Power Frameworks Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Power Frameworks that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Frameworks that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

Steve’s Thoughts: Every now and then I see this talked about on the boards or wherever — the idea of joining all the Frameworks into one and then restricting how the slots work with Limitations or other ways of altering the cost to reflect the utility. It’s not particularly an idea I favor, since I think it would be harder to learn than the current arrangement, but it would probably cut down on redundancy of text and the like, and there may be some potential here that I haven’t seen because I haven’t yet thought about it much. So I figured I’d toss it on the pile of things to consider.


Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. The name itself connotes an earlier, more restricted, view of the Framework as useful for “elemental” power sets (Fire, Air, Darkness, etc.). I think a name that properly conveys the nature and purpose of the Framework would be better. I am currently thinking of using Unified Power, representing the fact that an EC is basically a Framework that uses multiple Powers to represent one overall power.


Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

[incrdbil]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

I'd say no. My opinion is that one framework that somehow simulates how all of the current ones would work would in its full description, be little less smaller in rules description, and possibly less flexible than the current framework construction. As a new player, it might even confuse me more. Multipowers are pretty simple and staright out of the box, EC's a little more work, and VPP's are the graduate course level of frameworks. its a sort of progression.

Rename Elemental Controls? Sure. Unified Power sounds good. and its got an easy to remmeber acronym, UP, which is half the battle.

I'd even favor mitigating the affects of adjustment powers versus EC's to just the targeted power. At the least tone it down to the original drain effect applied across the EC, though I feel affecting multiple powers like that should be the function of an advantage for a drain. If the cost reward to an EC is so much, I'd rather see that reward reduced rather than force an unwritten vulnerability to adjustment powers on the character.

I'd also consider removing the restriction on no endurance powers as part of an EC.

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

My gut reaction to this, as a gamemaster, is no. It's a concept that may work with a tight GM control in a certain campaign, but is probably a rough idea to put into standard rules. I'd certainly detail it as an option though--or maybe making such frameworks pay double in limitations to reduce such costs if they exceed the normal AP limitation. But as a standard, my feel is keep the standard rules to a standard of least GM worries as possible in terms of balance, and the suddenly explosive effect of a multipower that can acheive a much higher active point effect than what it paid for the realtively minor cost of one mere ultra slot would be a dealbreaker for many GM's, even experienced ones.

[CourtFool]

Unify the frameworks. I disagree that it would makes things more complex. The consistency would make them easier once you wrap your head around them. The way they are now, you have to figure out three different ways. If they were unified, you would only have to figure out one way...even if it is more difficult than figuring out one Framework.

[Jhaierr]

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

If you decide to allow for this, perhaps by default a VPP's size is an Active Point limit, but for a +2 advantage (or +1 perhaps) on the control cost, it can become a Real Point limit.

[Adventus]

I would recommend you also look at Killer shrike's Threshold Framework for inclusion into the 6th edition. It allows for certain types of characters that are very hard to build under the current frameworks. It would easily allow for a Dragonball Z type of game.

[Michael Hopcroft]

How can VPPs be made more intuitive?

[Enforcer84]

I don't like making all the frameworks one. It's simply more verbage to add on.
I have never thought that they were complex in use.

Unified Power

Active vs Real - hmm. I'm leaning towards leaving it where it's at. I liked ability to put more powerful abilities into a Multipower by paying the difference...but since it was changed I've not had any problems with it being gone.

[James Gillen]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

No.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. The name itself connotes an earlier, more restricted, view of the Framework as useful for “elemental” power sets (Fire, Air, Darkness, etc.). I think a name that properly conveys the nature and purpose of the Framework would be better. I am currently thinking of using Unified Power, representing the fact that an EC is basically a Framework that uses multiple Powers to represent one overall power.

I like this.

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

As you may recall, this is how VPP/Gadget Pool USED to work, and I think it was changed for a good reason. On the other hand, without it you can't simulate Lovecraftian-BUFFY style magic that trades a tremendous Active Point cap for a tremendous number of Limitations on the spell. I'm leaning against the idea, at least as a core rule.

JG

[Xotl]

Edit WAY after the fact -

This post seems an extremely elegant way of handling the basic idea of Elemental Controls while eliminating five pages of rules and getting rid of the "free points if you can con the GM" aspect of the EC:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/show...3&postcount=58
Leave the decision of awarding a player with a "good" character concept (whatever that means) to the GM rather than just in this one instance attempting to canonize it with a pile of rules. The EC is the most oddball part of Hero.

If the EC is kept instead of tossed, I would like to see it renamed as you suggest.

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

Well, if EC is tossed as I think it should, that leaves two frameworks. I strongly approve of the idea that there should only be one framework if possible, or that the existing ones be simplified in some way, as long the result can still accomplish everything you can do today in 5th. Even if the one is a bit more complicated, it will still be simpler and shorter than two different ones.

[Sean Waters]

Well noone has yet suggested getting rid of frameworks, or severely restricting their use. Oh well.

Should we have a single unified framework? I'd have to see it before I could answer that. Frameworks are just a way of making points go further and rewarding some concepts.

Should we rename ECs? Don't care, but if we did, should we rename EBs?

Should we make MPs and VPPS (and why not ECs?) work off real points? Once more I'm not that bothered. The abuse will be horrendous, but it isn't going to be affecting me, because I'm a decent enough GM to kick out abusive constructs and a decent enough player not to try them on. Most of the time

Personally I can see very few legitimate uses for MPs and VPPs. Different ammo in a gun, alright, but we're talking normal, killing and AP, not flash, drain and UAA flight. I can come up with any number of justifications for pretty much any construct you like, but that doesn't mean it makes any kind of real sense.

Overall though, my philosophy is 'take the safety off'. If people want to play a decent game it will give them the opportunity to realise otherwise difficult concepts, if not, well, they probably deserve all they get

[Balok]

I wonder if it is time to rename Multipower's 'ultra' slot something a little more descriptive. I haven't a clue what, though.

[DavidToomey]

I wonder if it is time to rename Multipower's 'ultra' slot something a little more descriptive. I haven't a clue what, though.

Fixed, and Adjustable for the other, perhaps?

[Chris Goodwin]

The idea I've seen floated a lot on the boards for VPPs is this: the Pool Cost is the maximum total Real Points you can have in the pool. The Control Cost is 1 per 2 Active Points you can have. This divorces the Active and Real costs from one another and gives more flexibility.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

No. I think it is an easier concept to have then separate.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

I like the Elemental Control but you are right that the name doesn't really capture what it does. Perhaps something like Unified Power Control [UPC] would be a better term.

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

No. I feel that this would make it harder for the GM to monitor power levels in the game. It opens up too many possible avenues for abuse.

[Thia Halmades]

Fixed, and Adjustable for the other, perhaps?

I was thinking "Set" and "Open" but yeah, same thing. On the EC thing, yes, a rename would be in order because the light went on in my head as soon as he said "This really represents 'one' power that can be used in all these different ways," and I'd never looked at it like that before.

On the VPP/MP argument for Real vs Active; one of my players had once asked, "Thia, can I just raise the limit of the Multipower so that I can use more abilities, instead of having to purchase up the whole of the framework?" And I said "no, you can't do that" but I think that a rule allowing it would make a lot of sense; a limited addition to the Framework that allows you to have multiple powers active at once, even if you don't have the points allocated to it.

And VPPs should certainly include more examples of the IVPP (InVariable Power Pool) model that Killer Shrike created and that I then cribbed and modified to my own use, because it's the best way to represent spell books and the like. I'd like to see the new Fantasy HERO setting material do away with the Real/3 cost structure in favor of a more "by the book" rules friendly mechanic, since the version he (Steve) used felt horrendously kludgey. While I acknowledge Killer Shrike's math saying there's no real difference, I just didn't like it. So I'd like to see it abolished in favor of using a better designed Framework system.