Meta-Rules of the HERO System

[Warp9]

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.

I read "valid" as meaning "legal" (as in a valid driver's license). And there are other "game-legal" methods which are more expensive to do the same things you could do with Mega-scale.

You may think that those methods are too expensive, but they are still game-legal, and thus still valid Hero-System methods to build things.

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.

I believe that there is a problem with leaving those more expensive alternate methods in the game. You can have a PC who buys something the more expensive way in the very same game as a PC who does things the cheaper way---and IMO, that is not fair.

I believe that what you pay should reflect what you get---always.

[Paragon]

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?

I think there's an applicability issue that comes up here that colors this.

Its easy to "shop for attacks"; in fact, probably is the default use of many multipowers, so that you have an EB, a Flash, an AVLD or NND, and so on. You can't absolutely predict whether a target has the defense before trying it, but once you do, you can shift to another one and just stop using that one if its ineffective. In either case, there's at least theoretical utility of the attack all the time when you're in combat.

Defense is the opposite. Defenses are only relevant if a relevant attack is present; otherwise all they do is sit on a character and suck up points. They're also very hard to selectively apply (i.e. use out of a multipower or variable pool) because you can't count on who's going to attack you and who not most of the time.

This means in practice that even if they stop an attack cold, a given defense tends to vary in its usefulness much more strongly than a given attack form.

[archermoo]

I read "valid" as meaning "legal" (as in a valid driver's license). And there are other "game-legal" methods which are more expensive to do the same things you could do with Mega-scale.

You may think that those methods are too expensive, but they are still game-legal, and thus still valid Hero-System methods to build things.



I believe that there is a problem with leaving those more expensive alternate methods in the game. You can have a PC who buys something the more expensive way in the very same game as a PC who does things the cheaper way---and IMO, that is not fair.

I believe that what you pay should reflect what you get---always.

And my opinion is quite the opposite. If all it meant by valid was rules legal then it would frequently be possible to buy some horribly convoluted version of a power that is "rules legal" but considerably more expensive than buying it in a more straightforward fashion.

[BobGreenwade]

And my opinion is quite the opposite. If all it meant by valid was rules legal then it would frequently be possible to buy some horribly convoluted version of a power that is "rules legal" but considerably more expensive than buying it in a more straightforward fashion.

And this is precisely the reason for my original suggestion.

[archermoo]

And this is precisely the reason for my original suggestion.

Yup.

[Tonio]

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.

While I agree with your rationale and intent, using the "smallest net Modifiers" won't work at all. Some Powers, specifically the "catch-all" Powers (ok, Transform), are usually built with few Modifiers, since their clauses are pretty free form. For example, "Transform Target Without LS: Immunity to Poisons into Target Missing Some STUN and BODY" has one Modifier (the Limited Target Limitation), but building the same thing with EB would require several (AVLD to go against PowDef, Limited Power to be stopped by LS: Immunity to Poisons, No Range).

But yeah, I usually don't use the "use the most expensive build", rather I use the one that "feels right". Unfortunately, that's too vague. =/

[Warp9]

And my opinion is quite the opposite. If all it meant by valid was rules legal then it would frequently be possible to buy some horribly convoluted version of a power that is "rules legal" but considerably more expensive than buying it in a more straightforward fashion.

I do agree that you have a point.

I could get behind the idea of looking at whether or not a construct is mechanically elegant in terms of assigning validity to it.

However, it sounds like you are suggesting that one take cost into consideration in terms of validity. That is different from looking at mechanical validity first, and then defaulting to higher cost to decide which option to go with, if two constructs are equal in mechanical terms.

[Warp9]

But yeah, I usually don't use the "use the most expensive build", rather I use the one that "feels right". Unfortunately, that's too vague. =/

That is my problem with these loose definitions of the term "validity."

If "valid" simply means "game-legal" then the meta-rule becomes simple to follow. Otherwise it seems almost meaningless (it basically means whatever you want it to mean).

[Vondy]

I've always gone with: the most elegant build is the one you must use irrespective of costs, which has the following implicit assumptions in play: 1) that "elegant" includes logical in terms of applying the power-set, 2) "elegant" is reasonable in terms of cost-efficiency ratios, 3) "elegant" does not involve weird-ass builds that happen to be cheaper.

[Paragon]

I've always gone with: the most elegant build is the one you must use irrespective of costs, which has the following implicit assumptions in play: 1) that "elegant" includes logical in terms of applying the power-set, 2) "elegant" is reasonable in terms of cost-efficiency ratios, 3) "elegant" does not involve weird-ass builds that happen to be cheaper.

That seems fair to me; while the cheapest build isn't always appropriate, always going with the most expensive is silly, and even the most obvious may not be best if a particular effect is being tried for.