zornwil
Jun 9th, '08, 04:16 PM
I apologize in advance for not breaking this up into the various threads.
On the plus side, this will be quite short, for me!
I prefer to concentrate on the broad strokes here...
First and foremost, simplify. I'm not sure this needs to be said; I think the notion of looking up or memorizing a slew of exceptions and niche rules makes no real sense when in-play we want to be both certain and swift in judgement. Why the "core" rules - the rules the average every-day gamer plays by - should be split into 2 volumes is beyond me. The beauty and strength of Champions, which decreased - largely unnecessarily - with each edition (though I don't disagree editions fixed specific problems and of course the scope expanded) was its internal consistency. It was quite possible to extrapolate easily from that core. Sidekick is a great model here and requires only rather insigificant "growth" to be just as useful as 600+ pages of 6th. I am not against 2 volumes of "expanded" rules if that adds some sort of value, academic fun, or simple minutiae for those who like a lot of ideas and possibly guidance; but I'd orient those more towards "ideas" than "core rules." And I will repeat an old idea, you can print rules arcana in some volume yearly. Concentrate on the ways to extrapolate from the core, what decisions are simple group consensus, what by GM fiat, and/or what decisions are specific in concrete rules.
But mainly, get the balance and points right. If we build characters on points and then say "points don't matter"....well, that's simply illogical. I would rather strive to make dramatic changes that make points work well than not. The embedding of SFX, the messiness of "this cancels a power out but the points values don't scale," through to rather dubious framework discounts create an undue complexity and leave the game far too open to manipulation and arbitrary results in execution. Perhaps moving towards an effect-based system would work better; of course 5 points per 1d6 is the magic reference point... Fixing this will also allow GMs to much more easily plan opposition; other RPGS - dare we say that really big one - have focused on this, and while it's not easy, I'd argue it's necessary to assure a lack of in-game frustration as well as simply a wonderful service allowing anyone to pick up this game and figure out how to run it even with 6 500 point superheroes.
SPD is tough. Perhaps a push-pull system where players and GM nemesis share what SPD is possible from a pool of available SPD pips would work to allow for balance. Also, you could allow players to shift SPDs throughout a combat, trading them, allowing for rather important dramatic shifts . Just a notion. I was thinking about SPD and balance a lot after discussing briefly with Steve at DDC. Unlike some, I like SPD, but it does require to be in this pool of balancing somehow. I'm not positive you can do it with points alone, thus the notion of a pool of SPD which gets divvied by mutual agreement; it isn't balanced per se, but works across player expectations. Obviously players could horsetrade for this and we probably still need guidelines of equivalence of some sort.
None of these changes should or are intended to change the game from being a task-resolution, points-driven game representing the cinematic aspects of action-adventure.
Feel free to please lock this thread so this doesn't take off into needlessly rehashing what's been said before. I just wanted to get my own 2 cents in, and that's all.
Steve, Darren, everybody, I wish you the best of luck!
On the plus side, this will be quite short, for me!
I prefer to concentrate on the broad strokes here...
First and foremost, simplify. I'm not sure this needs to be said; I think the notion of looking up or memorizing a slew of exceptions and niche rules makes no real sense when in-play we want to be both certain and swift in judgement. Why the "core" rules - the rules the average every-day gamer plays by - should be split into 2 volumes is beyond me. The beauty and strength of Champions, which decreased - largely unnecessarily - with each edition (though I don't disagree editions fixed specific problems and of course the scope expanded) was its internal consistency. It was quite possible to extrapolate easily from that core. Sidekick is a great model here and requires only rather insigificant "growth" to be just as useful as 600+ pages of 6th. I am not against 2 volumes of "expanded" rules if that adds some sort of value, academic fun, or simple minutiae for those who like a lot of ideas and possibly guidance; but I'd orient those more towards "ideas" than "core rules." And I will repeat an old idea, you can print rules arcana in some volume yearly. Concentrate on the ways to extrapolate from the core, what decisions are simple group consensus, what by GM fiat, and/or what decisions are specific in concrete rules.
But mainly, get the balance and points right. If we build characters on points and then say "points don't matter"....well, that's simply illogical. I would rather strive to make dramatic changes that make points work well than not. The embedding of SFX, the messiness of "this cancels a power out but the points values don't scale," through to rather dubious framework discounts create an undue complexity and leave the game far too open to manipulation and arbitrary results in execution. Perhaps moving towards an effect-based system would work better; of course 5 points per 1d6 is the magic reference point... Fixing this will also allow GMs to much more easily plan opposition; other RPGS - dare we say that really big one - have focused on this, and while it's not easy, I'd argue it's necessary to assure a lack of in-game frustration as well as simply a wonderful service allowing anyone to pick up this game and figure out how to run it even with 6 500 point superheroes.
SPD is tough. Perhaps a push-pull system where players and GM nemesis share what SPD is possible from a pool of available SPD pips would work to allow for balance. Also, you could allow players to shift SPDs throughout a combat, trading them, allowing for rather important dramatic shifts . Just a notion. I was thinking about SPD and balance a lot after discussing briefly with Steve at DDC. Unlike some, I like SPD, but it does require to be in this pool of balancing somehow. I'm not positive you can do it with points alone, thus the notion of a pool of SPD which gets divvied by mutual agreement; it isn't balanced per se, but works across player expectations. Obviously players could horsetrade for this and we probably still need guidelines of equivalence of some sort.
None of these changes should or are intended to change the game from being a task-resolution, points-driven game representing the cinematic aspects of action-adventure.
Feel free to please lock this thread so this doesn't take off into needlessly rehashing what's been said before. I just wanted to get my own 2 cents in, and that's all.
Steve, Darren, everybody, I wish you the best of luck!