Meta Rule Number 6

[Aroooo]

Just wanted to remind us all of Rule #6:

"If two powers (or other game elements) are equally valid ways to create a particular ability, you must use the more expensive of the two."

Actually, all 8 rules are a good read from time to time. Page 348.

Aroooo
(okay, you can flame me now...)

[keithcurtis]

Ahh, but you can endlessly quibble over which is more "valid".

Keith "no flame hotter than a kitchen match" Curtis

[Doug Limmer]

If you take Rule #6 too literally, then you wouldn't by the power Armor at all, but rather Force Field with 0 End, Persistent, and Invisible Power Effects.

I'd include the idea of how simple/straightforward a construction is as part of the word "valid".

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Doug Limmer
If you take Rule #6 too literally, then you wouldn't by the power Armor at all, but rather Force Field with 0 End, Persistent, and Invisible Power Effects.

I'd include the idea of how simple/straightforward a construction is as part of the word "valid".

True. Valid also applies to the SFX and character concept in question.

Aroooo

[Derek Hiemforth]

I think people worry too much about the meaning of metarule 6, to be honest. I think it's just there to say, "If you're trying to simulate an effect, you're not sure exactly how it "should" be done, and you're considering multiple ways of building it, then you can most safely avoid potential abuse by going with the most expensive way."

For example, let's say you're building a teleporter, and you want to give them the trick of sticking their arm through a mini-spacewarp and punching people (from any direction) up to a certain distance away. You have STR of course, and you also buy Stretching. Stretching has some Indirect aspects by default, but this effect is really Indirect, so you decide you should apply the Advantage. What do you apply it to? STR or Stretching? There are logical arguments for either one.

This is where metarule 6 becomes useful. If you're not sure, apply it to whichever one is more expensive.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
I think people worry too much about the meaning of metarule 6, to be honest. I think it's just there to say, "If you're trying to simulate an effect, you're not sure exactly how it "should" be done, and you're considering multiple ways of building it, then you can most safely avoid potential abuse by going with the most expensive way."

And that, or something like it, would probably be a better thing to put in later editions. I don't know how anyone would misconstrue this explanation.

default, but this effect is really Indirect, so you decide you should apply the Advantage. What do you apply it to? STR or Stretching? There are logical arguments for either one.

This is where metarule 6 becomes useful. If you're not sure, apply it to whichever one is more expensive.

Must...not...pick...tangential...nits!

Oh, who am I kidding?

Isn't that already a function of the Stretching Advantage, Does Not Cross Intervening Space? The two dimensional portals thing is one of the examples for it.

[JmOz]

METARULE 6 IS BROKEN

Okay had to say that. It makes no sense, as I can ALWAYS make a power more expensive (why use metascale, NCM with a -1/4 lim no fine control works just as well, and can be much higher, or for that matter buy strait movement)

I beleive in the concept of simplicity of design, if I can use one power to simulate something with no advantages (or adders) or Lims, cool, if it takes 3 advantages one way and 7 advantages another way go with 3, even if 3 is cheeper

So metarule 6, is useless to me.

[austenandrews]

I agree with JmOz on this one.

-AA

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by JmOz
I beleive in the concept of simplicity of design, if I can use one power to simulate something with no advantages (or adders) or Lims, cool, if it takes 3 advantages one way and 7 advantages another way go with 3, even if 3 is cheeper.

Good point. I forgot to mention that last night, although I did imply that in the TUV anchors thread.

Aroooo

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by JmOz
I beleive in the concept of simplicity of design

So do I. Pointing out that you can stack up baroque constructs that are more expensive than simple ones does not invalidate metarule 6, because such obviously contrived constructs can't be reasonably argued to be "equally valid."

Build it the most logical or elegant way. If (and only if) you're not sure what the most logical or elegant way is, or if you have multiple ways that seem equally logical or elegant, then (and only then) you're best off using the most expensive one in order to avoid potential abuse.

[JmOz]

Of course my examples were constructed to be overly obvious (In order to drive home the absurdity of Metarule 6), but here is a more tame one I have encountered:

I wanted a character who could generate a persistant FF. Some people said built it as a 0 end FF Persistent (2 advantages, +1), but instead I chose to do it as Armor: visible (one -1/4 lim), people will debate on what was the "right way" according to rule 6 I did wrong, but the other way is more complicated. Furthermore as far as game balance goes it is closer inline (IMHO)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by JmOz
Of course my examples were constructed to be overly obvious (In order to drive home the absurdity of Metarule 6), but here is a more tame one I have encountered:

Unfortunately, the creation of absurd examples is a logically flawed argument. I wish I could remember the Latin: reducio ad absurdum? But that's neither here nor there, the point is that if you take anything to an absurd extreme it will be, by definition, absurd.

I wanted a character who could generate a persistant FF. Some people said built it as a 0 end FF Persistent (2 advantages, +1), but instead I chose to do it as Armor: visible (one -1/4 lim), people will debate on what was the "right way" according to rule 6 I did wrong, but the other way is more complicated. Furthermore as far as game balance goes it is closer inline (IMHO)

However, here Armor is the more valid construct, so Rule 6 doesn't apply because they are not equally valid. It fits exactly what you want without tweaking.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by GamePhil
However, here Armor is the more valid construct, so Rule 6 doesn't apply because they are not equally valid. It fits exactly what you want without tweaking.

And the problem in this construction is not metarule 6... it's the cost of Armor. Once you start letting people take Visible (and especially letting them take Costs Endurance) on Armor, then you might as well get rid of Force Field, because no one in their right mind would buy it.

Why would I buy this:

20PD/20ED Force Field -- 40 points

When I could buy this:

20PD/20ED Armor, Costs Endurance (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) -- 34 points.

The cost relationships between Armor, Force Field, and PD/ED/Damage Resistance are messed up, IMO. It really would make more sense to combine these into a single Defense power that could be customized with Advantages and Limitations like Resistant and Costs END and Visible, etc.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
And the problem in this construction is not metarule 6... it's the cost of Armor.

That, too.

[Southern Cross]

Of course,if you state that all Powers built with the "Costs END" Limitation are Visible by default,Armor with the "Costs END" Limitation has the same Real Cost as an equally-effective Force Field.