Meta-Rules of the HERO System

[BobGreenwade]

Referring to the concepts on pages 558-559 of 5ER. I only have one remark on these -- at least, at present -- but I thought I'd open it up to the whole batch in case someone else has something. (That way nobody has to open a new thread.)

Regarding Meta-Rule #6, currently: "If two Powers (or other game elements) are equally valid ways to create a particular ab ility you must use the more expensive of the two."

This needs modification, at the very least for clarification on what constitutes "equally valid." For me, more significant than "more expensive" (which, I gather, is to alleviate "minimaxing"), is how far from the base power an ability is. I probably could, for example, heavily modify RKA to simulate a simple Energy Blast, and make it cost more, but using Energy Blast is the more natural way to do it.

So I'd make the prevailing rule that the build that strays further from a base power -- in other words, requires the smallest net Modifiers -- is the preferred method.

[CourtFool]

This rule always did seem arbitrary to me, although I can understand why it was written. Characters need such GM oversight anyway, I usually ignore this rule. If I think the player is abusing a Power, I tell them so.

[Thia Halmades]

This rule always did seem arbitrary to me, although I can understand why it was written. Characters need such GM oversight anyway, I usually ignore this rule. If I think the player is abusing a Power, I tell them so.

I agree with the llama here, completely; while I use and enforce the rule, I only do it as a sort of mental guideline. Is that power "built right" is always my first and most important question. We will bandy about the table at times what does or does not constitute a 'correct' power is up for debate. It's very rare though that we come into this issue; normally I just say "that isn't what you were looking for, it's really this" or "given the choice between these two things, I'm more comfortable with that one."

I like it as a guideline. As always, GM discretion, common & dramatic sense should rule the roost.

[Kenn]

If Meta Rule #6 were valid, we'd see permanantly large characters built with Growth bought 0 END, Persistant, Inherent, Always On.

[GamePhil]

Well, Rule 6 was one that Bruce Harlick advocated, according to Stainless Steel Rat's old FAQ. It may be one of the things that will disappear, it all depends now on whether or not Steve agrees with it.

If it does stay in, it needs some development so that it will no longer be misinterpreted, though.

[Opal]

"Equally valid" does seem to be the escape clause. You could always find a more expensive, if wierd, way of doing something.

[Lord Mhoram]

Well, Rule 6 was one that Bruce Harlick advocated, according to Stainless Steel Rat's old FAQ. It may be one of the things that will disappear, it all depends now on whether or not Steve agrees with it.

A bit of contrast with Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness.

[Paragon]

"Equally valid" does seem to be the escape clause. You could always find a more expensive, if wierd, way of doing something.

An example of this is faking Invisibility with Images; sometimes that's the more appropriate way to go, and if it ends up being a little cheaper, there's usually the trade-off that its not as reliable. That doesn't seem a great balance evil.

[Warp9]

Regarding Meta-Rule #6, currently: "If two Powers (or other game elements) are equally valid ways to create a particular ab ility you must use the more expensive of the two."

Wouldn't that essentially rule out most uses of Mega-Scale ?

There are other more expensive ways to increase movement speed: for example, you can buy NCM to increase speed to Mach 50 instead of using MegaScale.

There are other more expensive ways increase area effect: for example, you can buy X 2 radius per +1/4.

[GamePhil]

Wouldn't that essentially rule out most uses of Mega-Scale ?

Depends on how the individual GM interprets "equally valid". I personally use as part of my criteria, "Is this more expensive way of doing things more expensive than it should be?" For things that I would allow Mega-Scale on in the first place, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!", and therefore they are not as valid a means of buying the Power.

[Warp9]

Depends on how the individual GM interprets "equally valid". I personally use as part of my criteria, "Is this more expensive way of doing things more expensive than it should be?" For things that I would allow Mega-Scale on in the first place, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!", and therefore they are not as valid a means of buying the Power.

Looking at the statement:

"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."

It doesn't seem that there is a concept of "more expensive than it should be" in there. In fact, it seems to me that validity is being considered more in terms of game function, rather than character point cost. It seems to me that "what it does" is considered separately from "how much it costs."

It seems that what you are looking for is a re-write of the meta-rule as follows:

"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, unless the more expensive method is too expensive, in that case, use the cheaper method."

But I'm not sure that would work as well.


And I will add this thought: IMO the very fact that some methods are deemed as "too expensive" should perhaps cause us to change those expensive methods so that they have the proper cost.

[GamePhil]

Looking at the statement:

"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."

It doesn't seem that there is a concept of "more expensive than it should be" in there. In fact, it seems to me that validity is being considered more in terms of game function, rather than character point cost. It seems to me that "what it does" is considered separately from "how much it costs."

When you can point out to me where it explicitely says anything about "game function" over "too expensive", I'll be on board with that. If you can't, however, I'll just stick with my own thinking on the matter, thanks. If you can, I'll finally jump on the bandwagon and cross it out of my book, since at that point it's forcing a play style on me, and not one that I care for.

It seems that what you are looking for is a re-write of the meta-rule as follows:

"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, unless the more expensive method is too expensive, in that case, use the cheaper method."

But I'm not sure that would work as well.

Not really. I'm happy with it as it is, as it allows individual GMs to decide for their needs and the needs of their games what constitutes "validity". If in your games Megascale is less valid, more power to you. For mine, it is generally more valid, and I have given my reasons.

And I will add this thought: IMO the very fact that some methods are deemed as "too expensive" should perhaps cause us to change those expensive methods so that they have the proper cost.

Absolutely right. Which is why Megascale was added. If Steve wants to go through and try to root out everything that might have improper costs, rather than leave it in the hands of the GM (basically, what Rule 6 was intended to do), that's great, so long as he can succeed at doing so without making the system a nightmare. I'm not sure even the best game designer in the universe (which could be Steve ) could do that.

[Lord Liaden]

As long as this topic is opening discussion of the meta-rules, I've always wondered about the appropriateness of Rule #2:

"Every Attack Power or Power which can be used offensively should have some defense or way to avoid its effects, and the defense should be considerably cheaper." (Emphasis mine.)

Why should the Defense be considerably cheaper than the Attack? If the intent is to reflect the effectiveness of the Power in its point cost, shouldn't the cost of a Defense hew closer to that of the Attack it counters? Many posters here have expressed concern over the relative handful of points in some Defenses (Flash Defense, Power Defense, Lack Of Weakness) that can effectively neutralize Attacks that have several times the Active Points of the corresponding Defense.

Opinions?

[GamePhil]

Why should the Defense be considerably cheaper than the Attack? If the intent is to reflect the effectiveness of the Power in its point cost, shouldn't the cost of a Defense hew closer to that of the Attack it counters? Many posters here have expressed concern over the relative handful of points in some Defenses (Flash Defense, Power Defense, Lack Of Weakness) that can effectively neutralize Attacks that have several times the Active Points of the corresponding Defense.

Well, there are a few things to consider. One is that a point of Defense almost never counters a die of Attack: you need 6 points of ED per die of EB to fully counter it, and 4 to counter it on average. I think that's part of where the "cheaper" thing comes from.

Defenses often must have fewer Limitations to be effective than Attacks do. Not always, but often. Having attacks through an OAF is pretty common, but defenses get OIF, tops, much of the time.

Flash, when it works, is a devestating thing. I think the greater difference in the cost (60 pt Power being almost entirely nullified by 12-15 pt Defense) is because of this fact. Same holds true to some extent for Find Weakness.

[BobGreenwade]

It seems that what you are looking for is a re-write of the meta-rule as follows:

"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, unless the more expensive method is too expensive, in that case, use the cheaper method."

But I'm not sure that would work as well.


And I will add this thought: IMO the very fact that some methods are deemed as "too expensive" should perhaps cause us to change those expensive methods so that they have the proper cost.

I don't think this change is necessary; if the more expensive method is "too expensive" then that quality generally makes it less valid than the other one.