sold back" to 0 from the Human Characteristic Block, earlier in the thread.

I am assuming that Does Not Take Stun means that Stun may not be sold back. After all, there is no drawback to doing so, so it should not be worth points. Selling it back to 0 would mean the character starts unconscious, which is also not desirable. CON is also not sold back for the same reason. Instead, these two Characteristics are considered 0 for no points, a result of the Does Not Take Stun Power.

Since it is starting as Human, there are other abilities that are necessary, such as Life Support.

Characteristics Sold Back
INT: 10 points
EGO:20
PRE: 10
REC: 8
END: 10
Swim: 2
Leap: 2

Total: 62 points

Other 0 Characteristics
CON
STUN

These Characteristics are effectively 0 as a side effect of the Does Not Take Stun Power, and cannot be sold back. The character still functions as though they are positive, however.

The Vehicle Characteristic Block
Val Char
10 STR
10 DEX
10 BODY
10 SIZ
2 PD
2 ED
2 SPD
12m Run

Other Abilities
I am going with the suggestion that Rigid Defense can be a +1 Advantage, rather than a separate Power. It brings the cost of Armor close to what both examples of how it might be built bring it in at, and makes applying it to basic Characteristics easier. I'm assuming it would have to be applied to Damage Resistance, much as Hardened needs to be.

45 Does Not Take Stun
4 Damage Resistance (2 PD/2 ED), Rigid (+1)
4 Rigid on 2 PD/2 ED (+1)
5 0 END on STR (+1/2)
6 0 END on Running (+1/2)
7 Life Support: Self Contained Breathing, does not eat, safe in vacuum; Vehicle cannot function in conditions where Life Support is necessary (-1)
5 Internal Space: SIZ 5
1 PS: Be Driven 8-

Notes
The Life Support means the vehicle will stop running if it runs out of gas or is deprived of air, but will not take damage. This could be a matter of re-defining the needs rather than needing to take a Power: it is of some advantage to be able to function even though it's killing you.
Final cost to be a stock vehicle: 15 points. Not quite the 0 I'd prefer, but not too bad. Some Disadvantages would offset this, such as No Manipulatory Appendages. However, I'm using the assumption that Disadvantages aren't worth points for the time being.
Senses are not bought off. It is assumed that the vehicle, in effect, has them, but can't use them because it has no INT. It can, for example, "feel" when its steering wheel or other control surface is being manipulated and respond.
The Be Driven PS is the vehicle's only "program", allowing it to respond to its driver. It is bought at 8- because it's such a simple program to follow that it should not need to make a roll for it.
In games that use optional damage rules, Vehicles become more expensive, as they may have to take Does Not Bleed and No Hit Locations. Like the Life Support, it could be that this should be a re-definition of those rules for vehicles rather than making them buy the Powers. A Vehicle might very well have vulnerable spots or start leaking necessary fluids, after all.
I'm assuming that, in general, the lack of INT makes the character immune to PRE attacks, as they can't actually perceive them. Still thinking about whether the same should be true for EGO or PRE.

[GamePhil]

This is where a Manipulation mechanic would resolve some issues.

New Power Discussion: Manipulation

This is not even the half-writeups that I've been using, but some ideas for how it might look.

Manipulation would need:
Effective Number Of Limbs: Pretty self-explanatory, however some creatures might grow new limbs at will or have energy manipulation powers that take on characteristics of limbs. Currently, the cost is a flat 5 for any number of limbs, and that may still be a good upper limit depending on other factors.
Fineness: Say, Very Clumsy to Very Fine. Very Clumsy might work like a Side Effect, that the character does STR damage to things he tries to manipulate, while Very Fine is finer than human hands, possibly giving a small bonus to some actions.
Reach: How far away you can manipulate objects.
Independence: How much limbs can act independently of what the other limbs are doing. This might allow different limbs to do different Combat Maneuvers to different targets, for example, if bought high enough.

A write-up like this might go so far as to replace Telekinesis, if Reach could be made far enough, in which case it might also need STR. Not sure yet exactly how that would work, though.

So, a human would start with 2 limbs with Fine Manipulation and 3 (including the head) with Average Manipulation, generally with a 2m Reach and average Independence. This would cost no points, much like Senses. If the Power were written up, I'm imagining this would cost between 5 and 10 points for the human starting ability.

[GamePhil]

Explanation
This is the baseline Automaton, with the option of taking Automaton Powers and other abilities normally. While it has the option of selling back more Characteristics, such as END, it does not start that way in 5th Edition. Thus, the only Characteristic sold back is Ego.

One difference from 5th Edition Automatons: I am not assuming that they sell back INT and buy a Computer for a brain, I am assuming that it's built in and therefore the same as having an INT score.

Characteristics Sold Back
EGO:20

Total: 20 points

The Starting Automaton Characteristic Block
Val Char
10 STR
10 DEX
10 BODY
10 INT
10 PRE
10 SIZ
2 PD
2 ED
2 SPD
4 REC
20 STUN
20 END
12m Run
4 m Swim
4 m Leap

Other Abilities
20 +50 Presence, Only For Protecting From PRE Attacks Of Appropriate Special Effect (-1 1/2), Absolute Effect (Immune to most PRE attacks)

Notes
Final cost is 0, but may be higher if the Presence Defense needs to be. As I mentioned previously, I'm assuming an Absolute Effect rule needs to be applied for immunity to PRE Attacks in general. However, lacking EGO may cover that, I'm undecided.
This is obviously not much of a change from Human, but Automata are considered to be "characters without EGO" at base, though many of them have a number of other Powers or sold back Characteristics.

[GamePhil]

Explanation
I am assuming here that the Character will be a computer system, rather than a disembodied mind. Hence, it has actual PD, ED, and BODY scores. The Disembodied Mind write up will be later.

Characteristics Sold Back
STR: 10
EGO: 20
PRE: 10
REC: 8
END: 10
Run: 12
Swim: 2
Leap: 2

Total: 74 points
Characteristics Effectively 0
CON
STUN

The Starting Automaton Characteristic Block
Val Char
10 DEX
10 BODY
10 INT
10 SIZ
2 PD
2 ED
2 SPD

Other Abilities
45 Does Not Take Stun
4 Damage Resistance (2 PD/2 ED), Rigid (+1)
4 Rigid on 2 PD/2 ED (+1)
7 Life Support: Self Contained Breathing, does not eat, safe in vacuum; Vehicle cannot function in conditions where Life Support is necessary (-1)
20 +50 Presence, Only For Protecting From PRE Attacks Of Appropriate Special Effect (-1 1/2), Absolute Effect (Immune to most PRE attacks)


Notes

Final cost: 6 points.
Senses not possessed by the Computer take a Disadvantage to eliminate them, as does No Manipulatory Appendages.
Most computers will sell back part of their base Characteristics, but they are being left 10 to start for consistency.
Many of the notes for previous examples apply here.
A starting AI is 26 points, and starts with an Ego of 10. If it needs to make Ego rolls to allow it to take unprogrammed actions, that is a Physical Limitation.

[GamePhil]

Bases are an odd duck in this system. In many ways they are what I oh-so-cleverly dubbed Null Characters years ago: They have no real Characteristics that apply to a central location. Their DEF and BOD don't work the same as they do for other characters, representing instead how much it takes to blow through a part of a wall. SIZ is similar to what several people have described, but really is more like what I have defined in this thread as External Spaces surrounded by walls.

So, my thoughts, for the standard Base:
Sell back all Characteristics except CON, STUN (as the character effectively has Takes No Stun), and SIZ (as a basis for the Spaces Power). This gives a lot of points, but it is consistent with the previous examples.
Buy External Spaces to cover the size of the base.
Buy some form of Wall Power, perhaps based on Entangle, Force Wall, or a new Power (which may unify those two Powers as well as normal walls).
Most other abilities bought as part of the Base would be pretty much what we are used to.


Internal Spaces may also be changed to work independently from the SIZ of the character, in which case the Base would also sell back SIZ.

[Teflon Billy]

Get rid of basing the starting value of the power on 10% objects size and set it at 1 cubic meter.

For these reasons:

1. It is unnecassarily complicated
2. It adds a figured characteristic that isn't needed
3. It makes the power vary in utility depending on the objects size for the same price

TB

[Opal]

Needing to have a SIZ of 40 for a 60 STR 20 BOD character is probably not desirable. Needing to have a SIZ Characteristic four times as much as the average bloke is unlikely to mean you are within the human size range.Well, you're what, a thousand times stronger than a normal person, is being 64x his size really that outrageous? But, no I suspect the stat wouldn't be used that way, or perhaps not used at all in games that don't feature NCM. The supers genre is full of human-sized characters with stupendous STR or capacity to absorb lethal damage, those that are huge are often huge at thier option (Growth). But, when you're dealing with other genres, sure, having the guy with 20 STR be bigger than the guy with 10 is pretty reasonable.


Very weird. And having to sell back 30 points worth of SIZ for the above Brick to be normal sized is kind of hard on that Brick.True. Getting rid of figured characteristics would also be pretty hard on the bricks out there, too, but it is on table (in fact, it's a 'front runner' among changes Steve is likely to make), so it can't be an insurmountable objection. If figureds are in use, then it would only cut into the brick's cost break for high STR and CON, and partially resolve the objection to STR adding to leaping, for instance - possibly providing an alternative to dumping figureds entirely or adjusting the cost of STR. If figureds are used as part of a 'Characteristic Framework' then, if SIZ were included, it would have to be worked into that framework in a balanced way. If they're not used at all, then it's obviously a non-issue - though I'd still think SIZ costing points to increase or decrease would make some sense.

SIZ as a stat figured from STR might, indeed, be a poor idea for supers, among whom size-changing powers are prevelent and STR is often radically decoupled from physical size. For genres that typically call for NCM, there'd be no particular burden to 'buy down size' - most very strong characters would simply be bigger, since they'd only be varying within the human range.

[GamePhil]

Let's please not bring the Great Figured Debate here. Thanks.

[GamePhil]

Introduction
This is a draft of a new Power that allows the Character to have spaces "inside" himself, or possibly inside a nearby object. It is in this thread primarily to be used for Vehicles, but it has other uses. This is not meant to be a full Power write up, but just an outline of how it could work, which should be sufficient for this thread.

Recent changes

Removed reference to the Character's SIZ.
Altered cost.
Added Extra Limbs to the Only For Spaces Limitation.

Internal Spaces
The character has a space within his body that can contain other objects. This space has a SIZ of 2 for every point spent, or approximately 1 cubic meter for 4 points and quadruple that for every 5 points thereafter (a 2m x 2m x 2m volume, or just about the traditional Hero System hex, would be gained at 11 points of Internal Space). Any space beyond the SIZ of the character or other container (such as if it's through a Focus) should be taken as External (see below) or have the No Volume Advantage applied to it.

Being within the Space does not normally eliminate mass, and someone carrying the Space must generally have the STR to carry the contents. Objects in the space gain the container's Defense.

In general, characters within the Spaces are free to move about, but can only leave it if the container allows it or they break free using the rules for Grab against the container's STR. Other methods of escape may be possible depending on special effect. For example, using Lockpicking to get out of a locked car.

Defensive Powers: Any Defensive Powers being used by the container apply to the contents, including Life Support, most Defenses, and Shrinking. Shrinking can be used as an alternative to No Volume/Mass, and also gives the contents of the Space its DCV modifier.

Only For Contents is a -1 Limitation that may be applied to Defensive Powers or to STR (for carrying the mass inside the Space more easily). It can also be applied to Extra Limbs to manipulate objects within the Spaces freely (or initiate Grab Maneuvers directly).

If bought through a Focus, the space could be inside that Focus instead of the character.

Internal Spaces is a Persistent Power, and will frequently be bought Inherent.

No Volume: The Internal Spaces can be a great deal larger than the object containing them. Likewise, things put inside them take up no space in the world, just in the Internal Spaces. It may be necessary for objects to be put in the Spaces be no larger than the container, however. This is a +1/2 Advantage.

No Mass: The container does not need to exert STR to carry what is in the Internal Spaces. This is a +1/2 Advantage.

External: Space associated with a character but not protected by its Defenses can be bought as External for a -1 Limitation.

Examples:
A Bag of Holding can be bought as Internal Space with No Volume, No Mass, through a Focus.

Any vehicle or base that is bigger inside than out could buy Internal Space with No Volume, No Mass.

A base could have grounds that are External Spaces.

A Vehicle could take an amount of Internal Space for passengers and cargo. If it also had some form of flatbed area or similar unprotected cargo space, that could be bought as External.

A character that can trap someone "inside" himself in some way could buy some Internal Space. This could be a form of extra-dimensional containment, swallowing the target whole, or simply stretching around the victim.

[GamePhil]

It may be appropriate for Size to be Figured when using the Characteristic Framework concept: a species of pure brain might get bigger as they have a higher INT, while a Deep One (who, I'm told, never stop growing) might get larger without bound based on BODY. I don't believe it should be added to the Framework for Humans in most games, but I could see adding for specific settings.

I still believe that in general SIZ would be Primary, however, and most of its benefit would come from Figured Characteristics based on it. I also don't like the idea that you have to "buy it away from base" whichever direction you go.

However, I see it working if and only if the Characteristic Framework is actually adopted into the game. Otherwise, it associates a specific special effect to Characteristics far more than any of the current Figured Characteristics do, which is the entire point of changing the relationship in the first place.

[GamePhil]

Assumptions

The minimum Characteristic is 1, 0 indicating the lack of the Characteristic.
There are no Figured Characteristics.
The Characteristic starts at 10.
There have to be benefits to buying it up, and a net drawback to buying it down.


Altered Premises
On the last pass, I was attempting to have a smooth, logarithmic increase from 1 to infinity. This is giving me characters getting too large by 20, and ridiculous sizes by 30, to be reasonably close to human. If I change the formula to bring them more in line, then small characters won't be all that small. There simply needs to be some compression at the low end to make it work.

In addition, with the very reasonable possibility of eliminating the Hex as a unit of measurement, there is less reason to abstract Reach. It can be a significant penalty to small characters that they can't reach as far, so perhaps that will be enough.

Basics
Cost: 1 point
Base: 10

SIZ 0: The character has either minute or even non-existent mass and volume. He has no Reach, and must be already touching a target to hit it in HTH combat. He may have a number of Powers to simulate aspects of his size not covered by the Characteristic.

SIZ 1-10: The character is up to 10 kg per level of SIZ. He measures .2 m in height per SIZ, and .1m in width and depth per SIZ (Alternatively, .2 m in longest measurement and .1 m in the other two, or an equivalent in volume).

SIZ 11+: Every five points of SIZ doubles mass, while each 15 doubles proportions/volume. Alternatively, five points of SIZ can double one proportion as well as doubling mass. Each point over a multiple of 5 increases Mass by a further 20%, until the next multiple is reached. That is, a SIZ 11 is up to 120 kg, SIZ 17 is 280 kg, and so on.

Effects
Knockback: In a game using Knockback, a 100kg object will be knocked back acording to the normal rules. Each halving of mass will increase distance traveled by 1", while each doubling will decrease distance traveled by 1". However, this change in distance traveled does not affect damage, as momentum is assumed to be the same (please don't bring up the real physics), except in cases where the large character takes 0" or no knockback.
Reach: Most characters will have a reach of .2 m per SIZ up to 10, x2 per 15 full points of SIZ thereafter.
DCV: Large characters will suffer a -2 DCV for every 15 points of SIZ over 10 they have.
Perception: Large characters take a -2 to Stealth and Concealment rolls to hide them for every 15 points of SIZ over 10.
Small characters do not get a bonus to DCV or Perception, as such a bonus would be taken at -5 SIZ. Also, it is meant to be worth points to sell back SIZ.
STR: The character is considered to have a bonus/penalty of SIZ-10 to STR. If SIZ is changed, STR is changed proportionally.

Notes

Things to possibly add: Optional rules for "scale changes" altering CV, giving the effect of Area of Effect, or changing Movement rates.
I'm not entirely satisfied with Reach. Specifically, I'm not sure about making things that are big but have little Reach take a Disadvantage, much as I don't care for high STR low Leaping characters taking same.
It may be necessary to just dump both the penalties for being large and the extra STR, leaving the primary effect to be increased Reach, but again I wanted big creatures to be easy to hit without needing to take a Disadvantage to simulate it.
Alternatively, being small size may need to be beefed up if the STR penalty is kept. If the other drawbacks to being small are worth the points you get, or some percentage thereof, clearly the penalty to STR must be at least partially counterbalanced.

[Opal]

Reach: Most characters will have a reach of .2 m per SIZ up to 10, x2 per 5 full points of SIZ thereafter.Per 5 points or 15? DCV: Large characters will suffer a -2 DCV for every 15 points of SIZ over 10 they have. Perception: Large characters take a -2 to Stealth and Concealment rolls to hide them for every 15 points of SIZ over 10.That's a pretty substantial negative. A level with DCV is worth 5, one with Stealth/Concealment/Shadowing 3.STR: The character is considered to have a bonus/penalty of SIZ-10 to STR. If SIZ is changed, STR is changed proportionally.
So +15 points of SIZ gets you something aproximating -16 pts in levels, +15 pts in STR, and reach?

Works very much like Growth, then. Without the BOD & STN bonus, but also without the END cost. You could reconstruct Growth with a simple Size (costs END).

Aparently you can't re-construct shrinking from SIZ, though, you'd have to work in levels, as well - offset by selling back your SIZ, perhaps?


Things to possibly add: Optional rules for "scale changes" altering CV, giving the effect of Area of Effect, or changing Movement rates.I'm really liking the idea of a 'scale change' option or power or something. Like megascale, it'd make it easier to do the very large.

[GamePhil]

Per 5 points or 15?


15. Fixed it.


That's a pretty substantial negative. A level with DCV is worth 5, one with Stealth/Concealment/Shadowing 3.
So +15 points of SIZ gets you something aproximating -16 pts in levels, +15 pts in STR, and reach?

Works very much like Growth, then. Without the BOD & STN bonus, but also without the END cost. You could reconstruct Growth with a simple Size (costs END).


That's pretty much what I was going for. Haven't worked out the rest.


Aparently you can't re-construct shrinking from SIZ, though, you'd have to work in levels, as well - offset by selling back your SIZ, perhaps?


Shrinking is troublesome, unfortunately, given the assumptions made in developing the Characteristic. It becomes easier with "buy in either direction SIZ", but that breaks my assumptions since logically that should mean Humans are a 0 SIZ. Or something like that.


I'm really liking the idea of a 'scale change' option or power or something. Like megascale, it'd make it easier to do the very large.

I do, too, but nothing's come to mind. I'd prefer a smooth progression of SIZ into "another scale", but that may not be possible. I'm still mulling over Mr. Mullin's PDF and some talk on the Environment thread.

[schir1964]

New Power Discussion: Manipulation...
Here's some of the work I've done on this subject.
Mechanic: Limbs
Mechanic: Manipulation
Idea Feedback: Manipulation
Analysis: Extra Limbs or SFX?
Mechanic: Reach

As you can see, I've been mulling this concept over for a while now.

- Christopher Mullins

[Opal]

Shrinking is troublesome, unfortunately, given the assumptions made in developing the Characteristic. It becomes easier with "buy in either direction SIZ", but that breaks my assumptions.... Yeah, it's tough. I never liked that Shrinking's major bonuses went on forever. So I wouldn't want negative SIZ, either.


I do, too, but nothing's come to mind. I'd prefer a smooth progression of SIZ into "another scale", but that may not be possible. I'm still mulling over Mr. Mullin's PDF and some talk on the Environment thread. On the small side, SIZ 1-10 could represent the range of human size, from infants and the otherwise very small, up to average (which isn't 1 hex), with a 'scale change' kicking in for the very small, who would first take thier siz down to 1. Perhaps, upward 'scale changes' could kick in at the campaign max on SIZ?

[GamePhil]

Well, you're what, a thousand times stronger than a normal person, is being 64x his size really that outrageous? But, no I suspect the stat wouldn't be used that way, or perhaps not used at all in games that don't feature NCM. The supers genre is full of human-sized characters with stupendous STR or capacity to absorb lethal damage, those that are huge are often huge at thier option (Growth). But, when you're dealing with other genres, sure, having the guy with 20 STR be bigger than the guy with 10 is pretty reasonable.


I've never cared for the Heroic/Superheroic split, myself, but I suppose if it exists adding another difference wouldn't hurt much. 4x more massive for a maximized human still seems excessive, however, so the scales might have to be changed, also.


True. Getting rid of figured characteristics would also be pretty hard on the bricks out there, too, but it is on table (in fact, it's a 'front runner' among changes Steve is likely to make), so it can't be an insurmountable objection.


Perfectly fair. However, while my opinion of it isn't the crucial one, the two situations are the same: I'd prefer to see the change improve the game without affecting the current balances too much. I'm not seeing a way to do that with your proposal for SIZ. Doesn't mean there aren't any, I suppose a 1/2 cost for buying it down wouldn't be too horrible.

The rest deleted because I talked about it somewhere or other.

[GamePhil]

I forgot to mention: the SIZ write-ups here are mainly a kind of "proof of concept" to show that the cost I am assigning could be about right. I feel pretty comfortable with the cost at 1 with that last build, but significantly less so with the build itself. Still, I had to have something for the Incomplete examples.

That largely goes for everything written up here that isn't in the rules, but SIZ is proving to be more troublesome than most.

[Opal]

4x more massive for a maximized human still seems excessive, however, so the scales might have to be changed, also.I think just changing the base line would probably do: 6'2" and 220 lbs is a bit much for SIZ 10, if 10 is, indeed, supposed to be human average (as a superheroic average, it may not have been far off).

[GamePhil]

I think just changing the base line would probably do: 6'2" and 220 lbs is a bit much for SIZ 10, if 10 is, indeed, supposed to be human average (as a superheroic average, it may not have been far off).

I was actually considering 10 to be 2m and 220 lbs, while 8 is closer to real human average, to be in line with other Characteristics where 8 is "normal" and 10 is what PCs usually start with. Coincedentally in keeping with your formula. I really think a different progression would be necessary to make it work smoothly.

[schir1964]

I'm still mulling over Mr. Mullin's PDF and some talk on the Environment thread.
If you like I might be able to find the old spreadsheet we used to create the charts and to generate the values.

Also, someone else had discussed at one time about having a Scale type modifier that was used to represent different size characters. The big thing about that concept was that everything it affected would be scaled up and down, including the damage done by powers. You still rolled the same damage dice, but the resulting value was scaled based on your size. They didn't have anything written down at the time, and I never got to see any details on it as I recall.

- Christopher Mullins

[GamePhil]

Characteristics Sold Back
All Characteristics are sold back.
Points Gained: 208

Other Abilities
8 External Spaces, 32 SIZ (about 4 5ER hexes), External (-1)
41 Walls: (Total: 114 Active Cost, 41 Real Cost) Force Wall (2 PD/2 ED; 8" long and 1" tall), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; restores Force Wall immediately when breached; +1) (72 Active Points); Immobile (-1), Linked (Entangle; Power only covers areas where Entangle still has BODY; -1/4) (Real Cost: 32) <b>plus</b> Entangle 2 BODY, 0 DEF (Larger Wall (+6"), Stops A Given Sense Normal Hearing, Stops A Given Sense Normal Sight) (42 Active Points); No Defense (-1 1/2), Only To Form Barriers (-1), Requires Time And Effort To Rebuild Walls (-1) (Real Cost: 9)

Total Cost: 49
Unspent Points: 159

Notes
Yes, the Base has an extra 208 points over what you get for putting points into it. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature just yet. Certainly, I've felt in the past that an effective Base was far more expensive than it needed to be, so it may be that it will work out with a couple of examples.
The Walls example I used is amazingly clunky and convoluted, and all to make something that works almost like walls do in Hero. To me, this indicates one of two things, or possibly both: that there should be a Power that lets you easily build a wall, or that walls should work more like existing Powers (unless versionitis is getting me, they work something like Force Walls, but block whole dice per Body and Defense even if breached).
I didn't just use an Entangle because Entangles only stop a certain amount of Stun whether they are breached or not, which is not logical for what I'm modeling. If a wall made by an Entangle is made to work more like what I'm modeling, it's actually a pretty simple matter (if it already works this way in 5ER, let me know and I'll change it, I recall no such reference).

[GamePhil]

I'm thinking 0 STR could, in addition to having no ability to apply physical force, also indicate the ability to apply only insignificant physical force. So an ant would have a STR of 0 in a human-centric world, though scale changes might change that. In an insect world, an ant might be mighty, indeed.

[Chris Goodwin]

In fact, maybe Class of Body could be a useful concept to add.

Classes of Body: Living, Undead, Spirit, Animate Machine, Inanimate Machine, Inanimate Object.

Living: Encompasses humans, animals, aliens. Possesses all stats.

Undead: Animated dead things. Skeletons, zombies, liches, etc. Possesses all stats except CON, END, REC, and STUN. Must buy END Reserve if it has Powers that use END. Does not suffer from STUN effects. Edit: Must buy Does Not Take STUN.

Spirit: Ghosts, other spirits built using (or not) the Spirits rules, or the Incomplete rules. Possesses DEX, INT, EGO, PRE, SPD. Could potentially possess "spirit" versions of the physical stats, in the event "spirit plane" combat is handled with an analogue of physical world combat.

Animate Machine: Robots, androids; any machine that could potentially be treated as a player character. Computers and AIs could be considered animate machines. Objects with a mind of some kind and a power source. Possesses minimum of DEX, INT, SPD, plus BODY, either PD and ED or rDEF. Potentially could possess STR, CON, EGO, PRE, END, REC, STUN. Edit: Must buy Does Not Take STUN if it does not suffer from STUN effects.

Inanimate Machine: Vehicles, firearms. Mindless objects with moving parts and/or power sources. Possesses minimum of BODY, PD and ED or rDEF. Could possess STR.

Inanimate Object: Doors, rocks, buildings. Corpses, unless you want to create a "Formerly Living" Class. Mindless objects with few or no moving parts and/or no power sources. BODY and PD/ED or rDEF. Could conceivably possess a STR score (a table might), but doesn't have DEX, CON, INT, EGO, PRE, SPD, REC, END, or STUN.

So, after some more thought, I'm wondering if axes wouldn't be better. Do these work, or do they add too much complexity (i.e. save them for the toolkitting chapter/book)?

Living vs. Dead vs. Nonliving: Living possesses a life force of some kind. Dead is something formerly living, and more or less unprocessed. Nonliving is an object of some kind. Humans, Silicon-based Life Forms are Living. Corpses, vampires, and zombies are Dead. Rocks, tables, and legs of lamb are Nonliving. Turning something from Dead to Nonliving requires at most a Cosmetic Transform and can often be done without using a Power at all (which is why leg of lamb is Nonliving and not Dead).

Sapient vs. Sentient vs. Nonsentient. Does it have a mind? Humans are sapient; cats are sentient but not sapient; rocks are neither. Computers might be considered Sapient but nonsentient.

Animate vs. Inanimate: Does the entity move under its own power? Stone golems and Vehicles are Animate; stone statues and Bases are Inanimate.

Being vs. Machine vs. Object: A being is "life as we know it." Humans, cats, aliens, and vampires (despite being Dead) are beings. An object is simple, totally unliving, a thing of some kind. Tables, corpses, and rocks are objects. A machine is complex, with moving parts and/or a power source of some kind. Computers, Vehicles, and robots are machines. A Base is considered a machine as well.

Some examples:

Human: Living, Sapient, Animate Being

Vampire: Dead, Sapient, Animate Being

Zombie: Dead, Sentient, Animate Being

Skeleton: Dead, Nonsentient, Animate Being

Sea Anemone: Living, Nonsentient, Inanimate Being.

Robots In Disguise: Living, Sapient, Animate Machine.

Vehicle: Nonliving, Nonsentient, Animate Machine.

Computer: Nonliving, Sapient, Inanimate Machine.

You could also apply a "flavor" to any of these; Humans and Aliens might both be Living, Sapient, Animate Being, but Humans would have the "Human" and/or "Terran" flavors, while Reticulans might have "Alien" and "Reptilian".

Edit: I just realized that adding "flavors" to the "mind" portion of this yields something like the current Classes of Mind.

[GamePhil]

Sapient vs. Sentient vs. Nonsentient. Does it have a mind? Humans are sapient; cats are sentient but not sapient; rocks are neither. Computers might be considered Sapient but nonsentient.


How are you defining sentient and sapient? I wouldn't have thought computers would be either, or might be sentient but not sapient.

I do like the idea overall, it's more complex than Classes of Mind (unlike Classes of Body, which is the same complexity but applied differently), but allows more different effects and descriptions, as well. I think Mental Powers, which is the main thing that would apply, would go against one axis of that to determine if it was effective, or maybe two.

[Chris Goodwin]

How are you defining sentient and sapient? I wouldn't have thought computers would be either, or might be sentient but not sapient.

Sapient means thinking; sentient means feeling, more or less. Most people use "sentient" when they mean "sapient". It's more likely a computer would be sapient than sentient. (Maybe I should have made that set of options "Sapient, Sentient, Both, Neither.")

I do like the idea overall, it's more complex than Classes of Mind (unlike Classes of Body, which is the same complexity but applied differently), but allows more different effects and description