I like it a lot (though I'm biased
), but, yeah, I think we need to think about costs. Before doing so here's a few thoughts, somewhat random at the moment:
1 - This could do well in eliminating the "EC controversy" while it provides for a pool with slots that seems like it would allow the same functionality, just much more clearly and consistently
2 - It does (finally) allow us to effectively group MP, VPP, and EC sorts of slots/powers in a consistent manner, which is what I'd really like to see (in fact, the "stand-alone" nature of EC and MP is, IMHO, a major disconnect that allows for more abusive play, even if generally players/GMs strive to ensure appropriateness so in actual play I'm not contending abuse is widespread - but that's "despite" the disconnect in EC/MP, not because of it)
3 - What I really like: this more clearly than my first take expands on the MP construct which is the most accepted of the 3 frameworks and has significant community "buy-in"
4 - What i also like - it more strongly suggests higher character consistency on the whole, without unduly demanding it. In fact that is a bit buried in the example; I suggest doing something stronger (will elaborate below)
5 - As stated above by zebediah, there's no "switching" governance, and given the tradition of VPP, that might be in order
6 - I find the distinction between Fundamental and Universal most interesting. The Fundamental is "sort of" like a hybrid EC/VPP, where the effect is narrow enough it is sort of like a -1 "Very Limited Class of Powers" but its also kin to the EC concept; but it really borrows from VPP heavily to make this effect even if it begs the Elemental definition; I think you're encouraging the gameplay very well with this distinction, kudos.
Some suggestions:
1 - Slot switch governance
Defined powers are freely switched as they are (presumably) so "ready-made" that the character knows them inside-and-out, which seems to me to mirror both heroic fiction and how HERO has worked to date.
Undefined Fundamental powers I'd suggest a full phase switch as default (as opposed to VPP's not in combat), with an Advantage of +1/4 for half phase or +1/2 for full phase (I think we can deal with some costing issues a bit later). Given this sort of slot and its adherent limitation that the effect is rather limited, I think this is fair. However, we're discouraging the traditional fluidity of ECs which this is kin to. But is that bad? No, because the Defined slots allow for EC powers just as much (particularly as you've deliberately "de-costed MPs a bit...but this its own issue, see below) and the construct allows for appropriate flexibility therein. I think the literature supports a small delay. Half phase might be better though?
Whereas Universal, like VPP, should follow the original VPP switch method, I believe
2 - Fundamental slot definition/requirement
The example of this is great. I suggest that what the example implies should be codified, namely in terms of the coherency required of a Fundamental slot.
SFX - a Fundamental slot must have a specific SFX. These should be somewhat narrower than traditional EC SFX. For example, "weather" is too broad but "fog effects" or "rain effects" are fine. Another example, "mental powers" is too broad but "telekinetic effects" are okay (which doesn't mean the power Telekinesis must be selected; could be that the power assigned at a given moment is "Naked Advantage Increased Knockback", representing that whatever the target is hit with by the character, the character will use his basic TK skills to throw the target further).
Powers - a power selected MUST be from a SINGLE category: Adjustment, Attack, Body-Affecting, Defense, Mental, Movement, Sense-Affecting, Sensory, Size, "Special" (GM Attention, "!"), or "Standard" (Again, GM Attention, "!"). It is important to note the GM may allow a select hybrid or specialized category created by mutual GM/Player consent as these categories undoubtedly won't cover all desired groupings. For example, the GM and Player may agree that a "Moving Others" slot that has an SFX of "telekinetic effects" is Movement category but only with "against others", but also includes Telekinesis.
3 - Cost determination
This isn't anything to do with the framework rules, rather, it's how we get to the right values. I suggest rewriting various CU characters (and from related sourcebooks/examples) and seeing how we do on total costs. Those characters where there's been considerable debate as to being "over-effective" we shouldn't sweat that we've reduced cost.
Danger point...MP costs, as indicated above. We have to be careful when we convert over. A character with an MP shouldn't just have the original MP converted, but the new Universal Framework (whatever we call it, see below) should include other powers grouped in that formerly couldn't be put into a framework (see more on that below as well). This means the base cost bumps up anyway, plus as you state above slots cost a tad more as we don't get down to those single point slots anymore. However, still, mostly I think a character with ONLY an MP will see a decreased cost, so I do think we have to recost somewhere. It could be as simple as increasing the base slot costs.
And I think a slightly higher slot cost is GREAT in counter-acting the age-old MP single point abuses. While it's not a hot-button, we all know that increased number of slots, even a small number (like 8) can be under-valued compared to utility. So ensuring slots cost minimally 3 or 4 points, we may achieve a new balance that scales up better as XPs are added to the pool.
Still, we need to be sensitive to recosting such that MPs just end up cheaper. I think the HERO community has "proven" that the MP structure is successful and aside from abuse by piling on slots or limitations the costs are "appropriate".
As I've gone through this two more considerations:
7 - This new framework might really be excellent in incorporating powers that formerly weren't linked quite appropriately as they clearly were entirley coherent with an MP or EC but didn't "fit" inside of it and therefore got placed outside.
8 - What do we name this? If this somehow gained acceptance, calling it a "Universal Framework" is silly as the name now is only by comparison to the three frameworks of entirely different mechanics currently available. Possibly just "Powers Framework"? And what about the issue of opening the door so that now all powers get put into it and points are devalued for powers? While some of that is the GM assuring no such abuses, this still begs putting too many eggs in the basket. Possibly the limitations of it need to be spelt out and more considered.
I'm fairly excited, this is a good take, Doc Democracy. Obviously the numbers crunchers, back from their games on the weekend, will probably skewer this a bit but no matter, I think we can get somewhere.
If we can get to a point where this seems to function in a balanced way while being coherent and easy to understand (which I think it already is on the latter two counts), we should submit a DH article, if HERO were to so allow it as a "modest proposal" as it were.
Bookmarks