Redefining Power Frameworks

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I don't care, Gary. It's just not that big of a deal.

 

With a few tiny exceptions, I like HERO the way it is. If someone like you got their metagaming little hands on it, HERO would be ruined. It would be Fuzion all over again.

 

You were the one who brought up that point, and now you don't care. Right.

 

Why don't you actually put "in my opinion" into all your statements instead of rabid hyperbole that only sounds silly. Removing figured characteristics wouldn't "ruin" Hero, and it's completely ludicrous to think so.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Gary

Why don't you actually put "in my opinion" into all your statements instead of rabid hyperbole that only sounds silly. Removing figured characteristics wouldn't "ruin" Hero, and it's completely ludicrous to think so.

I must of missed something.

 

I for one, like the idea of no figured characteristics.

Might do it for a Fantasy Game. and this from a guy who doesn't want to see STR recosted

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

You were the one who brought up that point, and now you don't care. Right.

 

Why don't you actually put "in my opinion" into all your statements instead of rabid hyperbole that only sounds silly. Removing figured characteristics wouldn't "ruin" Hero, and it's completely ludicrous to think so.

 

You're confused about what I originally brought up and why.

 

Removing Figured Characteristics, changing out ECs for some kind of wonky Limitations structure, and messing around with the costs of the Primary Characteristics would fundamentally change HERO, and for the worse.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher

You're confused about what I originally brought up and why.

 

Removing Figured Characteristics, changing out ECs for some kind of wonky Limitations structure, and messing around with the costs of the Primary Characteristics would fundamentally change HERO, and for the worse.

 

In your opinion. In the opinion of other people, it would make things better.

 

A -1/4 "drain one drain all" limitation is "wonky"? To me, it's basic and easy to understand. I'm sorry it's so conceptually difficult for you.

[Kristopher]

It's not difficult, it's just wonky.

[Gary]

In your opinion.

[Kristopher]

Sure, why not.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Doc Democracy

Don't want to get into the Gary vs Kristopher argument - it's obvious Kristopher sees nothing wrong with ECs and that he's not convinced that they could be improved.

 

However, I think that this is another reason to look seriously at this idea. If you don't like the fact that ECs get all their powers drained at the same time then this system would allow you to remove that facet and reduce the benefit provided.

 

On the face of it, it looks more complex but as it simply uses limitations it works the system as it normally would instead of introducing an exception (power framework) that provides benefits outside the normal advantage/limitation/disad system.

 

Keep going Zornwil!

 

Thanks for the encouragement. You know, the funny thing is that I really am not in the "EC is broken" camp as Gary is, but given the controversy surrounding it as well as what I consider an oddity in how HERO deploys it (there are too many metagame considerations in my opinion, such as "no END powers') I do think there's room for improvement. And in general I'm fascinated with the idea - whether it proves unworkable - of finding a way to "intertwine" the features of the various frameworks and somehow derive a system even more internally consistent than the existing additional frameworks (all 3 of which work differently).

[zornwil]

I think the only thing "wonky" about an "inherently linked" limitation is that it is extraordinary in that it must apply to more than one power..

[Doc Democracy]

Originally posted by zornwil

Thanks for the encouragement. You know, the funny thing is that I really am not in the "EC is broken" camp as Gary is, but given the controversy surrounding it as well as what I consider an oddity in how HERO deploys it (there are too many metagame considerations in my opinion, such as "no END powers') I do think there's room for improvement.

 

I've happily used and probably misused ECs since I started playing the game many years ago. I don't have any driving desire to change it but there always has to the possibility that it could be done better.

 

When you get to the point that you believe any system is perfect then there is something wrong. Even if it was as good as it could be it wouldn't be perfect!

 

Originally posted by zornwil

And in general I'm fascinated with the idea - whether it proves unworkable - of finding a way to "intertwine" the features of the various frameworks and somehow derive a system even more internally consistent than the existing additional frameworks (all 3 of which work differently).

 

Well, Hero is often touted as the ultimate system for tinkerers and all you are doing here is tinkering.

 

The system is actually labelled as a toolkit and encourages people to look at alternative ways of running the system.

 

In fact, I would welcome a book that provided a range of ways that the system might be changed and used as well as the Ultimate stuff and genre books. What would it be called - Ultimate Hero Alternatives???

[SSJ Archon]

No Frameworks at all!

 

Lets slow down and talk about what the cores of each framework are in game.

 

The virtual powerpool revolves around the idea that all the powers in it 1) have a similar and like SFX and 2) Share there power (points).(It also as the most freeform of all the mechanics!)

The elemental control revolves around the idea that all the powers in it 1) have a similar and like SFX. (Often with a base power, which all other parts rely on.)

The multipower revolves around the idea that all the powers in it 1) Share there power (points).(A modular system, where not all the components cany be used at once.)

 

I only see two different mechanics, the sharing of power and the sharing of SFX.

 

Now lets consider some game mechanics, using what we have extracted above and try to put it into constructs, powers, advantages and disadvantages.

 

----

 

Limitation: One At a Time -0, -1/4,-1/2,-3/4 depending.

Flag this power. Only one power with this flag can be used at per segment. To determine the value of this disadvantage, find the active cost of this power divided by the total active cost of all flaged powers, taken to the negative one. round down to the nearest modifier, and that is the value of this limitation. This Limitations value must be recalculated whenever the active cost of any flaged power is changed, a power is unflagged, of a new power is flagged. (At the GM's option, you may instead round to the nearest modifier, because rounding down is to prevent abuse. Also, by increasing the cost the GM may create new modifiers that change the per time period.)

 

Limitation: Similar SFX -0, -1/4,-1/2,-3/4 depending.

Flag this power. Only one power with this flag can be used at per segment. To determine the value of this disadvantage, find the active cost of this power divided by the total active cost of all flaged powers, taken to the negative one. round down to the nearest modifier, and that is the value of this limitation. This Limitations value must be recalculated whenever the active cost of any flaged power is changed, a power is unflagged, of a new power is flagged. (At the GM's option, you may instead round to the nearest modifier, because rounding down is to prevent abuse.)

 

Power: Empty Power

These are points which sit on you character sheet and do nothing by themselves.

 

Advantage: Can be Pumped +1/2

This power can have for limited amounts of time additional dice of effect. The difference between the powers normal real cost and new temperary real cost must be provided by an equivelent amount of points from a Empty Power. (I purposely did not put in how much time because that needs play testing.)

 

Advantage: Manifestation +1/2

This power has no Real cost. You cannot buy any dice of effect for this power. You can only take this advantage on a power with Can be Pumped. A power with Manifestation cannot be Aided by your own Aid. (No building powers with no dice of effect without this!)

 

Blah! Did I miss anything? If not, then with these you can do away with all the frameworks.

[zornwil]

How do you handle multiple pools? Also,it does seem very complex. I'd prefer something "flatter" in application of lims and values.

 

Very very loose talk here...

 

would be interested in something like:

 

power: normally applied as a Power with its lims and advantages

 

elemental power: normally a collection of Powers drawing on the same SFX, really, if you think about it, the same POWER SOURCE (given that all powers must cost END and they are assumed to drain at once): this is much like a power that is "shared" by many Powers that can sometimes activate at once, if you have the END (but you don't have to have APs except for a certain "ratio" among them, but this can be controlled by the owning power slot); as such each power has a limitation sort of like you have above as to how much it can be used

 

multi power: normally a collection of Powers that when added up do not exceed the AP of the multipower itself - reasonably straightforward, each additional Power in the collection is basically having a -4 limitation on it with an additional halving for being fixed

 

variable power: normally any collection of Powers that fit, the power slot basically getting a +1/2 advantage for this variability, but there are strings attached of course to that flexibility

 

So there's sort of a progression of "power slots"

- Usable Up to Pool Limit

- Usable Only with Related SFX Conditions

- May be switched with any power - and a level of relationship here is implicit in the way we grant advantages on VPPs, so it's something like we go from "Any closely related power may be switched to with correct materials/abilities" to "Any closely related power may be switched to anytime" to "Any related power" with those timescales to "Any vaguely related power" to "Unrelated powers".

 

So what can we build from that? Can we build pure "power pools" which have universal advantagesa and limitations and can then have Powers easily applied to those slots?

[zornwil]

Power Slot (PS): A generic container for any Power or number of Powers. The Active Points of all Usable Powers (UPs; see definition of "Usable Power" below) must not exceed the Active Points of the PS. Advantages and limitations applied to the PS must be applicable to all UPs.

 

A PS may be defined as "Predefined" or "Flexible". A Predefined PS is the "default" condition; it requires that all Powers to be used in the PS are defined up front; these predefined powers are referred to as Dormant Powers (see below) and their cost in Active Points INDIVIDUALLY must never exceed the APs of the PS.

 

A Flexible PS allows any sort of power to be dropped into it (i.e., this is a VPP), not predefined up front. This requires a +1/2 Advantage, "Flexible". NOTE - you may create only a portion of the PS as Flexible, thus paying the +1/2 on that portion.

 

For Predefined PSs (or the portion of a PS that is Predefined), Dormant Powers must be bought. A Dormant Power receives, by default, a +4 Limitation, "Dormant Power". A Dormant Power is no different than any other Power except for its interaction within the PS...

 

as a Dormant Power must become a Usable Power (UP) to actually be used. A Usable Power is merely the Dormant Power but at the level of Active Points that the PC assigns to the Dormant Power, which may be up to the maximum of the Dormant Power's APs (which may never be greater than the PS's AP minus all other currently Usable Powers). A UP in other words works as variable slots in the old MP construct.

 

Note that the first post in this thread would dictate all the other conditions such as "Inherently Linked" and the like for the Dormant Powers. VPP-like traditional Limitations could be applied to limit Flexible Powers. Drains against PCs would work according to the SFX of the Drain and the PC.

 

I think I am getting close. This post plus the first I think might be able to be fashioned into a new construction which eliminates EC, MP, and VPP while addressing all of their functionality and fairly recosting, MAYBE. If I can prove this out, I may actually implement in my game as I think I'm starting to get to something workable. Will spend more time on it - but would love more comments!

[zebediah]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

This only resolves ECs, and has no interaction with multipowers and VPPs, but I still think it's an interesting concept/generalization you might want to think about...

 

HKA and RKA differ in that the RKA is ranged (a +1/2 advantage) and HKA can be increased by Strength--5 active points per 5 levels of Strength, up to 'double' the effect of the power.

 

I've been playing around with the idea of a "Attribute-Based" advantage, +1/2, which allows a Power to gain additional effect, one additional AP per level of the base attribute, up to double. So you could have Mind Control based on your Presence, or Armor based on your Constitution, or Luck based on your Intelligence (you have to notice things and know what tricks to exploit...)

 

But the interesting effect of this is that you could then define 'blank' attributes to create and EC-like effect. Say an attribute, "Fire" which costs 1 point per point, and all your fire-themed powers are "Fire-Based." They need to be unified in special effect in order to be plausably based on the attribute, and by draining the attribute, you can reduce powers by up to half. The blank attribute may even have the built in flaw of being drainable by anything that drains something based on it.

 

This immediately gives ride to the question of "How does a HKA in such an EC-like setup work?" I'd guess that such a power would have to be "Attribute Based" on both Strength and the elemental attribute, looking sort of like the following:

 

Killing Attack (10 points per due of killing damage), Strength-Based (+1/2), Fire-Based (+1/2), total: 20 points per die of killing damage.

 

Each level of Strength of Fire increases the effective active points of this attack by one, i.e. Str 20 would add one die of killing damage, and Fire 7 would add one pip of killing damage.

 

I'd guess that you'd max out at 3 times the base level, so a 3d6 KA based on strength and fire couldn't exceed 9d6 (and would need combined strength and fire attributes of 120 to get it to that level). After all, being based on two things is a +1 advantage, and as such you could have bought twice as much power for it--it seems logical you could pull a little more oomph out of that if you wanted.

 

 

 

An alternate tactic could be to have Succor, All (Fire) based powers, no END, standard effect, and buy down the max effect from it until it's simply a block of AP you can apply to any fire-based power. Heck, if you bought it for all fire-based powers, only one at a time, you could do something that vaguely resembled a multipower pool.

 

Would that be totally abusive, illegal, not point-efficient, or otherwise poor? I haven't seen anyone mention using adjustment powers to simulate EC-like effects, despite the fact that they're one of the few powers with explicit special-effect driven advantages.

[zornwil]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

We're about to start a game so I'll reply more later, thanks so much for the thoughts!

[Black Rose]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

Well, Hero is often touted as the ultimate system for tinkerers and all you are doing here is tinkering.

 

The system is actually labelled as a toolkit and encourages people to look at alternative ways of running the system.

 

In fact, I would welcome a book that provided a range of ways that the system might be changed and used as well as the Ultimate stuff and genre books. What would it be called - Ultimate Hero Alternatives???

 

For myself, I would love to see the system broken down to its component HERO-atoms, for easier perusal. When you think about it, breaking it down is only the reversal of creating certain scalable power writeups for one's own campaign world Ex: I rule that a car battery does, at most, 2 1/2d6 KA (electricity), and a lightning bolt does 5d6 KA (electricity). A torch does 1/2d6 KA (fire), a bonfire 2d6 KA (fire), AoE-1 hex, and a blast furnace 4d6 KA (fire) NND. What is so different, conceptualisation-wise, from tearing HKA and RKA apart and figuring out the hand, ranged, and killing parts?

 

Now granted, I think that HERO, taken to this level, would be all but useless as a game, but as a toolkit, it would be very nice. I also think it would be great if, once deconstructed, it were put into some sort of program. That would take the grind out of most from-the-ground-floor power construction.

 

IMO, o'course.

[zebediah]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

 

Now granted, I think that HERO, taken to this level, would be all but useless as a game, but as a toolkit, it would be very nice. I also think it would be great if, once deconstructed, it were put into some sort of program. That would take the grind out of most from-the-ground-floor power construction.

 

IMO, o'course.

 

 

I think it would be great. But then again, I'm a theoretical mathematician, and I love hero for the way it breaks things down into itty bitty component parts that you then get to string together. I just don't think it goes quite far enough. :']

 

Of course, if it were doing that, worldbooks and GMs would effectively get to design the base powers for their world, and then pass it to the players--the players would need to see a bunch of half or fully built powers to figure out what they want. Though given that most Hero books are a signifigant fraction preconstructed powers for use in your games...

 

 

 

I keep thinking that there used to be a system out there which was sold as a metasystem--you built the world's cultures, and they provided you with tools to make magic systems, rather than magic systems themselves. I can't remember what it was called, though--I seem to remember it died an ignonimous death from unreadability.

[Intrope]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

I think it would be great. But then again' date=' I'm a theoretical mathematician, and I love hero for the way it breaks things down into itty bitty component parts that you then get to string together. I just don't think it goes quite far enough. :'']

 

Of course, if it were doing that, worldbooks and GMs would effectively get to design the base powers for their world, and then pass it to the players--the players would need to see a bunch of half or fully built powers to figure out what they want. Though given that most Hero books are a signifigant fraction preconstructed powers for use in your games...

 

I keep thinking that there used to be a system out there which was sold as a metasystem--you built the world's cultures, and they provided you with tools to make magic systems, rather than magic systems themselves. I can't remember what it was called, though--I seem to remember it died an ignonimous death from unreadability.

That sounds like Aria, which was probably the greatest unplayable game system ever. Which was unfortunate, since the actual idea (play your culture through the ages, more or less) was pretty cool.

 

And I agree: having a really low-level HERO to build the actual game out of would be quite cool.

[zornwil]

Re: Redefining Power Frameworks

 

This only resolves ECs, and has no interaction with multipowers and VPPs, but I still think it's an interesting concept/generalization you might want to think about...

 

HKA and RKA differ in that the RKA is ranged (a +1/2 advantage) and HKA can be increased by Strength--5 active points per 5 levels of Strength, up to 'double' the effect of the power.

 

I've been playing around with the idea of a "Attribute-Based" advantage, +1/2, which allows a Power to gain additional effect, one additional AP per level of the base attribute, up to double. So you could have Mind Control based on your Presence, or Armor based on your Constitution, or Luck based on your Intelligence (you have to notice things and know what tricks to exploit...)

 

But the interesting effect of this is that you could then define 'blank' attributes to create and EC-like effect. Say an attribute, "Fire" which costs 1 point per point, and all your fire-themed powers are "Fire-Based." They need to be unified in special effect in order to be plausably based on the attribute, and by draining the attribute, you can reduce powers by up to half. The blank attribute may even have the built in flaw of being drainable by anything that drains something based on it.

 

This immediately gives ride to the question of "How does a HKA in such an EC-like setup work?" I'd guess that such a power would have to be "Attribute Based" on both Strength and the elemental attribute, looking sort of like the following:

 

Killing Attack (10 points per due of killing damage), Strength-Based (+1/2), Fire-Based (+1/2), total: 20 points per die of killing damage.

 

Each level of Strength of Fire increases the effective active points of this attack by one, i.e. Str 20 would add one die of killing damage, and Fire 7 would add one pip of killing damage.

 

I'd guess that you'd max out at 3 times the base level, so a 3d6 KA based on strength and fire couldn't exceed 9d6 (and would need combined strength and fire attributes of 120 to get it to that level). After all, being based on two things is a +1 advantage, and as such you could have bought twice as much power for it--it seems logical you could pull a little more oomph out of that if you wanted.

 

 

 

An alternate tactic could be to have Succor, All (Fire) based powers, no END, standard effect, and buy down the max effect from it until it's simply a block of AP you can apply to any fire-based power. Heck, if you bought it for all fire-based powers, only one at a time, you could do something that vaguely resembled a multipower pool.

 

Would that be totally abusive, illegal, not point-efficient, or otherwise poor? I haven't seen anyone mention using adjustment powers to simulate EC-like effects, despite the fact that they're one of the few powers with explicit special-effect driven advantages.

I'm going to give this more thought, not sure how your suggestion would work but it sounds interesting.

 

As to what I addressed earlier, please note that post #63 above does have significant implications for MPs and VPPs; you would use this in conjunction with the limitations/advantages described early in the thread.

 

Right now I'm still floundering on this whole "container" concept and rather stalled out.