Idea: Active Point "target", rather than Active Point limit

[Chris Goodwin]

The idea is that you set a basic Active Point level, and that powers higher than that have to take a lower Real Point limit at a rate of -1 Real Point per +1 Active Point.  It doesn't change how Limitations apply, so you'd have to reduce the Real Cost with whatever Limitations against the Active Points are necessary.  

 

For example:  a GM sets a 50 Active Point target for their game.  A power could have 60 Active Points, but a max of 40 Real Points; 75 Active Points with a max of 25 Real Points; or any combination.  

 

The GM could of course set limits so that ridiculous values aren't reached; the GM in the above example might set an absolute max of 80 Active Points with required Limitations to reduce that power down to 20 Real Points or lower.  

 

[unclevlad]

Then it becomes a primary task of finding limitations you can deal with.

Also, how do you gauge a martial artist, where  the damage can easily be from 4 separate sources...STR, HA, martial arts DCs and maneuvers.

 

The other issue is that it's just not really possible to balance a massively overpowered, but single-shot, attack.  The one upside is, continuing your example, it'd be very tough to fit those powers into a framework;  this is one of the oddball cases where it might be easier to do it in a VPP, in 6E.  You could go with, say, a 30 point pool size with a 75 point control cost.  MOST stuff would probably be 60 active, with Requires a Skill Roll (the obvious starting point for common modifiers) and just find another 1/2 limit based on circumstance and power.  Ranged?  Limited Range and either Beam or Red Pen.

 

Another little trick is to use AVADs (or NNDs if the active point limit isn't that high, as almost any of the defense will take the attack down too much to be effective)...because the base cost is now low.  6d6 NND (mental def), 1/2 END is only 52;  7d6 is 61.  The reduced END is notably cheaper here...7 points for the 6d6 rather than 11 for a 9d6 normal attack.  Suddenly that matters.

 

So I'm thinking you might just encourage abusive builds.

[Ockham's Spoon]

I ran a campaign years ago in which the heroes all had an "ultimate" power, not unlike various video game characters.  These were high active point powers, but had so many limitations that the Real cost was fairly low (mostly stuff like Burnout, lots of Extra END, various Side Effects, etc.).  Most of these powers were purchased on their own, outside any power framework.  Mostly it worked okay, because the players had a sense of dramatic story-telling and only used their ultimate power when the chips were down and it was the only way to turn the tide of battle.  But there were a couple of times that the players figured that they could get away with using their ultimate power just for the sake of expediency, knowing it would probably be ready to use again when they really needed it, so it can be abusive with players with a tendency to metagame.

 

Anyway, I think it is a neat idea, but either the GM needs to be careful, or you need to be able to trust your players not to abuse it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Unclevlad is right, this encourages the gigantic one-shot blast, like the Big O Manga where he uses his super cannon to defeat every enemy.  Who cares if it leaves you exhausted, only works once a day, and has side effects?  If they're down, then they're down.  If I can have a 16d6 blast, I can work limitations into it to make it cheap enough but still game-breaking.  Its an interesting concept, but it only would work without minmaxers and griefers.

[Chris Goodwin]

It would kind of suck to use your mega blast first thing, and for the Activation Roll (if applicable) to fail... or for it to Stun the target but not KO him... or to use it on an illusion... or to roll an 18 on your to hit roll.

 

I've played in a few games recently without Active Point limits at all, and we didn't go overboard.  I think there might have been a couple of powerful abilities that weren't game breaking.  This is intended to be a way for characters to occasionally pack a punch without laying waste.  

 

I'm willing to take a look at it in play to see what happens.

 

 

[zslane]

9 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

It would kind of suck to use your mega blast first thing, and for the Activation Roll (if applicable) to fail... or for it to Stun the target but not KO him... or to use it on an illusion... or to roll an 18 on your to hit roll.

 

Well, given how low the real costs will (likely) be, the character will have plenty of other powers to use after the one-shot mega power doesn't work. In most scenarios, it would still be worth firing off early in a fight, when you know you still can. Having such a potentially huge effect "in play" from the very start of a fight can have massive tactical implications for the entire encounter, especially if it is something more sophisticated than just an energy blast or hand attack.

[Christopher R Taylor]

If you're going to do this, I would make the minimum cost requirements lower, so its more of a penalty to "break" the campaign max.  A +2 limitation cuts a 90 active point power to 30 real points and that's just "once per day" on its own.

[Scott Ruggels]

Don't like it.  Too much accounting.

[Duke Bushido]

On 11/24/2020 at 1:58 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Unclevlad is right, this encourages the gigantic one-shot blast, like the Big O Manga where he uses his super cannon to defeat every enemy.  Who cares if it leaves you exhausted, only works once a day, and has side effects?  If they're down, then they're down.  If I can have a 16d6 blast, I can work limitations into it to make it cheap enough but still game-breaking.  Its an interesting concept, but it only would work without minmaxers and griefers.

 

Personal experience here, and a great deal of it:

 

This idea of Chris's isn't too terribly far from how we play.  Summed up, we play "screw active points."  We have a total cost limit (250, using the 2e 100 + Disadvantages model).  Spend as many or as few as you want, anywhere you want.As I mentioned to Chris in a discussion some time back, I suspect that this is because way back when we were learning to play 1e, we had too many people who just couldn't get wrapped around the division of costs, so we let it slide "until we get more familiar with the rules," but we just never went back.  We use AP today for building and costing and that's about it.  Campaign limits, etc, are all built on real points, period. 

 

Yes:  Everyone has done four or five characters over the years with a MegaBuster (I also really enjoyed the Guyver, way back when, even though the later parts of the series didn't hold up well).  They get bored very quickly.   You will have a mix of cardboard cannons and paintball Tanks for a bit, but after three, sometimes four sessions of firing off  The Big Gun and then spending the rest of the battle recovering or actively running away, seeking cover, etc, and watching everyone else do stuff and roll dice, the players start to fume about not having fun doing anything, and their fellow players start to grumble and complain _loudly_ about how quickly the team's firepower is dwindling.  The Paintball Tanks, effectively invulnerable but unable to really make a dent in the opposition, wander around sheltering the Cardboard Cannons until they themselves are restrained, out of END, or the bad guys merrily skip away, singing cheerful taunts the whole time.   The Cardboard Cannons are usually the first to Abort to Recrimination; that's always fun to listen to.

 

 

Short version:

 

This is one of those problems that everyone gags on when they read it, but actually _doing_ it proves that the problem--- I won't lie: it _does_ exist, in as much as players _will_ try it-- is one-hundred-percent self-solving:  Everyone tries it, realizes just how much actual "Game" they have cheated themselves out of, then begs to make new characters.  These new characters are typically much more suited to the game at hand.  Like a lot of the grumbling during discussion about the evils of this idea or the abuse of that idea, or the remake of Poltergeist,  the Hype of Horror is far, far greater than what you actually end up seeing.

 

 

Now I will one-hundred percent say that groups who prefer the tactics / wargaming approach like our friend Scott will likely get much, _much_ more use out of this, because they will most likely be far more able to keep their personalities in check long enough to cooperate and launch a coordinated attack, cannons behind tanks, firing and recovering in turn, etc., with an eye more toward _the team_ achieving a goal.   Most of the people I've ever played with enjoy the map; they enjoy the scenario, but they also enjoy the "this is what _my guy_ would do" and running with it.  It works beautifully with a balanced team of balanced characters, but it _sucks_ for unbalanced characters that need to use more militaristic unit tactics.   

 

 

 

 

On 11/24/2020 at 12:21 PM, zslane said:

 

Well, given how low the real costs will (likely) be, the character will have plenty of other powers to use after the one-shot mega power doesn't work. In most scenarios, it would still be worth firing off early in a fight, when you know you still can. Having such a potentially huge effect "in play" from the very start of a fight can have massive tactical implications for the entire encounter, especially if it is something more sophisticated than just an energy blast or hand attack.

 

You are making the assumption that the game will start with X points.  The problem of 'still having lots of powers left' can be solved simply by lowering the starting points.  Depending on the group, this may affect the entire build, as players wanting characters with numerous powers will be less inclined to dump two hundred points into MegaBuster.

 

As noted above, in my own experience, firing off the Big Guns early results in not being able to fire them off for very long, and missing becomes a serious problem with regard to END costs, collateral damage, and not having that shot later (Charges, for example), and the player boredom / frustration that results from sitting around "taking a few recoveries" while everyone else moves tokens and rolls dice.  The knee jerk reaction is to "save it for the best use," which actually has far more tactical effects: if they've used it before, the bad guys know it's still out there, and tend to act accordingly.   Though your high-tech bad guy Doctor Clockwork can send an army of cheap wind-up decoys to goad the characters into using it to exhaustion, as can your mentalist Doctor Illusion.

 

Either way, it's going to depend far, _far_ more on your group (as I mentioned: I'm pretty sure Scott's friends would clobber my friends in a friendly match, simply because the idea of specialized high-powered one-trick ponies works best for players who prefer methodical tactics, and sucks for drama majors) and how many points you actually let them use.

 

 

[zslane]

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

characters with numerous powers will be less inclined to dump two hundred points into MegaBuster.

 

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the idea was to have mega powers that were mega in their active costs, but loaded with limitations to drive down their real costs. In which case, players wouldn't be spending a major portion of their point budget on such powers, but a rather small portion, leaving plenty of points for other powers and abilities.

[Duke Bushido]

Its equally possible I misunderstood _you_, Sir.

 

I thiught your concern was that the cost reduxrions would allow both the mega power and a dozen or so little powers at the same time.

[Chris Goodwin]

For me, the point is to have most powers within "bounded accuracy" or a Rule of X, with a few that can hit really hard but might be usable two or three times, and one mega blast that you're really saving for finishing the fight.  

 

Plus, I generally hate Active Point limits anyway.  I'd rather see characters made a little more organically than have everyone with 12d6, 24 PD/ED, and 40 meters of 8x NCM movement with a "fill in the blank" special effect. 

 

[zslane]

Back in college, when I played the most, we had a four-color supers campaign in which the GM had strict active point limits. This ended up being necessary because prior to those limits being instituted, we had at least one player who would put the majority of their points points into defenses, and the GM would then have to create a villain with an attack big enough to penetrate those defenses. But of course, that villain ended up squaring off with others PCs, and that attack wiped them out in one or two shots. Similarly, at least one player would have a mega attack that would take out half the villains before being taken down. This led to everybody trying to bump up their defenses to survive against the villain(s) made for Mr. Mega Defenses, and the villains being given upgraded defenses that no one else could penetrate just to give Mr. Meta Attack a challenge. This active point "arms race" kinda ruined the campaign until formal limits were put into place.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think GMs have to use active point limits as a guide rather than a hard and fast rule.  You look at the overall effect in the game and what it does more than just the math; some advantages probably ought not raise the active point list (remember back in editions I-III when they had the just plain "modifier" category which changed the real cost but not the active cost?) because they don't actually make something more deadly, just more flexible and useful.

[zslane]

I think it is important for Advantages to increase active cost in order to also increase endurance cost. I'm not a big proponent of Advantages that have no impact on endurance cost.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well it never made sense for Reduced END Cost to... you know, increase END Cost.  There are other things like that (charges, for instance can be an advantage and you can buy Costs END)

[zslane]

Yeah, I chose not to parenthetically say "aside from the obvious exception(s)" because I figured that was rather self-evident.

[Duke Bushido]

6 hours ago, zslane said:

I think it is important for Advantages to increase active cost in order to also increase endurance cost. I'm not a big proponent of Advantages that have no impact on endurance cost.

 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree with it.

 

That said, here's something you're not going to  like:

 

I've based END cost on Real Cost instead of Active cost for years now.

 

Advantages, using AP, add to END cost.  They do the same thing using real cost.

 

It seems logical that having a bigger, more effective bang takes more magic juice.  It seems logical that weaker, crippled bang would take less magic juice.  So we base END cost off of real cost.  Players are, of course, welcome to take Increased END cost (and it's actually one of the most common limitations at my tables) if they desire.

 

There are a lot of things that fall out of this, but I find one of the most satisfying is that players will more freely mix it up with their opponents, using their abilities to great effect, the way you see in the movies and cartoons (and presumably in the comics as well; I couldn't tell you that with any authority, however), and we don't have those "everybody find cover for a couple of phases and recover, then start all over" moments.  It's also really prevented us from seeing things like three-digit END scores and Recovery stats that start in the forties.

 

 

As always, mileage, variance, etc.

 

 

[dmjalund]

It would add extra complexity but you could have some advantages that add END cost and some not

[Duke Bushido]

I understand what you're saying, but that complexity is already there:

 

The advantage "Reduced Endurance Cost" ups the AP but does not increase the Endurance.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 11/24/2020 at 10:21 AM, zslane said:

 

Well, given how low the real costs will (likely) be, the character will have plenty of other powers to use after the one-shot mega power doesn't work. In most scenarios, it would still be worth firing off early in a fight, when you know you still can. Having such a potentially huge effect "in play" from the very start of a fight can have massive tactical implications for the entire encounter, especially if it is something more sophisticated than just an energy blast or hand attack.

 

From a pure "make it abusive" perspective, a huge attack with 1 charge, costs END, 2x END (and no other limitations - we could add plenty) could be 20d6 for 25 points and cost 20 END.  Fire it off in the starting Phase 12 and then get your PS12 recovery.  Then go back to your usual 12d6 attack.  And if you pop both in a Multipower, it has another 40 points left over for other abilities after the opening blast.

 

20 hours ago, zslane said:

Back in college, when I played the most, we had a four-color supers campaign in which the GM had strict active point limits. This ended up being necessary because prior to those limits being instituted, we had at least one player who would put the majority of their points points into defenses, and the GM would then have to create a villain with an attack big enough to penetrate those defenses. But of course, that villain ended up squaring off with others PCs, and that attack wiped them out in one or two shots. Similarly, at least one player would have a mega attack that would take out half the villains before being taken down. This led to everybody trying to bump up their defenses to survive against the villain(s) made for Mr. Mega Defenses, and the villains being given upgraded defenses that no one else could penetrate just to give Mr. Meta Attack a challenge. This active point "arms race" kinda ruined the campaign until formal limits were put into place.

 

This makes the case for upper and lower bounds, if nothing else, to ensure a limit on relative effectiveness.  There's no question, though, that when we set a "campaign maximum" of 10 CV, 6 SPD, 12 DC, and 25 defenses, that tends to quickly become the campaign requirement, since everyone can afford it with 400 points to spend.  Mutants and Masterminds uses a tradeoff model where the standard is 10 for starting characters, but you can trade off the "OCV" and "DC" limits, and the "DCV" and "defenses" limits (to a maximum spread of 8/12).  It would be more challenging to make a Hero equivalent due to the higher level of moving parts, though.  If we trade off DCV and Defenses, we have to figure out how Damage Reduction, high STUN and REC, etc. factor in.

 

19 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think GMs have to use active point limits as a guide rather than a hard and fast rule.  You look at the overall effect in the game and what it does more than just the math; some advantages probably ought not raise the active point list (remember back in editions I-III when they had the just plain "modifier" category which changed the real cost but not the active cost?) because they don't actually make something more deadly, just more flexible and useful.

 

I think ideally we evaluate characters on a holistic basis.  However, that takes a lot of experience with the system to do well.

[Scott Ruggels]

Duke knows me all too well😁. A group of cold eyed defenders of liberty, built on less than campaign maxima of points, working like a well oiled machine with speeds varying between 4 and 6, and prioritize setting up another team members attack, could consistently punch far above their weight. I really miss that team cooperative take down of a large, city threatening tactical problem. 😁

[Panpiper]

My rule comes from way back, long before computers. Build your character however you want. Fill out the character sheet in pencil. Then you hand it in to me (the GM). I will fix power balance appropriately. If I think a character is too weak, I fix it so they are not. If I think a character is too strong, I fix it so they are no longer and leave them with points to put into non-combat skills. An exceptionally well built character that included a healthy assortment of non-combat character defining traits, might even get rewarded with a bit of a powerup others might not otherwise get.

 

Players rapidly learned to understand the idea of balance and reasonableness, and players with experience with me rarely turned in characters that required any sort of significant tweaking at all. Interestingly, without any strict guidelines forced upon them, their attacks, defences, combat values, etc., oddly coincided quite nicely with published examples.

[Duke Bushido]

On 12/1/2020 at 3:22 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

Duke knows me all too well😁. A group of cold eyed defenders of liberty, built on less than campaign maxima of points, working like a well oiled machine with speeds varying between 4 and 6, and prioritize setting up another team members attack, could consistently punch far above their weight. I really miss that team cooperative take down of a large, city threatening tactical problem. 😁

 

 

I won't lie:

 

I wish I could find a group like that, just for a little while, at least.

 

Don't get me wrong:  I _love_ all my groups: they are great people that I have known and played with in some cases for _years_, and the youth group has really opened up my eyes as to how much pop culture has changed.  For example, they, to a person, absolutely _hate_ having to hit the bad guys!  They will get shot at first _every single time_ they have an encounter, and right up until one of them is actually _hit_ for appreciable damage, they will _not_ counter attack; they just won't:  "hurting people is wrong, and we're the good guys.  We're not going to hurt them!" is their mantra.  Even when they "attack," it's almost exclusively to separate and restrain the bad guys, and not to just beat them unconscious.  And more than my adult groups, they will _pursue_ bad guys to continue on to capture them as best they can.  My adult groups are all "well, next time we'll whale on the a little harder and they'll drop before they can run away."

 

 

At any rate, the lack of a playgroup with an actual sense of tactics and a willingness to forego glory _entirely_ in favor of precision teamwork (make no mistake: my players _will_ cooperate, but usually only for a teamwork maneuver or two, then they want to "play to personality," etc.  If only they'd build characters with team-first personalities....   ) has kept me from exploring a lot of games I _really_ wanted to taste over the years.   Battletech comes to mind immediately.  I always wanted to play Battletech, but I knew exactly how that would go, and never even picked it up. 

 

So while it's not my preferred style, Scott, I really wish my players were at least _willing to try it_ every now and again.    As it is, I could, if I were playing tactically, grab pretty much any four villains from Enemies or Enemies II and wipe the floor with five people who have been playing for decades....   

 

I wouldn't, of course, but I have come close enough to scare them now and again, and they _love_ it:  the _drama_, don't you know.   

 

 

 

[zslane]

41 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

At any rate, the lack of a playgroup with an actual sense of tactics and a willingness to forego glory _entirely_ in favor of precision teamwork ... has kept me from exploring a lot of games I _really_ wanted to taste over the years.

 

Yeah, this has kept me from TTRPGs in general for many, many years now. So you aren't alone in this respect.

 

I miss the heady days of playing Champions with the guys at the Flying Buffalo game store in Tempe, AZ. The two main "house" campaigns were invitation-only affairs, and if you got to those tables it was because you thoroughly understood how the system worked, you knew how to make a balanced character that didn't violate the spirit of the genre, you knew how to play intelligently with good battlefield tactics, and you had a firm grasp on how to make excellent use of all your powers, including combining them with teammates' powers as a form of force multiplication. The two GMs I played with expected their players to know what they were doing and didn't have to "police" much of anything, neither during character creation (apart from simply approving them for the campaign) nor during play.

 

I think a lot of why this worked was because the gatekeeping that went on guaranteed a homogeneity of (mature) attitude, experience, and purpose at the gaming table. You had the usual variety of player personalities, but everyone had a common understanding of how to play the superhero genre according to silver and bronze age comic book expectations. And everyone took the game seriously enough to become students of the system, so to speak, in order to not embarrass themselves in front of the rest of the group/team once battle was joined. And since 1 XP of each session was awarded according to a vote at the table by everyone present, there was incentive to strive to meet, if not exceed, the unspoken standards of play shown by everyone else.

 

They just don't make players (and GMs) like they used to... 😞