Powers Issues -- L-R

[Opal]

I wholeheartedly disagree. As I've said in the Characteristics thread (and as I'm sure you've read, hehe), having SFX directly affect game mechanics seems to me a hugely bad idea.

I understand the purist veiwpoint, as I was once a proponent of it, myself. It would be satisfying in a game-desigin-philosphy sense, to have the mechanical aspects of the system so perflectly tuned and fair that they could model any abilty, for any character, in any genre, without reference to the F/X involved or the background and situations in the campaign. I used to say things like "Limitations should exist in a vaccum" because I felt there really /was/ a one 'right value' for any limitation.

It's a wonderful ideal to work towards, but Hero already goes a little farther in that direction than you can go and still have a fun, playable, accessable, and commercially very successful game. It takes a special breed of gamer to really understand, apreciate and enjoy the system, and there just aren't enough of us to make DoJ rich.

Getting Mental Awareness from having any Mental Power, and getting a higher Mental Defense from having a higher EGO, assume certain SFXs and character concepts

Yes, they do. They assume innate powers, for instance, which is what a power is until you put a focus or similar limitation on it. Again, while I understand the apeal - the elegance - of taking a power down to it's root axiomatic function, the best policy is to take it down only so far as the most prevelent representations of the power. It makes the game more accessible and easier to play.

Whether a character is "just a collection of powers and numbers" has nothing to do with which powers, characteristics, skills, talents, perks, or disadvantages he has (i.e. no mechanical basis), but rather with how they're explained (i.e. concept, backstory, etc.).

In some cases there is a mechanical basis, as well. The game doesn't easily let you buy up defense against KAs without also buying up defense against normal attacks, just for one instance. Strong people who can lift a 100kg object more easily and throw it farther, can also throw thier own 100kg bodies farther (leap). There's actually an awful lot of basic consistency built into the rules. The more of it you take out, the more abstract, less intuitive, less playable, and less accessible the game becomes. It's a trade-off.

Consider two characters, both with EB, FF, and Flight. The first one defines his EB as "Fire Blast", his FF as "Shield of Flames", and his Flight as "flying like that Human Torch dude". The second one defines his EB as "I shoot plasma bolts from my eyes, because I'm an alien", his FF as "I'm surrounded by an aura of protection, because I'm a supermage", and his Flight as "the spirits of my ancestors lift me and carry me around". I'm pretty sure you'd call the first character a "solid concept", worthy of cost breaks, and the second one a "collection of powers and numbers", and logically should be more expensive.

Yep. Not only is the first character one that can participate in a group adventure without having to showcase each of those three powers to establish his abilities, thus leaving more time and interest for his fellows, but he's also going to be hampered more consistently and less disruptive to plot lines. His powers will share common limitations that the GM can use against him when it benefits the story or he wants to give another character a chance to shine, and his powers will be drained or suppressed by the right adjustment powers. It would take a lot more to 'check' the powers of the second character - you'd have to get him in a high tech plasma dispersal field, anti-magic shell, and seal off the local ether from the spirit world. And, yeah, that should cost more, because it's a harder character to deal with, both as an advesary, and as a character in a campaign.

On a totally unrelated note, regarding Life Support... I'm not sure immunities should be part of Life Support. What's the relationship between not having to breathe and being immune to poisons?

They both have to do with how your body interacts with chemicals? Oxygen is a chemical that typical characters need to breath, if you don't need to breath, you take life support, Phosgene is a chemical that most characters should avoid breathing, if it doesn't bother you, you take Life support. It makes a certain amount of sense. You could split it out, just like Dependence and Susceptibility are split out, though. You could have Life /Support/ only eliminate 'needs' your body has that normals normally have, and 'Immunity' only 'buy off' what amount to zero-point susceptibilities that everyone has. The distinction is arbitrary. Dependence and Susceptibility could be combined, LS could be broken down.

Regarding immunities, again, I think they should be generic and wide-spectrum (i.e. immunity to poisons, immunity to diseases) rather than specific (e.g. immunity to cobra toxin, immunity to Epstein-Barr virus).

Certainly. Specific ones should be possible, and examples aren't a bad thing, but the GM would have to decide how 'common' they are to get a cost, just as with many limitations and disads.

[Tonio]

I understand the purist veiwpoint, as I was once a proponent of it, myself. It would be satisfying in a game-desigin-philosphy sense, to have the mechanical aspects of the system so perflectly tuned and fair that they could model any abilty, for any character, in any genre, without reference to the F/X involved or the background and situations in the campaign. I used to say things like "Limitations should exist in a vaccum" because I felt there really /was/ a one 'right value' for any limitation.

It's a wonderful ideal to work towards, but Hero already goes a little farther in that direction than you can go and still have a fun, playable, accessable, and commercially very successful game. It takes a special breed of gamer to really understand, apreciate and enjoy the system, and there just aren't enough of us to make DoJ rich.

My reasons aren't simply "purity", though. In fact, it's mostly "flexibility" and "freedom". I remember having played DC Heroes and while the system wasn't so bad (I remember liking it, back then), I disliked how I couldn't really create a character I'd thought of. Enter HERO (well, Champions, back then)... I instantly fell in love with it, because I could build whatever I wanted! I'd like to keep that, and in fact, enhance it.

Yes, they do. They assume innate powers, for instance, which is what a power is until you put a focus or similar limitation on it. Again, while I understand the apeal - the elegance - of taking a power down to it's root axiomatic function, the best policy is to take it down only so far as the most prevelent representations of the power. It makes the game more accessible and easier to play.

"Most prevalent" may not be clear, though. For starters, it's genre-specific. Additionally, it might not be correct to go with the "most prevalent". A more correct approach would be to cover the most bases, kinda like how you don't design a chair for the most common body type, but rather so that it fits as many people (with differing body types) as possible.

In some cases there is a mechanical basis, as well. The game doesn't easily let you buy up defense against KAs without also buying up defense against normal attacks, just for one instance. Strong people who can lift a 100kg object more easily and throw it farther, can also throw thier own 100kg bodies farther (leap). There's actually an awful lot of basic consistency built into the rules. The more of it you take out, the more abstract, less intuitive, less playable, and less accessible the game becomes. It's a trade-off.

Well, defense against KAs vs defense against normal attacks... false dichotomy. There's a basic concept of "damage" against which you can buy defenses. The fact that KAs go against a subset of that defense is because it's inherently Advantaged (and in case you wonder, I do support eliminating both as separate powers).

The bundling of lifting/throwing capacity with leaping (and hth damage, etc.) is one I disagree with. Lifting/throwing I might live with, but I wouldn't mind seeing them separate, either.

I must insist, though, that that "basic consistency" you speak of is highly subjective, and can, in fact, be an inconsistency in many situations. And HERO is designed to have abstract mechanics; it's part of the core. Moving away from that, whether it has advantages or not, is moving away from the HERO system.

Yep. Not only is the first character one that can participate in a group adventure without having to showcase each of those three powers to establish his abilities, thus leaving more time and interest for his fellows, but he's also going to be hampered more consistently and less disruptive to plot lines. His powers will share common limitations that the GM can use against him when it benefits the story or he wants to give another character a chance to shine, and his powers will be drained or suppressed by the right adjustment powers. It would take a lot more to 'check' the powers of the second character - you'd have to get him in a high tech plasma dispersal field, anti-magic shell, and seal off the local ether from the spirit world. And, yeah, that should cost more, because it's a harder character to deal with, both as an advesary, and as a character in a campaign.

The first part speaks to purely narrative concerns; game mechanics shouldn't affect that.

As for the second part, the inherent disadvantages in having a common SFX for all your powers is balanced by the inherent advantages (being faced by a "Drain all Fire Powers" vs being hit with an "Aid all Fire Powers"). I don't think there should be a cost break for what's effectivly no limitation. Yes, it would take more to "check" the 2nd guy's powers, but it would also take more to boost them.

They both have to do with how your body interacts with chemicals. Oxygen is a chemical that typical characters need to breath, if you don't need to breath, you take life support, Phosgene is a chemical that most characters should avoid breathing, if it doesn't bother you, you take Life support. It makes a certain amount of sense. You could split it out, just like Dependence and Susceptibility are split out, though. You could have Life /Support/ only eliminate 'needs' your body has that normals normally have, and 'Immunity' only 'buy off' what amount to zero-point susceptibilities that everyone has. The distinction is arbitrary. Dependence and Susceptibility could be combined, LS could be broken down.

I think that's reaching... I could just as easily and logically claim that Life Support should include PD, since that's just how my body interacts with chemicals (obvious for chemical-based attacks, but even physical attacks have substance, and are therefor "chemicals").

I don't have a suceceptibility to Energy Blasts, just like I don't have one to poisons.

Dependency and Suceptibility could be folded, though. Dependency is just Suceptibility to the lack of something.

Certainly. Specific ones should be possible, and examples aren't a bad thing, but the GM would have to decide how 'common' they are to get a cost, just as with many limitations and disads.

Yup, and that's a good thing, I think. The concept (variable costs depending on frequency in campaign) is seen elsewhere; I think it's appropriate here.

[Opal]

My reasons aren't simply "purity", though. In fact, it's mostly "flexibility" and "freedom".

I'm not going to argue with you about what your reasons really are, but, I'd ask you to stop and think: is there anything you really /can't/ do right now, because of the way the system is? Or is it that you find it kludgy or inellegant that some concepts are easier to build than others?

"Most prevalent" may not be clear, though. For starters, it's genre-specific.

Mental powers work pretty similarly across genres. The will of the attacker and defender are generally key, for instance. They rarely produce blatantly visible effects (more often signs in the victims behavior - even in comics where they're illustrated, it's for the benefit of the reader, like the wavy lines of Spidey's danger sense). There are differences, certainly, so we have limitations and advantages to customize the powers. But, you need a starting point, and that point will always be arbitrary. Why not arbitrarily set it where it makes building characters easier for the most common archetypes and genre bits. A genre that handles something differently or more detailed can be addressed in it's own book.

Additionally, it might not be correct to go with the "most prevalent". A more correct approach would be to cover the most bases,

A good point. With Hero, it is much easier to buy a power that does more than you want, and use open-ended limitations to customize it down to what you want. That aproach is also good for balance, if the powers in question have Apts that are consistent with the rest of the game.

Well, defense against KAs vs defense against normal attacks... false dichotomy. There's a basic concept of "damage" against which you can buy defenses. The fact that KAs go against a subset of that defense is because it's inherently Advantaged (and in case you wonder, I do support eliminating both as separate powers).

The bundling of lifting/throwing capacity with leaping (and hth damage, etc.) is one I disagree with.

How does that bundling restrict you from building the character you want, though? You just buy STR, and limit-away whatever aspect you don't want. While, most concepts, where STR acts about like STR does in most dramatic paradigms, simply buy STR, instead of buying multiple closely related powers.

I must insist, though, that that "basic consistency" you speak of is highly subjective. And HERO is designed to have abstract mechanics; it's part of the core.

Frankly, the level of abstraction you like in a game is subjective, too. Hero already is /more/ the way you like it, than the way most gamers like it (most gamers don't play Hero, afterall).

Moving away from that, whether it has advantages or not, is moving away from the HERO system.

Currently, Hero has a level of abstraction, yes, but it does not completely divorce F/X and mechanics, and it does have many of it's powers and mechanics designed to fascilitate familiar archetypes and classic bits from certain genres (or common among multiple genres). Moving it to be more abstract is changing it, just as moving towards being less abstract would be.

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi there,

My thoughts on Steve's list:

• Free Mental Awareness - Get rid of it.
• Free Mental Defense points from EGO - Get rid of it.
• Change Missile Deflection and Reflection - some changes probably inevitable; Reflection in particular problematic in most game systems I've seen it in.

On other issues:

• Return of Regeneration - to me, unnecessary with proper changes to other Adjustment Powers; sorry McCoy...
• Luck - I'd probably leave as-is, even if some other probability-manipulation power debuted, UNLESS a "hero point" system were added to the game.
• Mental Powers and effects - I'd leave Mental Powers as-is with the massive exception of the Breakout Roll. It's nerfed mentalists hard, with no adjustment at all in the point costs of Mental Powers. I'd not want it to be eliminated entirely, but I do think the roll should be Contested and/or made at an additional penalty equal to the amount by which the mentalist succeeded on his ECV Attack Roll. Classes of minds might be clarified, too; I think all humanoid fantasy races and aliens with psychology even remotely similar to human should count as Human; Alien should be reserved for non-humanoid or truly alien minds (Palainians, Hortas, Elder Worms, etc.). BOECV is a seperate issue I'll probably get around to in the Advantages thread.
• Adders for +X results for Mental Powers - Sounds good, but in addition to the current rules rather than in place of them, since it eliminates chance of failure. In fact, one could do something very similar now, with the Standard Effect Rule.
• Life Support - Seems OK as-is, though the proposed changes seem OK too.

[Hugh Neilson]

[*]Return of Regeneration - to me, unnecessary with proper changes to other Adjustment Powers; sorry McCoy...

Although I'm OK with the present model, the various threads propose to retain a number of powers which could be built with other powers for simplicity and intuitiveness. It seems to me that Regeneration is a common enough ability in the source material to justify this type of treatment. Perhaps "not going back to a prior edition's approach" as another sacred cow that needs to become hamburger.

[BobGreenwade]

[*]Adders for +X results for Mental Powers - Sounds good, but in addition to the current rules rather than in place of them, since it eliminates chance of failure. In fact, one could do something very similar now, with the Standard Effect Rule.

I probably should point out that I intended for it to be this way (an additional option rather than a replacement for what's there now).

[Zephrosyne]

Well, I don't have anything to add to the areas you mentioned that haven't already been suggested or opined on by someone else. However, can you do something with Power Defense. The power just seems entirely too catch-all. It was almost like "this covers whatever is left after Physical Defense, Energy Defense, Mental Defense, and Flash Defense." I don't have a solution or anything remotely resembling a better idea. I just wanted to give you my opinion.

[rjcurrie]

Well, I don't have anything to add to the areas you mentioned that haven't already been suggested or opined on by someone else. However, can you do something with Power Defense. The power just seems entirely too catch-all. It was almost like "this covers whatever is left after Physical Defense, Energy Defense, Mental Defense, and Flash Defense." I don't have a solution or anything remotely resembling a better idea. I just wanted to give you my opinion.

I've always viewed Power Defense as how well the body (or object) resists being changed. Just my point of view.

[Tonio]

Gah... the quoting got all mangled here. Some of that is mine, some is yours. =/

Anyway, I was gonna reply to some of this, but decided against it. I don't feel good about arguing this decoupling issue across multiple threads!

I'm not going to argue with you about what your reasons really are, but, I'd ask you to stop and think: is there anything you really /can't/ do right now, because of the way the system is? Or is it that you find it kludgy or inellegant that some concepts are easier to build than others?

Mental powers work pretty similarly across genres. The will of the attacker and defender are generally key, for instance. They rarely produce blatantly visible effects (more often signs in the victims behavior - even in comics where they're illustrated, it's for the benefit of the reader, like the wavy lines of Spidey's danger sense). There are differences, certainly, so we have limitations and advantages to customize the powers. But, you need a starting point, and that point will always be arbitrary. Why not arbitrarily set it where it makes building characters easier for the most common archetypes and genre bits. A genre that handles something differently or more detailed can be addressed in it's own book.

A good point. With Hero, it is much easier to buy a power that does more than you want, and use open-ended limitations to customize it down to what you want. That aproach is also good for balance, if the powers in question have Apts that are consistent with the rest of the game.

Well, defense against KAs vs defense against normal attacks... false dichotomy. There's a basic concept of "damage" against which you can buy defenses. The fact that KAs go against a subset of that defense is because it's inherently Advantaged (and in case you wonder, I do support eliminating both as separate powers).

How does that bundling restrict you from building the character you want, though? You just buy STR, and limit-away whatever aspect you don't want. While, most concepts, where STR acts about like STR does in most dramatic paradigms, simply buy STR, instead of buying multiple closely related powers.

Frankly, the level of abstraction you like in a game is subjective, too. Hero already is /more/ the way you like it, than the way most gamers like it (most gamers don't play Hero, afterall).

Currently, Hero has a level of abstraction, yes, but it does not completely divorce F/X and mechanics, and it does have many of it's powers and mechanics designed to fascilitate familiar archetypes and classic bits from certain genres (or common among multiple genres). Moving it to be more abstract is changing it, just as moving towards being less abstract would be.





The first part speaks to purely narrative concerns; game mechanics shouldn't affect that.

As for the second part, the inherent disadvantages in having a common SFX for all your powers is balanced by the inherent advantages (being faced by a "Drain all Fire Powers" vs being hit with an "Aid all Fire Powers"). I don't think there should be a cost break for what's effectivly no limitation. Yes, it would take more to "check" the 2nd guy's powers, but it would also take more to boost them.



I think that's reaching... I could just as easily and logically claim that Life Support should include PD, since that's just how my body interacts with chemicals (obvious for chemical-based attacks, but even physical attacks have substance, and are therefor "chemicals").

I don't have a suceceptibility to Energy Blasts, just like I don't have one to poisons.

Dependency and Suceptibility could be folded, though. Dependency is just Suceptibility to the lack of something.



Yup, and that's a good thing, I think. The concept (variable costs depending on frequency in campaign) is seen elsewhere; I think it's appropriate here.

[Tonio]

I've always viewed Power Defense as how well the body (or object) resists being changed. Just my point of view.

Yeah, I think the problem with Power Defense is its name. Change it to "Adjustment Defense" or something.

[Opal]

Gah... the quoting got all mangled here. Some of that is mine, some is yours. =/

Sorry 'bout that. Fixed.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should Mental Powers provide Mental Awareness for free?

Yes. Never really believed in this "freebie".


Q: Should Mental Defense provide EGO/5 in defense for free?

Yes, unless you end Figured Characteristics. If PD & ED stay the same, then so should MD. Oh and it really should be a Characteristic.


Q: Should Missile Deflection and Reflection be changed?

Yes. As for how, I am not sure.

[dsatow]

Q: Should Mental Powers provide Mental Awareness for free?

I wouldn't mind this. Nothing else really does this. I have EB fire powers, it doesn't give me IR for free. And the sense is cheap.


Q: Should Mental Defense provide EGO/5 in defense for free?

I think so. Too many people generally buy down thier ego because it not "useful".


Q: Should Missile Deflection and Reflection be changed?

Personally, I think if you give it an advantage to use it without the half phase delay but still treat it as an action (making it like block) it would be cooler. I'd give the advantage a 1/2 advantage.

[Tech]

Multiform. I've read so many threads/debates/etc about how it's broken, the cost isn't quite right, it costs too little (to which I agree). I've read through the Ultimate Metamorph and whereas it goes into some details, it is merely adding it's suggestions and ideas based upon a power which doesn't feel solidly built. I do believe the power is a godsend and is needed. However, the power seems to be in it's it's infancy and has room to grow and change.

[The Main Man]

Perhaps Multiform (and Duplication for that matter) should be folded into Summon.

I agree that Mental Awareness should not be free but Mental Defense should get free EGO or else make it cheaper.