WARNING - LONG POST - but I think this is actually rather interesting...
A while back I toyed with a "Universal" Power Framework construction. I was trying to back into the current ones via some singular unifying system whereby you could group powers with various EC/MP/VPP capabilities under a single framework, but with no serious recosting involved. That was all well and good, but generally unsatisfying.
Here's why: I believe, upon reflection, the fundamental flaws common to the existing power frameworks is that the powers are all discounted according to a framework system that does not so clearly reflect reasoning-by-effect and that framework system also does not relate well to the existing advantage/disadvantage system. It deliberately "breaks" that largely through ignoring it. And as such, much as Gary posited for ECs, perhaps we can/should eliminate the frameworks AS SUCH but rather explore the various advantages and limitations that would allow us to properly cost-balance collections of powers which are linked in the ways these frameworks link. The advantage would be that we could build those links in any way we want with any granularity we need - which is a more toolkit/HERO approach philosophically, I believe.
Here's a few thoughts, and would be interested in other input (starting with the most contentious, EC, and to be fair Gary's already done/provoked a lot of work on this)...
ECs suffer most egregiously through this confusion of how to reason by effect back to the framework. I think if we examine, as we must with the other frameworks, the actual game effects, for the EC as defined by the rules we have a list such as:
- powers must inherently link for Drain and other such power adjustment effects
- powers must cost END
- powers must be in a certain power range
- powers must share common SFX
- powers may not be combined in a multi-power attack
- any power skill may apply to all if so defined
- other, more metagame, considerations, fewer powers in an EC give less of a costbreak than more powers; there is a minimum cost to be in an EC
In theory, we should be able to apply limitations and advantages to reflect each condition except possibly the more metagame-oriented ones. Certainly we can cost and apply an "Inherently linked for Drain and other such purposes" limitation. And that value has been debated before. I'd say -1/4 is a fairly appropriate value, personally, although I know I've argued higher values. But the more you add, the more munchkiny it is, so while having all your eggs in that basket really does limit you more than the -1/4 implies, I'd be willing to accept that -1/4 should be the standard value and any variations are getting away from the inclination of the HERO system, requiring GM intervention.
As to "powers costing no END", a trickier proposition. My assumption is that as this is a balancing condition because EC grants an overall cost-break. Therefore, if we can achieve a correct collection of advantage and limitations to allow for building appropriately balanced linkages, this shouldn't matter - any character with a power with END will already have paid a correct cost for the package benefits.
The trickiest part is this whole issue of belonging to range of power values with an EC. Is there a metagame limitiation, "Must not cost more than <x> more points than lowest linked power" where <x> relates to the value of the advantage?? That's clunky, but that's what EC is effectively doing in part. My feeling is that we ought to get away from this idea entirely, that it is itself a basis for problems with EC (the old, "I can't add this small power but it fits otherwise" dilemma). Again, I really believe if we cost the other aspects correclty, this one falls into line. And the major question is the scalability and the weakness of building a character who has many eggs in a single basket (whether EC or MP). So to add a thought for a moment, taking a necessary tangent...
we basically now allow for a new Disad - "Character powers function predictably" which is also a way of saying "Overly Cohesive Character" or such. Call it what you will (and it needs a better name), this Disad comes into play according to the number of points in linked powers as a percent of the total points of the character, but not in a formula as such. Perhaps there could be a guideline, fine, but I think it is necessarily GM discretion as to how to determine the magnitude. Anyway, the magnitudes would run:
1 - Character is virtually helpless without his framework(s) of linked powers: 15 points
2 - Character is seriously limited but can either attack, defend, or move (only one of the three) effectively (but not with great effect) without his framework(s) of linked powers: 10 points
3 - Character is seriously limited but can perform any two of the following three effectively (but not with great effect) without his framework(s) of linked powers: attack, defend, move. 5 points.
This is modified in several ways. If there is more than one linked framework factored into the above, -5 automatically. Also it is heavily related to the likelihood of the framework(s) being affected:
1 - Very Common - +5
2 - Common - +0
3 - Uncommon - -5
I think the character Disadvantage approach to frameworks should be taken seriously by HERO players/the company. It eliminates a LOT of confusion over what the point gains are for as it makes the character impact CLEAR. However, we've not witnessed it tested so it requires considerable playtesting, so I am only saying to take it seriously - not that it necessarily works. But I think the concept is strong and if other corrections are made we might be able to stop worrying quite as much about how scaleable MPs and ECs are, if not VPPs.
As to powers sharing common SFX, I'd say personally that's -1/4, a small value. The real issue and debate is whether even that is warranted - I know philosophically many would simply rail that any character should have SFX that more closely relate his character. So I would point out an important rationale, and one which should be both orthodox philosophically as well as practically useful: the old fallback, a limitation not actually limiting a power is worth 0 points. So the point here is that the limitation really is "Shares commonly understood or commonly exploitable SFX." Yes, note that choice of words. The point is that the character gets a -1/4 specifically for his SFX being predictable and known to be common among his power set. That is critical. Without that actual game effect, this is not a limitation.
So if we even just pause here and do no more, thinking of our old friend EC, we can use the above limitations and the character disad to rearchitect such that EC as such may not exist but can be EASILY simulated with GRANULAR effects. I'm not proposing these are the right values - but as we step through I hope it becomes apparent that it may be a viable approach that is ultimately SIMPLER and MORE flexible than ECs are.
Powers may not be combined for MPA - hmm, this is a tad trickier, particularly as it bears on the way MPs currently work. So I'd like to defer that for a bit and discuss it in context with MPs at the same time. I'd also like to discuss that in the context of "when is a collection of Powers a power", which bears on MP.
Applying a single power skill to the collection seems at first glance to be an advantage. Or is this a sort of freebie compensatory situation where powers are linked "inherently"? Purchasing an advantage of +1/4 will often cost more than just buying the Power skill separately over again - but not necessarily if the power skill roll is bought sufficiently high. Also, if we read the FAQ, the FAQ actually states:
Okay, so basically, the attribution of Power Skill to EC is nothing more than what the FAQ indicates should be "typical". Ergo, I say that there is no further limitation/advantage to be applied. The existence of the promotion of Power Skill for EC and the lack of such explicit mention for MP or VPP is merely a clarity issue and not a rules issue per se: they took the time to clarify Power Skill with EC as ECs necessarily are united SFX, whereas MP and VPP might be "wigglier" about that (e.g., a loose VPP might require different skills to wield the Powers employed).Q: Does a character have to buy a Power Skill for each power he has (EB, Flight, Force Field, and so on), or can he just buy one Skill for a group of powers based on special effect or some other factor (e.g., Flame Powers)?
A: That’s up to the GM, but typically characters should be allowed to buy one Skill with a group of powers linked by a special effect (such as Strength Tricks, Flame Powers, Ice Powers, or Mystic Powers). Similarly, a wizard in a Fantasy Hero campaign typically buys one Power Skill, Magic, for all his spells, not an individual Skill for each spell.
As to more or less powers belonging to a framework and the cost issue, I am also deferring that for the MP discussion coming right up...
MPs....yes, what do they do?
- they more heavily regulate how much power you can use of any single member power within the Framework, assuring that there's a limit
But really, isn't that about "all" they do? There are not the same requirements as for ECs, the powers do not have to be related in precisely the same way, thus the prohibitions are different. You can construct an MP with fewer specific limitations (in theory, the SFX could even be widely varying and sometimes are as in Batman's utilibelt, the unifying factor being "merely' focus-related).
But the cost issue is real. Essentially it is a limiting pool. I don't believe this can be well-modeled with advantages and limitations per se, we definitely need a "framework". Unlike EC, our very real framework is HOW MUCH power we can use at a time, not which powers. Well - not quite. EC's anti-multiple power attack rule indicates a sort of MP-like construction that borders on the Fixed Slot concept. This is where we're butting heads against the "Powers that are really a single power" concept. But even that concept is difficult.
ECs purport that their member Powers are all part of a single power. MPs do not exactly do that, and neither really do VPPs. Both MPs and VPPs may have Powers which are unrelated EXCEPT the degree to which they may be used at one time. Often, for gadgeteers, the powers employed are very different in SFX, sharing, perhaps, merely a vague "equipment that could be built according to the campaign world's realism" basis. Certainly that's the case with the utilibelt.
Mutants and Materminds addresses the notion of power level and power congruency with a fascinating idea that you can define a group of powers merely by adding a bunch of powers as "Extras" onto a base power.
HERO for characters and in MultiPowers has presumed that 1/5 is a "fair" value for building one character or power based entirely on another. So let's merely extend that in a way internally consistent for HERO but noting that as M&M indicates there are Powers that collected are a single power and some are not. So we now have a "Related Power" power. It's paid for at 1 per 5 Active Points and cannot exceed the power that is given as its basis. It will serve as our basis for replacing all 3 frameworks. And the above limitations are additional to it, please note.
Now that doesn't answer the all-or-nothing multi-power and such issues. I say that all-or-nothing POWER LEVEL is a +3/4 limitation, and it does NOT mean the power must be used at maximum value, rather than when it is, it takes up that much power usage; a +1 limitation may be applied for a true "must be used at max" which I believe is the orthodox limtiation. I feel that while this does not arrive at Multipower's 1/10 value, it gets very close, and it best expresses the real relationship, with the +1 still available, and, besides, let's face that multpowers will often get a few +1/4s from above - but also may not.
Not sure if the math adds up - these are really just thoughts...
So that leaves VPP - which to me is a way of saying that your "Related Power" can be any power and as such it's not 1/5 points, instead it's a +1/2 advantage to the base power and all resulting powers MUST be based on that power!
Okay, that last one is just a toss-out, but an interesting one to start from -
any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
<!-- I kid, looks interesting -->
Bookmarks