What don't you like

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Mike W

I find it hard to believe that END never comes into play. What about pushing? What about the character who gets knocked to -3 STUN and wakes up with 7 STUN(and therefore 7 END)? What about long fights that go 2- 2 1/2 turns? We always buy enough END to last at least two turns but it still comes into play from time to time.

 

perhaps a more accurate statement would be "End comes into play so rarely that its ridiculous to be something that is a bookkeeping issue every phase."

 

One alternative would be to have end be normally not an issue, and not tracked, but then to have limitations that made it an issue in abstract.

 

For example:

 

-1/4 "requires a con roll" to reflect a power that requires extra effort to use. You could even apply it to just some of a power to reflect strain required at the higher levels.

 

As it is now, for my last hero character, all end did was to allow me to buy a teleport multipower really cheap by taking x3 end on it. Since most of my attacks were charge based (except for an attack in the MP) this turned out to be no problem IN ACTUAL PLAY (never ran out of end) except for bookkeeping and cut the cost of the MP suite by 50%. in order for this limitation to ever really weigh in and affect me, the Gm would need in one scenario... long duration with no break (three turns at least and i would likely be Koed by then anyway), highly mobile combat, and lots of entangles/disarms/attack devices to eliminate my charges-based gadgets.

 

of course, the odds are that by the time two of those three became serious, the character would be breaking away or out cold anyway.

 

On the other hand, had that 50% amounted to anything like "requires strain, only 50% likely to work" that would have been a real serious issue... one worth the points.

[Just A Guy Name]

Oh! Just got reminded of one (or two) by another thread topic: Transforms; not simple Body Transforms, which I have never had a problem with the logic of ("if you were going to kill 'em anyway, why not just change 'em into something else?") , but Mental Transforms, which are just as hateful (more so, in some ways) as Mind Control; and Spirit Transforms, which I've never been able to distinguish a need for (and the examples always seem like Mental Transforms, to me).

[Pegasus]

Originally posted by Mike W

I find it hard to believe that END never comes into play. What about pushing? ...

 

That's funny, I don't remember saying that it never came into play. As for pushing, as it is now pushing is a joke. I've never seen a character that didn't have plenty of END to push whenever they wished. With no risk involved. I say, pull the cost of pushing from a character's STUN, then we'll see it used more as intended, as a supreme effort that wears the character out. As for the other things...again, STUN works better.

[Kristopher]

If you allow casual use of pushing, that's 10 extra END per attack, for about 40 to 60 more END expended per Turn.

 

Powers that are Zero END or based on charges can't be pushed anyway, IIRC.

 

So, how exactly are you coming up with all that extra END?

 

Basically, if END has never been a problem, then your GM is doing something wrong.

 

[TheEmerged]

RE: END use. I think HERO gets it almost right here. It's a little too much bookkeeping for the effect, but that's better than not being able to fight because doing anything exhausts you or the equally undesirable situation in which you can fight for twenty turns without exhausting...

[TAROT]

My biggest peeve was the change in Transform to make it inherently cumulative, but that is easily fixed.

 

Also, for powers with an Area of Effect: some increase by +1" radius and others by x2 radius, for some this is an Adder, for others an Advantage. I would have liked to see a little more consistency. I'll probably just divorce the various Powers from any stated area, and use Area of Effect. (I've also made a few minor changes to Area of Effect.)

 

Chris

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Personally, the biggest gripe I have is how easily abused the system is. The constant "bad cop" routine I have to do to keep things balanced is grating at times. For example, Entangle BOECV works vs. EGO not STR is ridiculously effective for the cost.

 

Some advantages are too good. Variable advantage comes to mind here.

 

Rob

[Kristopher]

I still don't like the use of Dispel against Foci.

[Mike W]

Alright, I'll do this the short way since the system won't let me do the long answer.

 

END is a play balance factor. It affects a lot of things including:

 

1. How often you can push. Most characters should only have 20 END or so left after two turns of combat - if they never push. And since combats(at least in our game) generally run 2 - 2.5 turns, pushing a lot is risky. Plus, if a player is spending more on END then that is fewer points they are spending other places. However, keep in mind that PUSHING IS SUPPOSED TO BE JUSTIFIED NOT A CASUAL THING. So any character pushing more than once in a fight better have a psych lim kicking in or extraordinary cirucmstances.

 

2. Advantages like 0 END and Charges should be watched carefully for justification and play balance - just like any other advantage.

 

3. It helps balance SPD and DC. There isn't much point in having an 18D6 EB and 9 SPD if you can't afford to pay the 81 END per turn it takes to fire it.

 

4. Eliminating END gives characters back all kinds of points that were spent on END and controlling END cost - not mention almost requires that you lower the cost of CON which would give them back even more. Most players are going to put at least half those points into combat stuff which makes everyone more powerful unless...

 

5. Instead of only limiting "stressful" powers(which wouldn't come up very often at all) you made all powers pay STUN - but that would really cause problems as now every character would want 100+ STUN and the math would be really screwed up. Also, pushing would virtually disappear since only the heroically stupid would do it.

 

The bottom line is that there should be middle ground between what you're describing and what you're proposing and I would argue that said middle ground would be to actually enforce the rules as written and with an eye toward game balance.

[M-3]

·I don't like the "once you're stunned you'll remain so" rule but it's a rule that doesn't affect anything else and is easily ignored.

 

·I also don't like the rule that if you have any resistant defense whatsoever, you get to subtract your nonresistant defense from a KA. But as the stunning rule above, that's easily ignored too.

 

·I don't like the vehicle rules at all. Specifically, I don't like that vehicles have a SPD characteristic which makes it nightmarishly difficult to keep track of the turm sequence if someone is steering a vehicle with a SPD score different from his own. I don't think giving inanimate objects a SPD score is a good idea. I liked the vehicle rules from Justice Inc. much better.

 

·I don't like that CV is based on DEX/3 (or EGO/3 for ECV). It's both inconsistent with just about everything else that's based on characteristics (effect dice for STR end PRE and skill and characteristic rolls) but it also makes Combat Skill Levels ridiculously cost-inefficient. In my own games, I simply change it to 1+DEX/5 (or 1+EGO/5).

 

·Using Transform to add powers to others instead of Aid. I can't see why the rules for temporarily giving somebody a new power should be any different from the rules for temporarily increasing a pre-existing one.

[Kristopher]

Keep in mind that you only apply your full defense to the STUN from a Killing Attack. The BODY is still only blocked by the actual resistant defenses.

[tesuji]

A dissenting view...

Originally posted by Mike W

1. How often you can push. ... However, keep in mind that PUSHING IS SUPPOSED TO BE JUSTIFIED NOT A CASUAL THING. So any character pushing more than once in a fight better have a psych lim kicking in or extraordinary cirucmstances.

And these two offset each other... end for pushing is not a serious issue if you expect at most to push maybe once per fight.

Originally posted by Mike W

2. Advantages like 0 END and Charges should be watched carefully for justification and play balance - just like any other advantage.

Absolutely... but that wont make end more important.

Originally posted by Mike W

3. It helps balance SPD and DC. There isn't much point in having an 18D6 EB and 9 SPD if you can't afford to pay the 81 END per turn it takes to fire it.

Absolutely... it allows for unwieldly character designs... but simply put, players dont build those if they know what they are doing. Requiring end calculations for everyone just to "get" those with poor design skills, seems odd.

Originally posted by Mike W

4. Eliminating END gives characters back all kinds of points that were spent on END and controlling END cost - not mention almost requires that you lower the cost of CON which would give them back even more. Most players are going to put at least half those points into combat stuff which makes everyone more powerful unless...

First, if EVERYONE spends the same extra points the same way, then whats the problem. It may be like buuilding 375 instead of 350... so what?

Second, few characters i have seen built who had little end problem if any ever spent much to get there. You draw from your figs and from charges to get the end handled and may even save points.

Originally posted by Mike W

5. Instead of only limiting "stressful" powers(which wouldn't come up very often at all) you made all powers pay STUN - but that would really cause problems as now every character would want 100+ STUN and the math would be really screwed up. Also, pushing would virtually disappear since only the heroically stupid would do it.

That seems drastic.

Originally posted by Mike W

The bottom line is that there should be middle ground between what you're describing and what you're proposing and I would argue that said middle ground would be to actually enforce the rules as written and with an eye toward game balance.

Rules were enforced as written... not a help.

 

Nice theory tho... it fits in with the usual... "if you don't like what hero's doing, you are doing hero wrong" line of reasoning.

[Kristopher]

If END isn't an issue, then the opposition is too puny, or the PCs have spent a lot of points on making sure END isn't a problem, and have weaknesses somewhere else.

 

If all the PCs take all their attacks powers on the -0 level of Charges (9 to 16, IIRC), to avoid the extra point cost, I'd run a few running combats or back-to-back fights to make them pay for their munchkiny badness. Gee, won't it suck after 3 or 4 turns when their 16 charges are all gone...

 

If the PCs take all their attacks powers at 0 END, they cannot push, IIRC. That's gonna suck when they're fighting a massive team-beater villain and need to push to do serious damage before he can smash that bus full of kids...

 

HERO is a free-form system -- it doesn't hold your hand and cut your food for you. The GM has a level of responsibility to make things work right, and so do the players. If you're looking for a system that does everything for you and requires no work, then HERO is not for you. If you can't handle a little END tracking, then HERO is not for you. I wish people would stop trying to make HERO into a d20-type, let-mommy-wipe-your-chin game.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Kristopher

HERO is a free-form system -- it doesn't hold your hand and cut your food for you. The GM has a level of responsibility to make things work right, and so do the players. If you're looking for a system that does everything for you and requires no work, then HERO is not for you. If you can't handle a little END tracking, then HERO is not for you. I wish people would stop trying to make HERO into a d20-type, let-mommy-wipe-your-chin game.

 

It is so nice to see the proponents "the ultimate toolkit" showing sich a open minded viewpoint as this when speaking in support of it. One would wonder why dropping end has been a mentioned option in the core book for several versions now and likely will be in the next as well when its such a non-issue.

 

Oh for the day when someone, somewhere in hero fandom, understands the difference between... "i dont liike..." or "i dont prefer..." or even "i get no benefit from... and "you can't handle..."

 

I can dream, of course, of such a day.

 

sigh...

 

but seriously folks... sure, with effort, the Gm can make th end system play more crucial a role... but cannot it be the case that some Gms would rather spend that effort making the campaign work, making the scenario better for the characters and so forth than to spend that time and effort making the end mechanic play out right?

 

If i want to spend, say, that 20 minutes (that i would maybe going over recent fights to see if i have had enough long combats to make end usage an issue and run charges dry frequently enough for balance) on fleshing out some of the upcoming scene's dialog and going back thru my events and contacts database to double check for tie ins with my PCs to use... am i a bad person for deciding to not make endurance a part of my game?

 

Will the "Underused game mechanics local 357" start picketting my house?

 

Since END is another mechanic that requires care and feeding from the GM isn't it at least reasonable to consider it as droppable to give more GM care and feeding time to things you consider more important? And if i do why is HERO not for me?

 

or is it right that HERO is not for those who think that way?

 

IS it really that small of a tent hero wants?

 

 

[lemming]

Originally posted by Kristopher

If the PCs take all their attacks powers at 0 END, they cannot push, IIRC

That's new to 5th. I don't like that and don't use it.

[lemming]

Originally posted by tesuji

Since END is another mechanic that requires care and feeding from the GM isn't it at least reasonable to consider it as droppable to give more GM care and feeding time to things you consider more important?

 

or is it right that HERO is not for those who think that way?

 

IS it really that small of a tent hero wants?

I happen to find END a useful mechanic. Other people have pointed out that you can run a game without. No complaints from me.

I'm certainly not going to yell at you about it.

[Kristopher]

I've never seen END be a non-issue for every character in a HERO game. The way the rules read, it shouldn't be a non-issue.

 

I've had too many bad experiences with GMs and players who didn't want to put any effort into their games to have any sympathy for objections that amount to "it's too much work."

I have no sympathy for proposed changes that are at their heart motived by a desire to have the system do all the work.

[Pegasus]

Originally posted by Kristopher

HERO is a free-form system -- it doesn't hold your hand and cut your food for you. The GM has a level of responsibility to make things work right, and so do the players. If you're looking for a system that does everything for you and requires no work, then HERO is not for you. If you can't handle a little END tracking, then HERO is not for you. I wish people would stop trying to make HERO into a d20-type, let-mommy-wipe-your-chin game.

 

Damn, Kris, that's one hell of an exposed nerve you've got there. I think you're taking this waaaay to personally. I only posted what I thought about END in the game, and apparently I'm not alone in thinking this. Your misinterpretations are astounding. Do you even read what you write? Holy crap, man, take a pill or something.

[Kristopher]

I stand by what I posted on the matter.

 

END is an intergral part of the mechanics of HERO. Not only is there no good reason to get rid of it, there are several reasons not to.

 

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

I've never seen END be a non-issue for every character in a HERO game. The way the rules read, it shouldn't be a non-issue.

Ok, i will bite...

 

which is it?

 

is end a mechanic which will be an issue if and only if the GM takes time and effort and caring to make it so in the game (with scripted scenarios of length and scope that it does make end significant)

 

OR

 

is end going to be a significant issue just by the way the rules read without scripting?

 

if it is the former, if it requires GM effort to make it antyhing but a "non-issue" then why is it so hard to concieve of a game where the Gm doesn't make that effort and sees it as a waste of time?

 

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

I've had too many bad experiences with GMs and players who didn't want to put any effort into their games to have any sympathy for objections that amount to "it's too much work."

I have no sympathy for proposed changes that are at their heart motived by a desire to have the system do all the work.

 

perhaps you should realize that HERO is a toolkit, not a starightjacket. HERo encourages every Gm who uses it to take the elements he likes and needs for his game and to not use or even..shudder..change the rest.

 

Its possible, even if you cannot concieve of a universe where this is true, for a Gm to ELECT to not use END because he sees it as too much effort for too little gain and not overall good for his campaign without him just falling into your somewhat narrow vioew of a lazy gm who just doesn't want to work.

 

He might just be trying to make his game more enjoyable (by reducing unnecessary accounting) and more focused (by not making combat scenes be end tracking exercises that wont significantly impact the outcome most of the time.)

 

You just might want to consider using or at least acknowledging that other can use (for good reasons, without just being lazy) this vaunted flexibility of the hero system to even include dropping END for some games.

 

Maybe?

 

You think?

 

Kinda?

 

After all, its not "The ultimate Toolkit as long as you use end", right?

[Bloodshot]

I feel END use matters because Hero decided that it matters.

 

Seriously, if you ignore the role of END in the game, then you are altering the way the system as a whole works. The Law Of Unintended Consequences also will work against you when you do stuff like ignore SPD, or change how you calculate OCV, as the Hero System is a very tightly integrated system and one little change can act like the butterfly's wings in chaos theory.

 

Then again, I've never been the type to suggest drastic house rules.

 

If you want to ignore parts of Hero that the designers felt were important, I feel you are doing so at your own peril. It's nice the DOJ gang tells you to throw out the rules you don't like, but I figure that if it made it into the system there has still got to be a reason.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bloodshot

I feel END use matters because Hero decided that it matters.

 

Seriously, if you ignore the role of END in the game, then you are altering the way the system as a whole works. The Law Of Unintended Consequences also will work against you when you do stuff like ignore SPD, or change how you calculate OCV, as the Hero System is a very tightly integrated system and one little change can act like the butterfly's wings in chaos theory.

 

Then again, I've never been the type to suggest drastic house rules.

 

If you want to ignore parts of Hero that the designers felt were important, I feel you are doing so at your own peril. It's nice the DOJ gang tells you to throw out the rules you don't like, but I figure that if it made it into the system there has still got to be a reason.

 

Let's throw a little more fuel on the fire...

 

First, it's interesting that no one has pointed out the FREd optional suggestion to throw out both END and limitations to create a simpler game. No END costs, but you pay full freight for all powers.

 

Now, I'm in the camp that says END matters. In a Supers game, characters liberally throw around 60 AP attacks, and many have movement and defense powers which cost yet more END. Spending 8 END per phase is pretty common, so a 5 SPD character goes through 40 END a turn. He can either pay points to reduce END costs or raise his own END/REC, or he can tire out. Let's look at some examples:

 

We'll assume only 1 END per phase for movement and defense powers (pretty low in my experience, butnot impossible), SPD 5 and a 90 point atack. Let's also assume 50 END and 10 REC (in the balpark, in my experience. Raising it's pretty easy). I can take an 18d6 EB - very powerful, but I'll spend all my END in one turn, and only have a phase worth after I recover. OUCH!

 

I can take a 14d6 EB at 1/2 END and buy another REC and 2 END with the leftover 3 points. Now I spend 4 END per phase, and I can keep going for a long time - 5 turns before I'm in any danger of running out of END. However, if I'm knocked out, and wake up with, say, 5 STUN after a PS 12 recovery, I need to get through a turn with only 5 END, or find a way to take a recovery in there somewhere.

 

Or I can take a 12d6 EB at zero END. No END problems at all but I'll do less damage than those who were prepared to do the bookkeeping.

 

Or you can look at having 12d6 regardless, and either paying 6, 3 or 0 END. If I pay 6 END, I get 30 more points than the guy who spends 0 END, so I'll be more powerful in other ways.

 

What about lower level campaigns? Maybe you're a 20 STR warrior with a 4 Speed (pretty high END use for a warrior). You'll use 2 END per phase, plus 1 if you move. Say 10 END per turn. Assuming a 15 CON, you have a 7 REC and 30 END. You won't have END problems for 8 turns, absent a KO, so you're pretty safe here.

 

But what about the wizard? Hmmm...I want a FireBolt spell. It's going to be a KA, with -2 in total limitations. I have 15 points available, so I can have 45 AP. Should I make it 2d6, 0 END, or 3d6, full END? Our wizard has only a 3 SPD, and a 15 CON, but "only" a 13 STR. That's 6 REC, 30 END. He also has a mystic shield that costs 1 END per phase, and might move for another END. If he pays full END, he'll use 5 or 6 per phase, say 16 per turn. In Turn 3, we have a problem. Make him a 4 Speed (22 END per turn) and he can't even go 2 turns.

 

And, of course, we have long term END, which provides a further check against wizards using a lot of powerful, high END spells. My examples also ignore pushing, but that's because I consider pushing something used only in truly dire circumstances.

 

If all the characters are built so END is not a problem, so be it. But I find the game more fun when different characters have different strengths and weaknesses. END is one balancer. One energizer bunny - he keeps going forever - and one very powerful, but END burning, guy who hits harder, but runs out of juice, makes for two characters with different strengths and weaknesses, and a more dynamic game. My opinion, anyway.

[tesuji]

Please correct me if i am wrong but isnt ignoring end an option discussed in FRED like it was in HER)4?

 

If you insist that in order for hero to work that END must be used you exclude a lot of basic campaign notions...

 

Consider that an Xfiles game where super powers are rare and frankly even fisticuff brawls are rare will rarely use end in any significant way. is forcing the players to track end for walking down the street really gaining me much?

 

Consider that for a stargate game, again, for most of the PCs end will rarely if ever be an issue. Combats are more oftne than not gunplay, not muscle play and superpowers are rare.

 

Consider that for a bubblegum crisis anime game, where the heroes are in super powered suits, again the character spends little endurance and the suits may not have "power management" issues either or be more chanrge based.

 

None of these game feature endurance as a significant element by NECESSITY. But, according to some, if we drop the excess accounting or the Gm doesn't script things to make our end usage a significant element, we risk breaking hero?

 

Should Gms looking to play the games listed above all take the advice of an earlier poster and go find another game... hero is not for them?

 

What a fragile house-of-cards this system must be if that were true.

 

ultimate toolkit? hardly...

 

ultimate fragile-be-careful-to-not-press-too-hard-or-we-crash-like-windows-3.0 system if thats the case.

 

The HERO i played since 3rd edition was a far more resilient, robust and ... ahem...durable system than the one you describe.

 

Seriously, HERo is stronger than you think. Don't be terrified of "breaking it"... it is stornger than that. it is as strong as its GM. (no more, no less.) Strapping on a governor like "the law of unintended consequences" is like taking a high end sports car and driving it only 25 miles per hour to and from the bingo parlor every other sunday...

 

be bold. be daring. HERo can handle it!

Can you?!?

 

:-)

 

Originally posted by Bloodshot

I feel END use matters because Hero decided that it matters.

 

Seriously, if you ignore the role of END in the game, then you are altering the way the system as a whole works. The Law Of Unintended Consequences also will work against you when you do stuff like ignore SPD, or change how you calculate OCV, as the Hero System is a very tightly integrated system and one little change can act like the butterfly's wings in chaos theory.

 

Then again, I've never been the type to suggest drastic house rules.

 

If you want to ignore parts of Hero that the designers felt were important, I feel you are doing so at your own peril. It's nice the DOJ gang tells you to throw out the rules you don't like, but I figure that if it made it into the system there has still got to be a reason.

[Bloodshot]

You make some good points, but I guess I should've qualified my statement as follows:

 

I believe END *matters* in *superhero* games.

 

You're absolutely correct when you state that END wouldn't matter in an X-Files game, a Stargate game and that it might only matter for the Bubblegum Crisis game

with respect to the power suits.

 

I'm not afraid of breaking Hero. I'm a recovering powergamer, so I'm used to breaking Hero.

 

I think saying not using END was going to "break the system" was not what I intended. I intended to point out that keeping track of END *when the GM decides it's important* shouldn't be cause for complaining by the players. There's enough time between players' action phases to do a little bit of bookkeeping of their END usage.

 

Hero can work just fine if you choose to ignore END. I just think you're missing out on stuff if you toss it out in a situation where it is appropriate, which I think is the superhero genre.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Please correct me if i am wrong but isnt ignoring end an option discussed in FRED like it was in HER)4?

 

If you insist that in order for hero to work that END must be used you exclude a lot of basic campaign notions...

 

Consider that an Xfiles game where super powers are rare and frankly even fisticuff brawls are rare will rarely use end in any significant way. is forcing the players to track end for walking down the street really gaining me much?

 

Consider that for a stargate game, again, for most of the PCs end will rarely if ever be an issue. Combats are more oftne than not gunplay, not muscle play and superpowers are rare.

 

Consider that for a bubblegum crisis anime game, where the heroes are in super powered suits, again the character spends little endurance and the suits may not have "power management" issues either or be more chanrge based.

 

None of these game feature endurance as a significant element by NECESSITY. But, according to some, if we drop the excess accounting or the Gm doesn't script things to make our end usage a significant element, we risk breaking hero?

 

What a fragile house-of-cards this system must be if that were true.

 

ultimate toolkit? hardly...

 

ultimate fragile-be-careful-to-not-press-too-hard-or-we-crash-like-windows-3.0 system if thats the case.

 

The HERO i played since 3rd edition was a far more resilient, robust and ... ahem...durable system than the one you describe.

 

Seriously, HERo is stronger than you think. Don't be terrified of "breaking it"... it is stornger than that. it is as strong as its GM. (no more, no less.) Strapping on a governor like "the law of unintended consequences" is like taking a high end sports car and driving it only 25 miles per hour to and from the bingo parlor every other sunday...

 

be bold. be daring. HERo can handle it!

Can you?!?

 

:-)

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Bloodshot

I believe END *matters* in *superhero* games.

yes, i do agree, thats a whole different level of statement than the previous one.

Originally posted by Bloodshot

I intended to point out that keeping track of END *when the GM decides it's important* shouldn't be cause for complaining by the players. There's enough time between players' action phases to do a little bit of bookkeeping of their END usage.

Ahh... now i get it. i think the whole mention of the law of unintended consequences threw me and led me to think you were talking about a Gm change in the rules as opposed to player griping.

 

FWIUW, this has nothing to do, for me, with player griping. It has to do with what work and how much work i want to require of my players. I dont want to complicate their roleplay with mechanicals issue UNLESS that mechanics issue is worth it. Sure, the player can "step out of character" after each action and turn his attention away from whats going on in order to do bookkeeping, but unless that bookkeeping has merit and significance, I do not feel its a better game to have him do so. The less i force him out of character and intoi player for bookkeeping, the better my game feels and plays, IMO.

 

Originally posted by Bloodshot

Hero can work just fine if you choose to ignore END.

We agree!

Originally posted by Bloodshot

I just think you're missing out on stuff if you toss it out in a situation where it is appropriate, which I think is the superhero genre.

 

IMO, and just IMO, fatigue or endurance plays an issue in the comics very rarely. A typical superhero fight never worries about tiring or issues such as running out of webbing and the like (to throw in charges.)

 

Once in a great while, as part of the story, a superhero comic will run a scene where fatigue is an issue. The battle will be unusually long or will be a series of battles and the THEME of the story will be the fatigue or the running out of web juice/bullets. The THREAT or CHALLENGE will be to last thru the challenge and still be victotious.

 

I see that occasional fatigue/resource themed scenario as just a different flavor of challenge, similar to "its a water beast" or "its a flying beast" or "its a robot" each of whom present different challenges that have to be overcome.

 

Now, in all those "not against a robot" fights, i dont have a "robot" stat to track.

 

Now, in all those "not against a water beast" fights, i dont have a "drowning" stat to track.

 

Now, in all those "not against a flier" fights, i dont have a "fear of heights" stat to track.

 

So, why, in all those "not a fatigue themed fights" where endurance doesn't really matter, do i have an endurance stat to track?

 

I think a much more reflective of comics and user-friendly approach is the following...

 

1. under normal scenarios, end is not tracked.

2. for powers specifically listed as tiring or stressful, reflect those powers AS DIFFERENT FROM MOST by applying a side effects or a activation roll limitation. this can also be used for "pushing powers too far".

3. for specifically themed scenarios, which focus on fatigue/loss-of-expendable-resources as a threat, have specific scenario rules to cover those cases. It could be as simple as "you have already fought three battles this afternoon and are tired, apply this side effect (or act roll or burnout roll) to your power... (This does not have to be ad hoc and can be as standardized as you want.)

 

This limits the "must pay attention to fatigue" to the few scenarios where it is important and leaves all that bookkeeping off of all the scenarios where it isn't.

 

This makes it not a hassle when its not important and makes it stand out and highlight even more when it is an issue.

 

Thats the "focus on what matters" part i was trying to get across.