Redefining Power Frameworks

[zornwil]

WARNING - LONG POST - but I think this is actually rather interesting...

 

A while back I toyed with a "Universal" Power Framework construction. I was trying to back into the current ones via some singular unifying system whereby you could group powers with various EC/MP/VPP capabilities under a single framework, but with no serious recosting involved. That was all well and good, but generally unsatisfying.

 

Here's why: I believe, upon reflection, the fundamental flaws common to the existing power frameworks is that the powers are all discounted according to a framework system that does not so clearly reflect reasoning-by-effect and that framework system also does not relate well to the existing advantage/disadvantage system. It deliberately "breaks" that largely through ignoring it. And as such, much as Gary posited for ECs, perhaps we can/should eliminate the frameworks AS SUCH but rather explore the various advantages and limitations that would allow us to properly cost-balance collections of powers which are linked in the ways these frameworks link. The advantage would be that we could build those links in any way we want with any granularity we need - which is a more toolkit/HERO approach philosophically, I believe.

 

Here's a few thoughts, and would be interested in other input (starting with the most contentious, EC, and to be fair Gary's already done/provoked a lot of work on this)...

 

ECs suffer most egregiously through this confusion of how to reason by effect back to the framework. I think if we examine, as we must with the other frameworks, the actual game effects, for the EC as defined by the rules we have a list such as:

- powers must inherently link for Drain and other such power adjustment effects

- powers must cost END

- powers must be in a certain power range

- powers must share common SFX

- powers may not be combined in a multi-power attack

- any power skill may apply to all if so defined

- other, more metagame, considerations, fewer powers in an EC give less of a costbreak than more powers; there is a minimum cost to be in an EC

 

In theory, we should be able to apply limitations and advantages to reflect each condition except possibly the more metagame-oriented ones. Certainly we can cost and apply an "Inherently linked for Drain and other such purposes" limitation. And that value has been debated before. I'd say -1/4 is a fairly appropriate value, personally, although I know I've argued higher values. But the more you add, the more munchkiny it is, so while having all your eggs in that basket really does limit you more than the -1/4 implies, I'd be willing to accept that -1/4 should be the standard value and any variations are getting away from the inclination of the HERO system, requiring GM intervention.

 

As to "powers costing no END", a trickier proposition. My assumption is that as this is a balancing condition because EC grants an overall cost-break. Therefore, if we can achieve a correct collection of advantage and limitations to allow for building appropriately balanced linkages, this shouldn't matter - any character with a power with END will already have paid a correct cost for the package benefits.

 

The trickiest part is this whole issue of belonging to range of power values with an EC. Is there a metagame limitiation, "Must not cost more than more points than lowest linked power" where relates to the value of the advantage?? That's clunky, but that's what EC is effectively doing in part. My feeling is that we ought to get away from this idea entirely, that it is itself a basis for problems with EC (the old, "I can't add this small power but it fits otherwise" dilemma). Again, I really believe if we cost the other aspects correclty, this one falls into line. And the major question is the scalability and the weakness of building a character who has many eggs in a single basket (whether EC or MP). So to add a thought for a moment, taking a necessary tangent...

 

we basically now allow for a new Disad - "Character powers function predictably" which is also a way of saying "Overly Cohesive Character" or such. Call it what you will (and it needs a better name), this Disad comes into play according to the number of points in linked powers as a percent of the total points of the character, but not in a formula as such. Perhaps there could be a guideline, fine, but I think it is necessarily GM discretion as to how to determine the magnitude. Anyway, the magnitudes would run:

1 - Character is virtually helpless without his framework(s) of linked powers: 15 points

2 - Character is seriously limited but can either attack, defend, or move (only one of the three) effectively (but not with great effect) without his framework(s) of linked powers: 10 points

3 - Character is seriously limited but can perform any two of the following three effectively (but not with great effect) without his framework(s) of linked powers: attack, defend, move. 5 points.

 

This is modified in several ways. If there is more than one linked framework factored into the above, -5 automatically. Also it is heavily related to the likelihood of the framework(s) being affected:

1 - Very Common - +5

2 - Common - +0

3 - Uncommon - -5

 

I think the character Disadvantage approach to frameworks should be taken seriously by HERO players/the company. It eliminates a LOT of confusion over what the point gains are for as it makes the character impact CLEAR. However, we've not witnessed it tested so it requires considerable playtesting, so I am only saying to take it seriously - not that it necessarily works. But I think the concept is strong and if other corrections are made we might be able to stop worrying quite as much about how scaleable MPs and ECs are, if not VPPs.

 

As to powers sharing common SFX, I'd say personally that's -1/4, a small value. The real issue and debate is whether even that is warranted - I know philosophically many would simply rail that any character should have SFX that more closely relate his character. So I would point out an important rationale, and one which should be both orthodox philosophically as well as practically useful: the old fallback, a limitation not actually limiting a power is worth 0 points. So the point here is that the limitation really is "Shares commonly understood or commonly exploitable SFX." Yes, note that choice of words. The point is that the character gets a -1/4 specifically for his SFX being predictable and known to be common among his power set. That is critical. Without that actual game effect, this is not a limitation.

 

So if we even just pause here and do no more, thinking of our old friend EC, we can use the above limitations and the character disad to rearchitect such that EC as such may not exist but can be EASILY simulated with GRANULAR effects. I'm not proposing these are the right values - but as we step through I hope it becomes apparent that it may be a viable approach that is ultimately SIMPLER and MORE flexible than ECs are.

 

Powers may not be combined for MPA - hmm, this is a tad trickier, particularly as it bears on the way MPs currently work. So I'd like to defer that for a bit and discuss it in context with MPs at the same time. I'd also like to discuss that in the context of "when is a collection of Powers a power", which bears on MP.

 

Applying a single power skill to the collection seems at first glance to be an advantage. Or is this a sort of freebie compensatory situation where powers are linked "inherently"? Purchasing an advantage of +1/4 will often cost more than just buying the Power skill separately over again - but not necessarily if the power skill roll is bought sufficiently high. Also, if we read the FAQ, the FAQ actually states:

 

Q: Does a character have to buy a Power Skill for each power he has (EB, Flight, Force Field, and so on), or can he just buy one Skill for a group of powers based on special effect or some other factor (e.g., Flame Powers)?

 

 

A: That’s up to the GM, but typically characters should be allowed to buy one Skill with a group of powers linked by a special effect (such as Strength Tricks, Flame Powers, Ice Powers, or Mystic Powers). Similarly, a wizard in a Fantasy Hero campaign typically buys one Power Skill, Magic, for all his spells, not an individual Skill for each spell.

 

Okay, so basically, the attribution of Power Skill to EC is nothing more than what the FAQ indicates should be "typical". Ergo, I say that there is no further limitation/advantage to be applied. The existence of the promotion of Power Skill for EC and the lack of such explicit mention for MP or VPP is merely a clarity issue and not a rules issue per se: they took the time to clarify Power Skill with EC as ECs necessarily are united SFX, whereas MP and VPP might be "wigglier" about that (e.g., a loose VPP might require different skills to wield the Powers employed).

 

As to more or less powers belonging to a framework and the cost issue, I am also deferring that for the MP discussion coming right up...

 

MPs....yes, what do they do?

- they more heavily regulate how much power you can use of any single member power within the Framework, assuring that there's a limit

 

But really, isn't that about "all" they do? There are not the same requirements as for ECs, the powers do not have to be related in precisely the same way, thus the prohibitions are different. You can construct an MP with fewer specific limitations (in theory, the SFX could even be widely varying and sometimes are as in Batman's utilibelt, the unifying factor being "merely' focus-related).

 

But the cost issue is real. Essentially it is a limiting pool. I don't believe this can be well-modeled with advantages and limitations per se, we definitely need a "framework". Unlike EC, our very real framework is HOW MUCH power we can use at a time, not which powers. Well - not quite. EC's anti-multiple power attack rule indicates a sort of MP-like construction that borders on the Fixed Slot concept. This is where we're butting heads against the "Powers that are really a single power" concept. But even that concept is difficult.

 

ECs purport that their member Powers are all part of a single power. MPs do not exactly do that, and neither really do VPPs. Both MPs and VPPs may have Powers which are unrelated EXCEPT the degree to which they may be used at one time. Often, for gadgeteers, the powers employed are very different in SFX, sharing, perhaps, merely a vague "equipment that could be built according to the campaign world's realism" basis. Certainly that's the case with the utilibelt.

 

Mutants and Materminds addresses the notion of power level and power congruency with a fascinating idea that you can define a group of powers merely by adding a bunch of powers as "Extras" onto a base power.

 

HERO for characters and in MultiPowers has presumed that 1/5 is a "fair" value for building one character or power based entirely on another. So let's merely extend that in a way internally consistent for HERO but noting that as M&M indicates there are Powers that collected are a single power and some are not. So we now have a "Related Power" power. It's paid for at 1 per 5 Active Points and cannot exceed the power that is given as its basis. It will serve as our basis for replacing all 3 frameworks. And the above limitations are additional to it, please note.

 

Now that doesn't answer the all-or-nothing multi-power and such issues. I say that all-or-nothing POWER LEVEL is a +3/4 limitation, and it does NOT mean the power must be used at maximum value, rather than when it is, it takes up that much power usage; a +1 limitation may be applied for a true "must be used at max" which I believe is the orthodox limtiation. I feel that while this does not arrive at Multipower's 1/10 value, it gets very close, and it best expresses the real relationship, with the +1 still available, and, besides, let's face that multpowers will often get a few +1/4s from above - but also may not.

 

Not sure if the math adds up - these are really just thoughts...

 

So that leaves VPP - which to me is a way of saying that your "Related Power" can be any power and as such it's not 1/5 points, instead it's a +1/2 advantage to the base power and all resulting powers MUST be based on that power!

 

Okay, that last one is just a toss-out, but an interesting one to start from -

 

any thoughts?

[TheEmerged]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

Originally posted by zornwil

any thoughts?

 

Only that I'll need a lot longer than I have this morning to give that a fair examination

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Here's why: I believe, upon reflection, the fundamental flaws common to the existing power frameworks is that the powers are all discounted according to a framework system that does not so clearly reflect reasoning-by-effect and that framework system also does not relate well to the existing advantage/disadvantage system. It deliberately "breaks" that largely through ignoring it. And as such, much as Gary posited for ECs, perhaps we can/should eliminate the frameworks AS SUCH but rather explore the various advantages and limitations that would allow us to properly cost-balance collections of powers which are linked in the ways these frameworks link. The advantage would be that we could build those links in any way we want with any granularity we need - which is a more toolkit/HERO approach philosophically, I believe.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

ECs suffer most egregiously through this confusion of how to reason by effect back to the framework. I think if we examine, as we must with the other frameworks, the actual game effects, for the EC as defined by the rules we have a list such as:

- powers must inherently link for Drain and other such power adjustment effects

- powers must cost END

- powers must be in a certain power range

- powers must share common SFX

- powers may not be combined in a multi-power attack

- any power skill may apply to all if so defined

- other, more metagame, considerations, fewer powers in an EC give less of a costbreak than more powers; there is a minimum cost to be in an EC

 

Most of these are for game balance purposes, because of the ease that ECs could be abused.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

In theory, we should be able to apply limitations and advantages to reflect each condition except possibly the more metagame-oriented ones. Certainly we can cost and apply an "Inherently linked for Drain and other such purposes" limitation. And that value has been debated before. I'd say -1/4 is a fairly appropriate value, personally, although I know I've argued higher values. But the more you add, the more munchkiny it is, so while having all your eggs in that basket really does limit you more than the -1/4 implies, I'd be willing to accept that -1/4 should be the standard value and any variations are getting away from the inclination of the HERO system, requiring GM intervention.

 

That would be a preferable change to me, replacing ECs with a -1/4 "drained together" limitation. Although you have to be prepared to make it a -0 limitation if the player also has a significant amount of power defense as well.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

As to "powers costing no END", a trickier proposition. My assumption is that as this is a balancing condition because EC grants an overall cost-break. Therefore, if we can achieve a correct collection of advantage and limitations to allow for building appropriately balanced linkages, this shouldn't matter - any character with a power with END will already have paid a correct cost for the package benefits.

 

If you make it an explicit limitation, this restriction won't be needed. That's because "cost=value" already, and we won't need any further balancing.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

The trickiest part is this whole issue of belonging to range of power values with an EC. Is there a metagame limitiation, "Must not cost more than more points than lowest linked power" where relates to the value of the advantage?? That's clunky, but that's what EC is effectively doing in part. My feeling is that we ought to get away from this idea entirely, that it is itself a basis for problems with EC (the old, "I can't add this small power but it fits otherwise" dilemma). Again, I really believe if we cost the other aspects correclty, this one falls into line. And the major question is the scalability and the weakness of building a character who has many eggs in a single basket (whether EC or MP). So to add a thought for a moment, taking a necessary tangent...

 

If you make it an explicit limitation, you can add any size power to the "framework". A 5 pt power can be in the same "framework" as a 30 pt power and a 60 pt power. Nice and elegant.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

I think the character Disadvantage approach to frameworks should be taken seriously by HERO players/the company. It eliminates a LOT of confusion over what the point gains are for as it makes the character impact CLEAR. However, we've not witnessed it tested so it requires considerable playtesting, so I am only saying to take it seriously - not that it necessarily works. But I think the concept is strong and if other corrections are made we might be able to stop worrying quite as much about how scaleable MPs and ECs are, if not VPPs.

 

I think if the person has significant amounts of power defense, the linkage would be worth a -0 as a limitation, but would be worth something as a physical limitation disad.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

As to powers sharing common SFX, I'd say personally that's -1/4, a small value. The real issue and debate is whether even that is warranted - I know philosophically many would simply rail that any character should have SFX that more closely relate his character. So I would point out an important rationale, and one which should be both orthodox philosophically as well as practically useful: the old fallback, a limitation not actually limiting a power is worth 0 points. So the point here is that the limitation really is "Shares commonly understood or commonly exploitable SFX." Yes, note that choice of words. The point is that the character gets a -1/4 specifically for his SFX being predictable and known to be common among his power set. That is critical. Without that actual game effect, this is not a limitation.

 

As for the common SFX, the player still has to logically explain why draining 1 power drains all of them at the same time.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

Powers may not be combined for MPA - hmm, this is a tad trickier, particularly as it bears on the way MPs currently work. So I'd like to defer that for a bit and discuss it in context with MPs at the same time. I'd also like to discuss that in the context of "when is a collection of Powers a power", which bears on MP.

 

This restriction would no longer be needed if it were an explicit limitation rather than a EC. A -1/4 wouldn't be cost effective just to provide a MPA. An effective -1 like the current EC makes the potential for abuse too great.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

HERO for characters and in MultiPowers has presumed that 1/5 is a "fair" value for building one character or power based entirely on another. So let's merely extend that in a way internally consistent for HERO but noting that as M&M indicates there are Powers that collected are a single power and some are not. So we now have a "Related Power" power. It's paid for at 1 per 5 Active Points and cannot exceed the power that is given as its basis. It will serve as our basis for replacing all 3 frameworks. And the above limitations are additional to it, please note.

 

OK.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

Now that doesn't answer the all-or-nothing multi-power and such issues. I say that all-or-nothing POWER LEVEL is a +3/4 limitation, and it does NOT mean the power must be used at maximum value, rather than when it is, it takes up that much power usage; a +1 limitation may be applied for a true "must be used at max" which I believe is the orthodox limtiation. I feel that while this does not arrive at Multipower's 1/10 value, it gets very close, and it best expresses the real relationship, with the +1 still available, and, besides, let's face that multpowers will often get a few +1/4s from above - but also may not.

 

What you're proposing is a trivial enough change that we can probably leave the current MP system in place for simplicity.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

So that leaves VPP - which to me is a way of saying that your "Related Power" can be any power and as such it's not 1/5 points, instead it's a +1/2 advantage to the base power and all resulting powers MUST be based on that power!

 

Okay, that last one is just a toss-out, but an interesting one to start from -

 

any thoughts?

 

VPPs have a high potential for abuse, but that's for another thread.

[Kristopher]

Whereas my major concern is not obsessing over every last little point and and a half, not compulsively struggling for the unobtainable: absolute fairness in every fraction.

 

My major concern in creating a character is executing the concept as closely as possible.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Whereas my major concern is not obsessing over every last little point and and a half, not compulsively struggling for the unobtainable: absolute fairness in every fraction.

 

My major concern in creating a character is executing the concept as closely as possible.

 

I agree.

 

That's why I think more rather than less granularity in designing frameworks should be desirable.

[CorpCommander]

Going back

 

I have a copy of Champions 1. 1st Ed. I think going back to that might help. Things were simpler then. ;-)

 

Seriously though, you are talking about a grand unified theory for everything - the String/Membrane theory of the universe in gameable format. I think Hero has been trying to be that for decades - and its been doing a good job thus far.

 

My only warning is you will never please everyone. Its going to be hard to get a majority of people to accept this. DOJ in particular made it an aim of 5th ed. to NOT too terribly break old character designs. In the few places where they did that, there was much griping and moaning.

 

Thats not to say this isn't worth the time or effort.

[zornwil]

Thanks. It's definitely an academic exercise, even though bit by bit it WILL see life in my games.

[Doc Democracy]

I'm always fascinated when people do this, partly because I'd like to and never get round to it. I'm sympathetic to the way it's going though!

 

Originally posted by Gary

That would be a preferable change to me, replacing ECs with a -1/4 "drained together" limitation. Although you have to be prepared to make it a -0 limitation if the player also has a significant amount of power defense as well.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with this. The EC bonus is there regardless of whether the character has power defence or not.

 

Just because the character has power defence doesn't alter the fact that draining their flight will also drain their force field and energy blast...

[Kristopher]

I don't even agree with having all the slots of an EC drained together. If the character with the EC is hit with an adjustment power bought with the advantage to affect all the powers of a certain FX at once, then I'd apply the effect to all the slots. But not by default.

 

[Doc Democracy]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I don't even agree with having all the slots of an EC drained together. If the character with the EC is hit with an adjustment power bought with the advantage to affect all the powers of a certain FX at once, then I'd apply the effect to all the slots. But not by default.

 

This is another issue. The rules are quite clear though that the EC essentially represents a single power that the character is able to manipulate for different effects. Thus the fire character is using the same power source for everything and as you drain one of those things it has effects on them all.

 

It is consistent and it does provide a significant limitation for the cost benefit it provides.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Doc Democracy

This is another issue. The rules are quite clear though that the EC essentially represents a single power that the character is able to manipulate for different effects. Thus the fire character is using the same power source for everything and as you drain one of those things it has effects on them all.

 

It is consistent and it does provide a significant limitation for the cost benefit it provides.

 

What part of "I don't agree" wasn't clear?

 

I don't care in the slightest what the book says, I don't consider it one power. In fact, until I get home tonight and re-read the FREd section about ECs, I'm not so sure the rules actually say that an EC is one power. I'm pretty sure that 4th Ed didn't explicitly make ECs out to be a set of variations on a single power.

 

ECs are, in my opinion, a reward to the player for having a consistent concept and construction. All three power frameworks are, in my opinion, tools for realizing the concept, not something to obsess over the balance of.

 

I don't honestly care if all the PCs are "balanced" in all their myriad minutia. As long as the players and the GM all feel that the game is fair and enjoyable, that's all that matters.

 

No amount of tweaking and slide-ruling the rules can make bad players into good players, or bad GMs into good GMs. And a mediocre system can still be used for a great game if you have good players and GMs. I've been in increadible games using West End Games' mediocre pile-of-sixes system.

 

I honestly do not understand the obsessive-compulsive nature of the discussions about balancing this and that with some other thing.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Doc Democracy

I'm not sure that I agree with this. The EC bonus is there regardless of whether the character has power defence or not.

 

Just because the character has power defence doesn't alter the fact that draining their flight will also drain their force field and energy blast...

 

But, having lots of power defense does alter how much the "limitation" actually limits the character. If it's very unlikely that the "limitation" limits the character, it's probably worth a -0 limitation. Just like Activation 17- would be worth a -0. It's technically limiting, but not enough to be worth a -1/4.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I honestly do not understand the obsessive-compulsive nature of the discussions about balancing this and that with some other thing.

 

Then why have a point system at all?

[Kristopher]

There's a difference between having a point system, and being obsessed with getting it "perfect"* to the last minute fraction of a point, with trying to get every character so perfectly balanced that it could stand on the head of a pin.

 

I see thread after thread about "fixing" STR or "fixing" some other thing, when it all it comes down to is a handful of points, especially relative to the total number of points in the PCs of any given campaign. Big flippin deal.

 

At some point, you just have the trust that GMs and players will either get it right on their own. Bad GMs and bad players will ruin games no matter what you do in game design, no matter how much effort you put into making things perfect.*

 

* and what exactly "perfect" is, is somewhat a matter of opinion.

 

[lemming]

Originally posted by zornwil

Thanks. It's definitely an academic exercise, even though bit by bit it WILL see life in my games.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Gary

Then why have a point system at all?

The point system is good for those that need the guidance of the point system to balance. The rules are there to help the beginners. How soon it is before they want to go outside, is up to them.

 

Now if we actually had something that could quantify balance, that would be cool. However, it's going to be different between almost any GM and game.

 

Heck, Zorn & I run games for each other and he lets things through that I would stomp. Hmm, not sure of the reverse, but I've got a rather severe dictatorship going.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

There's a difference between having a point system, and being obsessed with getting it "perfect"* to the last minute fraction of a point, with trying to get every character so perfectly balanced that it could stand on the head of a pin.

 

Again, why have points if they don't relate to what you can buy with them?

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

I see thread after thread about "fixing" STR or "fixing" some other thing, when it all it comes down to is a handful of points, especially relative to the total number of points in the PCs of any given campaign. Big flippin deal.

 

It depends on what you mean by a "handful" of points. 25-50 pts from a 350 pt character may be a "handful", but they're very significant. Especially if the character combines several "tricks" and saves 100 or more points.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

At some point, you just have the trust that GMs and players will either get it right on their own. Bad GMs and bad players will ruin games no matter what you do in game design, no matter how much effort you put into making things perfect.*

 

Then why bother to have a detailed game system like Hero at all? After all, a "Good" GM will get it right and a "Bad" one will get it wrong regardless of system.

 

I think it's a worthy goal to have as "good" of a game system as feasible. YMMV.

[Gary]

Originally posted by lemming

The point system is good for those that need the guidance of the point system to balance. The rules are there to help the beginners. How soon it is before they want to go outside, is up to them.

 

That's an even better argument to have "points=value". People like you who don't care about points wouldn't care about them even if they more accurately reflected what things are actually worth. People who do care about points generally do want cost=value.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

Again, why have points if they don't relate to what you can buy with them?

 

They already do, and quite nicely, with a few minor exceptions.

 

It depends on what you mean by a "handful" of points. 25-50 pts from a 350 pt character may be a "handful", but they're very significant. Especially if the character combines several "tricks" and saves 100 or more points.

 

Given a good GM, the same tricks are available to every player.

 

Hmm, come to think of it, what exactly do you mean when you say "tricks"?

 

Then why bother to have a detailed game system like Hero at all? After all, a "Good" GM will get it right and a "Bad" one will get it wrong regardless of system.

 

That's not really what I said, Gary.

 

I think it's a worthy goal to have as "good" of a game system as feasible. YMMV.

 

IMO, it's a lot closer to as good as it can get than you seem to think.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

That's an even better argument to have "points=value". People like you who don't care about points wouldn't care about them even if they more accurately reflected what things are actually worth. People who do care about points generally do want cost=value.

 

Whereas I would say that I care about points, but that I'm not obessive-compulsive about them.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

They already do, and quite nicely, with a few minor exceptions.

 

What would you consider an exception?

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

Given a good GM, the same tricks are available to every player.

 

Hmm, come to think of it, what exactly do you mean when you say "tricks"?

 

Except that people who play conceptions that don't use those tricks are at a disadvantage to people who do.

 

Examples of things that give greater power to people who use them than people who don't, are ECs (especially without 5th edition restrictions) and certain Characteristics. Also, certain limitations don't really limit characters as much as the points they save indicate they should.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

That's not really what I said, Gary.

 

Why are you even bringing up "good" and "bad" GMs then? It's a given that a bad one will wreck any system and a good one will thrive under any.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

IMO, it's a lot closer to as good as it can get than you seem to think.

 

Hero has certainly gotten better each edition. However, it's certainly not as perfect as you seem to imagine it to be.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Whereas I would say that I care about points, but that I'm not obessive-compulsive about them.

 

Who is "obsessive-compulsive"? We both care about points to some extent. My line is simply further along than yours.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Gary

That's an even better argument to have "points=value". People like you who don't care about points wouldn't care about them even if they more accurately reflected what things are actually worth. People who do care about points generally do want cost=value.

I agree with but would rather not have it taken to the extreme since your cost != my cost.

 

Fiddling with the system on the other hand is fine and it's not like one doesn't learn anything out of these excercises.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

What would you consider an exception?

 

Damage Shield after the 5th Ed changes. Making ECs extremely vulnerable to Adjustment Powers, powers that normally require an advantage to have that much effect at once. Allowing Dispels to be used against Persistent powers.

 

Except that people who play conceptions that don't use those tricks are at a disadvantage to people who do.

 

I'd like an example of a concept that can't use any of the "tricks".

 

Examples of things that give greater power to people who use them than people who don't, are ECs (especially without 5th edition restrictions) and certain Characteristics. Also, certain limitations don't really limit characters as much as the points they save indicate they should.

 

ECs are the perfect example of the attempted solution (the 5th Ed restrictions) making things worse instead of better.

 

As for limitations, I'm not really concerned that someone's OIF doesn't make the powers in it useless 1/3 of the time -- that's taking things too literally. Lifewise, I'm not concerned if the failure percentage doesn't match up with the savings percentage for powers with Activation rolls.

 

Why are you even bringing up "good" and "bad" GMs then? It's a given that a bad one will wreck any system and a good one will thrive under any.

 

There are things a game can get right on its own, and things that only a good group can get right no matter how hard the game designers try. Most of your proposed changes are in that upper area where they only make things harder for good groups, and won't make things any better in the bad groups.

 

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Damage Shield after the 5th Ed changes. Making ECs extremely vulnerable to Adjustment Powers, powers that normally require an advantage to have that much effect at once. Allowing Dispels to be used against Persistent powers.

 

Obviously, this is your opinion. I simply have more things on my laundry list than you.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

ECs are the perfect example of the attempted solution (the 5th Ed restrictions) making things worse instead of better.

 

This I disagree vehemently with. Pre-5th edition ECs were not even remotely balanced in any way shape or form. They were simply free points. At least 5th edition added a cost for all the benefits received.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

As for limitations, I'm not really concerned that someone's OIF doesn't make the powers in it useless 1/3 of the time -- that's taking things too literally. Lifewise, I'm not concerned if the failure percentage doesn't match up with the savings percentage for powers with Activation rolls.

 

Would you be concerned if those limitations that don't really limit allowed one person to run a 450-500 pt character when the rest of the party is built on 350 pts? OIHID and OIF Power Armor are easily abusable, especially if the character adds a EC to squeeze out even more points.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

There are things a game can get right on its own, and things that only a good group can get right no matter how hard the game designers try. Most of your proposed changes are in that upper area where they only make things harder for good groups, and won't make things any better in the bad groups.

 

How would getting rid of figured characteristics and replacing EC with an explicit "drain one drain all" limitation make things harder for good groups? Or make things any worse for bad groups? Getting rid of figureds and ECs would actually simplify things tremendously.