Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

[Doc Democracy]

Zornwil brought this up some time ago and raised it again in the Polishing the Hero System thread. I must have been mulling this over in the back of my head because as I travelled home from work in the train this evening this came to me. I haven't done any detailed analysis of costs as yet so they are likely to be a bit all over the place but I thought that the denizens of these boards would be the best people to knock it into shape.

 

Now some people may not think that a universal framework is a good idea - that's fine, I wouldn't force one upon you - but I would like to keep this thread to discussion on how you might make one work rather than on why it wouldn't work.

 

Zornwil's idea was to scrap VPPs, multipowers and elemental controls and replace them with a universal framework that might be customised (in true Hero fashion) to fit the framework envisaged. He had proposed a multipower type construct that I _think_ I have improved on.

 

My proposal is as follows:

 

A framework power is a coherent set of powers that are linked in some way intrinsic to the character. This may mean that the powers are a result of some uber-skill of the character (such as a gadgeteer) or are due to powers of the character (such as a flame based character). Regardless, the coherence of these powers suggests that some flexibility is required.

 

The framework power is bought as follows.

 

Buy the POWER POOL. This limits the total amount of power available to the character. 1 character point will purchase 2 points in the power pool. The pool can take a limitation whereby adjustment powers that affect its special effect would affect all powers active within the framework (+1/2)

 

Buy SLOTS for the framework. The more slots there are in a framework the more flexibility that framework can provide and therefore the more powerful it is. This should be paid for. Each slot costs 2 character points.

 

Buy SLOT POWERS for the framework. This is where the discounts are applied. For every slot power that is to run from the power pool there must be a slot available, though a character can have empty slots he should not have more slot powers than slots.

 

The framework provides particular discounts for slot powers. When a power is bought it should be decided whether the slot power will be FLUID or STATIC and DEFINED or UNDEFINED.

 

A STATIC power always costs the same amount of points from the power pool regardless of whether the character uses it at full power or not. A FLUID power draws only as much from the pool as the character is using.

 

A DEFINED power is one where the actual power, e.g., Energy blast is chosen right away. An UNDEFINED power can be FUNDAMENTAL or UNIVERSAL.

A FUNDAMENTAL power is always based around the same power type, e.g., attack or entrap but may use different powers to achieve that effect. A UNIVERSAL power may be anything at all.

 

A defined, static slot would attract a bonus +9 limitation (just like an ultra slot in the current multipower).

A defined, fluid slot would attract a bonus +8 limitation

A fundamental, static slot would attract +7 limitation

A fundamental, fluid slot would attract a +6 limitation

A universal, static slot would attract a +5 limitation

A universal, fluid slot would attract a +4 limitation (like a multi slot in the current multipower)

 

The player would be able to activate powers in the framework as long as the active points in those slots did not exceed the points in the power pool.

 

EXAMPLE

 

Fireguy has a fire framework power. It has 150 points in the pool and contains 5 slots. Those slots are all affected by adjustment powers that affect heat/flame

 

1. 10" Flight, 0 END - this is a 30pt defined static slot. Cost - 3pts

2. Darkness (IR only) - this is a 30pt defined static slot. Cost - 3pts

3. Flame Projection - this is a 75pt fundamental fluid slot. Cost - 11pts

4. Flame Manipulation- this is a 60pt fundamental static slot. Cost - 7pts

5. Heat Effects - this is a 60pt universal fluid slot. Cost - 12pts

 

The overall cost is 50+10+3+3+11+7+12 = 96 points.

 

The effect is that the flame projection slot would provide Flame Guy with attack options that were based on shooting flames at people - this would obviouslyu include EB and RKA type powers; the Flame Manipulation slot would allow Flame Guy to use powers that would manipulate flames to douse fires or move them aside or whatever and the Heat Effects could be any power that had heat as an underlying concept - melting metal, oxygen starvation etc etc.

 

Obviously the costs of the slots could be subject to other limitations to reduce costs.

 

SUMMARY

As I see it this framework would allow a range of different powers to be bought for the character that would fit within an overall power concept. It gives some of the flexibility of the multipower and provides some measure of control on the proliferation of slots by making those slots themselves cost to buy and imposes some order on VPPs by ensuring that, even if the slots are all universal the GM would have a rough idea of how many powers the character would have active and the size of those powers.

 

As I said, I think this is basically Zornwil's idea tidied up a bit...

 

 

Doc

[zebediah]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I'd be most wary about the fact that you can get 2-3 AP worth of power in your pool for only one point. That seems to be asking for trouble.

 

I may be misunderstanding, but, without a prohibition that there are no "single power" pools, you can get:

 

23 points for a "generally drainable" pool of 70 AP.

2 points for a single slot.

8 points for a single 70 AP power with the -9 "static defined slot power" limitation.

 

We now have a single, 70 point power without any particular limitaitons for 33 points. 45, if you don't allow the "limitation."

 

 

Say we actually spend the 35 points for a non "generally drainable" pool, and buy all static slots, at the above noted cost of 10 points apeace.

 

A pool with N static slots is now 35 + 10N points.

 

Under the normal multipower pool rules, it would be 70 + 7N points.

 

The new pool is a better deal until you have 12 slots...which is a lot.

 

And, unless I'm misreading, making the slots fluid would increase the cost of each slot power by 1 point... so

 

New Cost: 35 + 11N

 

Old Cost: 70 + 14N

 

the new framework would always be cheaper, and just become more and more of a better deal as you gain more slots.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

We now have a single' date=' 70 point power without any particular limitaitons for 33 points. 45, if you don't allow the "limitation."[/quote']

 

This is the first thing I thought of, as well. There has to be some way to incorporate the idea that buying a single-power pool of any sort will not save you any points.

 

I like the idea behind the proposition but I'm too tired to work it out (not being the most diligent of souls when it comes to mechanix).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

New Cost: 35 + 11N

 

Old Cost: 70 + 14N

 

the new framework would always be cheaper, and just become more and more of a better deal as you gain more slots.

 

 

Good points - like I said (I think!) I hadn't completely thought through the costs but I wanted to get the principles down before I got distracted (painting the house in anticipation of a new baby!)

 

If the costs are the only problem then that's easily fixable. I meant to compare and contrast but didn't. Will think about costs - but what about the principles of the idea?

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

New Cost: 35 + 11N

 

Old Cost: 70 + 14N

 

the new framework would always be cheaper, and just become more and more of a better deal as you gain more slots.

 

Would a quick gain be to require the power pool to be bought point for point and give the +1/2 for adjustment powers to the individual slots? That would mean that the single power framework would _have_ to cost more than buying it straight.

 

It still makes straight multipowers cheaper than before - but not excessively so. There is also the point that while the opld system would allow powers to be bought such that each slot costs 1pt. A slot under the new system would never cost less than 3pts - 1 for the power an 2 for the slot.

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I'm at the Greenville-Spartanburg airport and logging on here (pretty cool eh?) while I'm waiting to board (in a bit) because I had a general question (will post that thread in a bit)...and voila I see this!

 

Thanks Doc Democracy! I want to post a couple threads I'm thinking about (1 here, 1 NGD) so I probably won't have time until late tonight or tomorrow to review your new spin on this in detail but I must say it looks similar to where I was leaving off but hadn't been able to get past a couple things. I'm looking forward to seeing how you dealt with some of the loose threads from last time. I really appreciate your work, and happy to see the idea is alive among at least someone besides me!

 

You just made my day!

[zebediah]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Well, loud people outside my window are keeping me awake, so in the interest of doing something fun as long as I ca't sleep...

 

 

There are some good notions in here. Especially, I like the idea of a separate "slot" cost, independant of the pool and the powers in it. That allows for an actual point-thing to limit when you want to say "changing between spells in my magic multipower takes a full phaze of concentration, remembering the arcane jestures needed," or "in order to switch the settings on my uberweapon, I have to focus my complete attention on it, leaving me at 1/2 DCV" without having to take those limitations on the actual casting of spells or the firing of the gun itself. Heck, it could allow you to set up different conditions on switching to different slots...Exalted has an artifact called "The Infinite Weapon" (a gross exageration, like most names in Exalted) that's basically a big hammer. You can spend your full phaze transforming it into any of the other weapons in its library, or you can reflexively turn it back into a big hammer if you need to...like, for example, if the powerbow you've turned it into just isn't going to help you parry the advancing barbarian's axe swing. Or you could have some spells that require you to consult your grimore to prep the casting, by applying a Focus to the slot, but not the slot power--once you've refreshed your memory, you don't need to keep looking at the book to cast.

 

The slot cost may want to be higher, to better reflect the impact that the cost of changing it has. I'm not sure how one would simulate a slot that's both hard to change into and hard to change out of ("Setting the dimentional disruptor belt to allow you to linger between dimentions (a Desolid affect) is onerous, and it is no less onerous to recalibrate it so it can again use its normal dimenitonal window powers (a multipower of teleport, EDM, and clairsentience)"), and there may be unbalancing affects if you, say, can apply Triggers to slots (My giant multipower pool switches to my persistant self-healing power automatically if I ever get knocked out, making sure I'll be back in the fight again in just a phaze or two!), but it sounds like it would add a lot of flex to power constructs...

 

Remember, any "universal power construct" has to be able to do VPPs as well as Multipower pools. And limitations on when and how you can change powers is a major part of VPPs.

 

 

Other than that...ECs seem to do an entirely different things the Multipower pools, in that all the powers in an EC can be used at the same time, at full value. I don't see how that's emulated in your General Power Framework...though, to be frank, I'm not sure that it should be. ECs may be better done with limitations ("power is drained whenever any other power on this list is drained") and possibly disadvantages ("[some/Most/All] the character's powers are [inconvenienced/highly weakened/crippled] when this [common/uncommon/rare] condition is met"...sort of like a Physical Limitation) But if you want to work ECs into this...well, I don't see how, so either a bit of an explanation or a bit more thought should go into the idea.

 

Definitely a cool idea, and I'm looking forward to watching this thread. Being a Pure Math geek, going down to the building blocks of things and seeing if multiple facets of something can be reduced to a few core principles is right near the top of my "10 most fun things in the world" list.

[zebediah]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Also worth noting...I tend to think Hero does a pretty good job of being balanced, but people do complain about the Power Frameworks (mostly ECs) a fair amount. Seeking something that will give very similar point totals to the basic FRED system is a noble goal, but if you think the current system is unbalanced in some way, you may want to consider what sort of balance you're ultimately looking for.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I like it a lot (though I'm biased ), but, yeah, I think we need to think about costs. Before doing so here's a few thoughts, somewhat random at the moment:

 

1 - This could do well in eliminating the "EC controversy" while it provides for a pool with slots that seems like it would allow the same functionality, just much more clearly and consistently

 

2 - It does (finally) allow us to effectively group MP, VPP, and EC sorts of slots/powers in a consistent manner, which is what I'd really like to see (in fact, the "stand-alone" nature of EC and MP is, IMHO, a major disconnect that allows for more abusive play, even if generally players/GMs strive to ensure appropriateness so in actual play I'm not contending abuse is widespread - but that's "despite" the disconnect in EC/MP, not because of it)

 

3 - What I really like: this more clearly than my first take expands on the MP construct which is the most accepted of the 3 frameworks and has significant community "buy-in"

 

4 - What i also like - it more strongly suggests higher character consistency on the whole, without unduly demanding it. In fact that is a bit buried in the example; I suggest doing something stronger (will elaborate below)

 

5 - As stated above by zebediah, there's no "switching" governance, and given the tradition of VPP, that might be in order

 

6 - I find the distinction between Fundamental and Universal most interesting. The Fundamental is "sort of" like a hybrid EC/VPP, where the effect is narrow enough it is sort of like a -1 "Very Limited Class of Powers" but its also kin to the EC concept; but it really borrows from VPP heavily to make this effect even if it begs the Elemental definition; I think you're encouraging the gameplay very well with this distinction, kudos.

 

Some suggestions:

 

1 - Slot switch governance

 

Defined powers are freely switched as they are (presumably) so "ready-made" that the character knows them inside-and-out, which seems to me to mirror both heroic fiction and how HERO has worked to date.

 

Undefined Fundamental powers I'd suggest a full phase switch as default (as opposed to VPP's not in combat), with an Advantage of +1/4 for half phase or +1/2 for full phase (I think we can deal with some costing issues a bit later). Given this sort of slot and its adherent limitation that the effect is rather limited, I think this is fair. However, we're discouraging the traditional fluidity of ECs which this is kin to. But is that bad? No, because the Defined slots allow for EC powers just as much (particularly as you've deliberately "de-costed MPs a bit...but this its own issue, see below) and the construct allows for appropriate flexibility therein. I think the literature supports a small delay. Half phase might be better though?

 

Whereas Universal, like VPP, should follow the original VPP switch method, I believe

 

2 - Fundamental slot definition/requirement

 

The example of this is great. I suggest that what the example implies should be codified, namely in terms of the coherency required of a Fundamental slot.

 

SFX - a Fundamental slot must have a specific SFX. These should be somewhat narrower than traditional EC SFX. For example, "weather" is too broad but "fog effects" or "rain effects" are fine. Another example, "mental powers" is too broad but "telekinetic effects" are okay (which doesn't mean the power Telekinesis must be selected; could be that the power assigned at a given moment is "Naked Advantage Increased Knockback", representing that whatever the target is hit with by the character, the character will use his basic TK skills to throw the target further).

 

Powers - a power selected MUST be from a SINGLE category: Adjustment, Attack, Body-Affecting, Defense, Mental, Movement, Sense-Affecting, Sensory, Size, "Special" (GM Attention, "!"), or "Standard" (Again, GM Attention, "!"). It is important to note the GM may allow a select hybrid or specialized category created by mutual GM/Player consent as these categories undoubtedly won't cover all desired groupings. For example, the GM and Player may agree that a "Moving Others" slot that has an SFX of "telekinetic effects" is Movement category but only with "against others", but also includes Telekinesis.

 

3 - Cost determination

 

This isn't anything to do with the framework rules, rather, it's how we get to the right values. I suggest rewriting various CU characters (and from related sourcebooks/examples) and seeing how we do on total costs. Those characters where there's been considerable debate as to being "over-effective" we shouldn't sweat that we've reduced cost.

 

Danger point...MP costs, as indicated above. We have to be careful when we convert over. A character with an MP shouldn't just have the original MP converted, but the new Universal Framework (whatever we call it, see below) should include other powers grouped in that formerly couldn't be put into a framework (see more on that below as well). This means the base cost bumps up anyway, plus as you state above slots cost a tad more as we don't get down to those single point slots anymore. However, still, mostly I think a character with ONLY an MP will see a decreased cost, so I do think we have to recost somewhere. It could be as simple as increasing the base slot costs.

 

And I think a slightly higher slot cost is GREAT in counter-acting the age-old MP single point abuses

. While it's not a hot-button, we all know that increased number of slots, even a small number (like 8) can be under-valued compared to utility. So ensuring slots cost minimally 3 or 4 points, we may achieve a new balance that

scales up better as XPs are added to the pool

.

 

Still, we need to be sensitive to recosting such that MPs just end up cheaper. I think the HERO community has "proven" that the MP structure is successful and aside from abuse by piling on slots or limitations the costs are "appropriate".

 

As I've gone through this two more considerations:

 

7 - This new framework might really be excellent in incorporating powers that formerly weren't linked quite appropriately as they clearly were entirley coherent with an MP or EC but didn't "fit" inside of it and therefore got placed outside.

 

8 - What do we name this? If this somehow gained acceptance, calling it a "Universal Framework" is silly as the name now is only by comparison to the three frameworks of entirely different mechanics currently available. Possibly just "Powers Framework"? And what about the issue of opening the door so that now all powers get put into it and points are devalued for powers? While some of that is the GM assuring no such abuses, this still begs putting too many eggs in the basket. Possibly the limitations of it need to be spelt out and more considered.

 

I'm fairly excited, this is a good take, Doc Democracy. Obviously the numbers crunchers, back from their games on the weekend, will probably skewer this a bit but no matter, I think we can get somewhere.

 

If we can get to a point where this seems to function in a balanced way while being coherent and easy to understand (which I think it already is on the latter two counts), we should submit a DH article, if HERO were to so allow it as a "modest proposal" as it were.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Very nice work Doc Democracy.

As Zornwil pointed out 'Universal' in the name could be a little confusing.

For name suggestions how about:

 

• Neo-Framework
  
• Root-Framework
  
• Base-Framework
  

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Very nice work Doc Democracy.

As Zornwil pointed out 'Universal' in the name could be a little confusing.

For name suggestions how about:

 

• Neo-Framework
  
• Root-Framework
  
• Base-Framework
  

 

Actually I was thinking of just calling it a Framework Power. If there is only one framework then the Framework Power would be a decent way of distinguishing it from simple powers bought directly.

 

I've been thinking a lot about this over the weekend - I've been away at the in-laws - trying to take into account what people have said. I've got a couple pf pages and have ben trying to compare a simple example of group of powers.

 

I've been looking at costs etc and how these should be distributed. With any luck I should get some time this evening to sit down and convert things from my notebook into electronic text and post it here.

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Actually I was thinking of just calling it a Framework Power. If there is only one framework then the Framework Power would be a decent way of distinguishing it from simple powers bought directly.

 

I've been thinking a lot about this over the weekend - I've been away at the in-laws - trying to take into account what people have said. I've got a couple pf pages and have ben trying to compare a simple example of group of powers.

 

I've been looking at costs etc and how these should be distributed. With any luck I should get some time this evening to sit down and convert things from my notebook into electronic text and post it here.

 

Doc

Cool, I have the CU characters in HERO Designer format and we could do some comparisons as we start to play with points values.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

OK – I’ve been working. I think I have a decent description written out but I wanted to see whether I could address some of the details that have to be straightened out for more detailed use of framework powers.

 

I think the current description stands up for straightforward usage but that the framework might be most interesting in what it allows different from the current three framework situation. I think many of the questions have been brought up by Zebediah and Zornwil (is there something about Z names?)

 

The differences that I changed from the original proposal are:

 

1. Slot costs vary dependent on the type of slot. Defined slots cost 1 point, fundamental slots two points and universal slots four points. I’m not sure whether those costs are enough but I think that they are good starting points.

 

2. I have changed the ‘slot limitations’ applied to powers in framework slots. An ultra in a current multi-power essentially takes a +9 limitation on its active point cost while a multi slot takes a +4 limitation. I have suggested that static fundamental slots cost +4, fluid fundamental slots cost +2, static universal slots cost +2 and fluid universal slots cost +1.

 

3. I have taken the hint about switching costs and included them as follows. Defined slots can be activated as a zero phase action. They are powers that the character uses easily and are second nature. Fundamental slots can be activated as a zero phase action while using, and changing, powers require a full phase action. Universal slots can also be activated as a zero phase action but using and changing the powers require a full phase action and a skill roll (-1 per 10 active points).

 

4. The reserve pool costs one point per point in the pool.

 

Questions

What about Elemental Controls? - This is one of the things I was continually grappling with. I was wondering whether you might buy a slot a ‘default’ whereby a framework defaults to that power after a certain period or when the character is unconscious. What that cost might be I’m not sure. Another option is that any slot that takes the adjustment power limitation may apply the limitation to the active point cost applied to the reserve (thus making it more likely to be able to use more ‘elemental’ powers at one time).

 

I’m not entirely sure that I want to emulate ECs – they seem to be the thing that people complain about most strongly. I reckon I’d be most in favour of applying the limitation with regard to adjustment powers to make the framework cheaper and leave it at that.

 

Slots that are difficult to use? - I think that this would be easy to do by changing the properties of the slots identified in point 3 above. I’d have to think about what the limitations would be to make slots more difficult to activate and change/use.

 

Variable Power Pools? - I’d be inclined to use all of the limitations for VPPs for fundamental and universal slots where appropriate – adding those limitations to the limitations on the slot cost.

 

Do we have other issues that I should try to address before going forward? I’ll post a comparison of similar groups of powers bought through the frameworks currently available.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

OK Zornwil

 

You'll recognise the bits you've written - an improvement on the original? I think the next step has to be a few comparisons. I'll try it for FlameGuy now.

 

The Framework Power

 

A framework power is a way of rewarding tight character concepts by introducing flexibility into a character’s powers. The framework collects powers that are related via special effect, type or power source. Each framework would have a theme, like flame powers or nanotechnology gadgets or armoured exoskeleton.

 

A character can have as many framework powers as they wish, each one following a different power theme. Powers within one framework should not add to similar powers in a second.

 

A framework consists of a power reserve and slots that contain powers. The size of the reserve determines how many powers can be active at any one time; the active points of active slots cannot exceed the reserve cost.

 

Slots

 

Slots within the framework can be fluid or static. Static slots always draw the same power from the reserve regardless of how much power the character uses. That is, a power costing 75 active points will draw 75 points from the reserve whether or not the character is using the power at full effect. Fluid slots enable the character to draw only as much power from the reserve as required to use the power at the desired level. FireGuy has a slot with a 12D6 Energy Blast at half endurance. That is a 75 active point power. If the slot is static then FireGuy uses 75 points from the reserve whether or not he uses all 12D6. If the slot is fluid and he wishes to use just 6D6 then FireGuy only draws 37 points from the reserve.

 

Slots within the framework can contain defined or undefined powers. Defined powers are those where the effect and power are known and fixed, e.g. 12D6 Energy Blast (special effects – fire) ½ END. Undefined powers come in two forms: fundamental where the powers follow a broad outline, e.g. flame projection and universal where any power might be available within the overall theme of the framework.

 

Fundamental slots probably require most guidance. Defined slots are simple and universal slots almost unrestricted. A fundamental slot must have a specific special effect. For example, "weather" is too broad but "fog effects" or "rain effects" are fine. Another example, "mental powers", is too broad but "telekinetic effects" is okay (which doesn't mean the power Telekinesis must be selected; it could be that the power assigned at a given moment is "Naked Advantage Increased Knockback", representing that whatever the target is hit with by the character, the character will use his basic TK skills to throw the target further). Powers selected for a fundamental slot MUST be from a SINGLE category:

 

 

Adjustment,

Attack,

Body-Affecting,

Defence,

Mental,

Movement,

Sense-Affecting,

Sensory,

Size,

"Special" (GM Attention, "!"), or

"Standard" (Again, GM Attention, "!").

 

 

It is important to note the GM may allow a select hybrid or specialized category created by mutual GM/Player consent as these categories undoubtedly won't cover all desired groupings. For example, the GM and Player may agree that a "Moving Others" slot that has a special effect of "telekinetic effects" is Movement category only with "against others" but also includes Telekinesis.

 

 

Buying a Framework Power

 

The power reserve costs 1 point per point in the reserve. Defined powers are purchased as normal, calculating the active points of the power but the real cost may apply not only limitations chosen for the power but also the slot limitation. Slot limitations are as follows:

 

Static Fluid

Defined Power +9 +4

Fundamental Power+4 +2

Universal Power +2 +1

 

FlameGuy wants to be able to shoot fiery bolts of energy, to manipulate fire as if it was a solid substance, to cause changes in temperature, to fly, to make the surrounding environment match his own body temperature thus rendering him invisible to infra red vision and to reflect the fact that his power over flame could render him immune to extreme heat and cold, poisons and diseases would also be voided by his burning metabolism. This is five slots. Two slots would be defined powers for flight and darkness (IR only) and FireGuy’s player decides these two should be static slots. The other three slots are undefined. Fire projection would give the ability to shoot fiery bolts and this is tight enough a concept to be considered fundamental to the framework, fire manipulation is also tight enough to be fundamental, a fiery body would be universal useful for life support when necessary but also for burning those that touch him. FireGuy’s player decides to make the fire projection slot static but the others fluid.

 

Each slot costs points to establish. A defined slot costs 1 point, a fundamental slot costs 2 points and a universal slot costs 4 points. Thus FireGuy spends 2 points on two defined slots and 4 two on fundamental slots and 4 on a universal slot.

 

10†Flight at 0 END costs 30 active points for slot one, 6†Darkness (IR only) costs 30 active points for slot two, the player decides to buy 75 active points for slot three (allowing a 12D6 energy blast at half endurance), 60 active points for slot four (allowing 20 STR area effect TK, 0 END) and 24 active points for slot five (giving 24 points for life support).

 

FireGuy’s plater also decides not to apply limitations to either of the fundamental slots. If the player had decided to reduce the slot cost by applying limitation then the slots would have had to apply a generic limitation and any powers bought through the slot would have to apply limitations of twice that, as in the variable limitations limitation. For example, if the Flame manipulation slot needed a limitation of +½ to reduce the cost then all powers in that slot would have to apply limitations to the value of +1.

 

FireGuy’s fire framework power would therefore look as follows:

 

 

Fire Framework Power – Reserve 120

Power description Active cost limitations Real Cost

1 10†Flight, 0 END (defined, static) 30 +9 3

2 3†Darkness, IR only (defined static) 30 +4, +1 5

3 Flame projection (fundamental, static) 75 +4 15

4 Fire manipulation (fundamental, fluid) 60 +2 20

5 Fiery body (universal, fluid) 24 +1 12

 

The total cost of the framework power would be 120+10+3+5+15+20+12 = 185 points.

 

 

Switching Slots

 

Defined slots can be activated as a zero phase action. They are powers that the character uses easily and are second nature. Fundamental slots can be activated as a zero phase action while using, and changing, powers require a full phase action. Universal slots can also be activated as a zero phase action but using and changing the powers require a full phase action and a skill roll (-1 per 10 active points).

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

(major snippage, to get to the questions)

 

Questions

What about Elemental Controls? - This is one of the things I was continually grappling with. I was wondering whether you might buy a slot a ‘default’ whereby a framework defaults to that power after a certain period or when the character is unconscious. What that cost might be I’m not sure. Another option is that any slot that takes the adjustment power limitation may apply the limitation to the active point cost applied to the reserve (thus making it more likely to be able to use more ‘elemental’ powers at one time).

 

I’m not entirely sure that I want to emulate ECs – they seem to be the thing that people complain about most strongly. I reckon I’d be most in favour of applying the limitation with regard to adjustment powers to make the framework cheaper and leave it at that.

 

I think this structure gives enough cost break and flexibility to allow for the same structure, or, at least, if we work at it, it should. Particularly bearing in mind you pay a half cost for the base pool cost. I think that allows for ECs fairly easily, and without the artificial limitations (no 0 END, no Sense powers, etc.) in the name of balance - the construct provides balance inherently (well, if we can get it to!).

 

Slots that are difficult to use? - I think that this would be easy to do by changing the properties of the slots identified in point 3 above. I’d have to think about what the limitations would be to make slots more difficult to activate and change/use.

 

On the whole, existnig lims probably account for this, along with the VPP limitations (below).

 

Variable Power Pools? - I’d be inclined to use all of the limitations for VPPs for fundamental and universal slots where appropriate – adding those limitations to the limitations on the slot cost.

 

I agree, certainly, at least, with the Universal slots, the Fundamental is a "soft" Universal in a way and I think we need a slightly lesser "control" on it.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

(snippage)

 

The Framework Power

 

...

 

A character can have as many framework powers as they wish, each one following a different power theme. ...

 

I would just change the quoted sentence to something such as "Generally, a character should have one framework power though possessing two is not entirely uncommon; GM's should review and specifically grant permission for more than one framework power." - Don't know if you agree, but I think that, aside from a few characters with very distinct gadgets versus elemental pools, typically this should encompass most characters needs in Fantasy or Champions or most other genres.

 

A framework consists of a power reserve and slots that contain powers. The size of the reserve determines how many powers can be active at any one time; the active points of active slots cannot exceed the reserve cost.

 

Eventually need to add some verbiage around Linked Powers outside of a framework (though never in another framework). No biggie and not germaine to our current purposes.

 

Slot limitations are as follows:

 

Static Fluid

Defined Power +9 +4

Fundamental Power+4 +2

Universal Power +2 +1

 

Not concerned with documenting this in the current "working rules", but as a comment, Defined Powers shouldn't have Limitations placed on the slot but rather typically only on the occupying power itself. For example a Defined Static slot that contains a power built on a Focus should not take the Focus Limitation on the slot but rather on the power. Thus, following this example, the occupying Defined Static power of, say, 60 points, would take the Focus Limitation and be valued appropriately, while the 60 point slot cost would have a -9 Limitation (NB - the Limitation values above should be "-" not "+" for rules consistency). The slot would not have -9 and the Focus Limitation. The only situations where slots would typically take Limitations would be where the Limitation will not be redundant to powers in the slot, typically in the case of a Universal slot in which any power can be placed but the slot itself has, for example, a Charges Limitation where no matter what powers are used the slot may only be used for "x" Charges.

 

FireGuy’s plater

 

FYI, typo

 

using, and changing, powers require a full phase action.

 

Minor, just noting I think you didn't intend the comma after "changing"?

 

So, yeah, I think this is pretty good!

 

I'll try to work up some character comparisons but that could be a couple days, I have some things to get done tonight and home recording sessions (other people, obligations) Tuesday and Wednesday nights.

[Intrope]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Hmmm, I like this very much. So, let me take a stab at an example: I'll take Witchcraft, and write up her framework this way. To avoid pasting her character sheet in, I'll note that she has a multipower, an EC, and a VPP, and has spent a total of 178 points on them.

 

First, all her powers are mystic in origin so it makes sense to put them all in the same Framework Power. To try to preserve the existing character as much as possible, I'll make the reserve 60 (the MP) + 2x30 (the EC) + 30 (the VPP) for 150 points.

 

So:

 

150 Reserve: 150 points
  8 Slots: 4 defined, 1 fundamental, 1 Universal w/ Limited class of powers (only magic, -1/4) and Can only change with access to spellbook (-1/2)
  6 1-Witchfire, 60ap, (Defined, Static) (-9)
  6 2-Man into Frog Spell, 60ap, (Defined, Static) (-9), Limited Target: Humans (-1/2)
 12 3-Soulcrusher's Lore, 60ap, Any spell of mental domination/damage/destruction/confusion, (Fundamental, Static) -4
  3 4-Shield of Sorcery, 30ap, (Defined, Static) (-9)
  3 5-Wings of the Wind, 30ap, (Defined, Static) (-9)
 10 6-Lesser Witcheries, 30ap (Universal, Static) (-2)

 

Total Cost: 198 points (20 more than before).

 

This makes her rather more flexible: she could toss out a Multi-Power Attack with her attack powers while still having her Shield of Sorcery active!

 

On the other hand, it now takes her longer to switch between her purely mental powers, since they've been compressed into a single slot.

 

For that matter, I'd probably reduce her reserve by 30 points, reducing the total cost to 168 (and then spend 10 points on CON, probably). She'd then have to make a trade off to use her Lesser Witcheries slot (since she can no longer attack, fly, sheild, and use lesser witcheries at the same time). But, she could alternate between flying and attacking for the most part.

 

Notes on the Framework itself:

I'd suggest Flexible rather than Fundamental for the middle slot type.

 

Small limitations on Defined, Static slots tend to have no effect on the cost. That might be a good thing, actually; you're already getting a huge point break!

 

BTW, I assumed that the VPP control-like limitations and advantages would apply to the cost of the slot, rather than the cost of the power. Is that what you intend? If so, that does leave one problem area: Cosmic VPPs go from 2.5x base point down to 1.33x base points + 12. Applying the advantage to the slot cost probably won't work either; it would make it far more expensive than before: 4x base points + 4 (because the reserve has to be base points, cosmic (+2) in size). Maybe all control cost advantages should be halved? at +1 for Cosmic, and applied to the slot cost you get 2.66 x base points + 4 for a cosmic slot, which is just about right.

 

Anyway, their's an example for you to chew on.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Good Work Intrope!

 

You definitely gave us a good example to compare to existing rules.

 

Looking at the math breakdown I see a couple of possible problems:

Math-phobes now have even more ammunition.

Could encourage power escalation more since the fundamental cost is more like Multipower than Elemental Control now.

 

I am curious about (Fundamental, Static) -4

since the character has a 150 point reserve can the character use 2 different powers out of this 'slot' or would a second identical slot cost have to be purchased to do this?

 

I ask because my 'signature' character (hyper-man) is built with a 100 point reserve with all powers except 1 built on 50 active points. The 100 point power is a TK AA grab weapon manuever that's about his casual STR [20] defined as a hyper-speed multiple move by/grab. All of his slots are 'ultra' at the moment but with experience the first thing I would do is change the slots I want to eventually increase to 'multi' slots.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Intrope thank you VERY much!

 

Hyper-Man, good point about "math-phobes" but given the differing approaches of VPP, EC, and MP, I think this is a wash on the whole - we put it one package for them so they only have to deal with one methodology. However, it's a good concern. I hate to sound this way but...ultimately I think it's a concern I'm going to "ignore", in that HERO is crunchy, pure and simple. For the math-phobes we have M&M. I was just reading some of that exchange and willingly or not I think HERO must cede the "easy" end of the market, which isn't to say we shouldn't make the case that it's not so hard. And I do think having one framework instead of three is easier. But, yeah, it's not a simple framework.

 

Anyway, I do think there's legitimate concern over "slot stacking". One possible solution is to up the basic slot costs, but given Intrope's example it might be that the costs are already a tad higher in general, and I'd rather have a focused "watch the number of slots" concern than the traditional "watch the slots in MP" + "let's have artificial limits on ECs". Still, yes, will try to walk through examples and see.

 

A Fundamental Static slot, I believe, could have more than one power in it but regardless would always take up the 60 points. But I'm not sure if Doc Democracy agrees. In any event, the primary difference between Fundamental and Universal is not so much how the slot is "parsed" but (IMHO) that the Fundamental is a much more limited and defined class of powers - it really is a sort of mini-EC so as such could be made rather large and have a number of powers in it, much like an EC with some Variable Advantages and Power Skill. I think of the Fundamental slot as a hybrid EC/VPP and the more I think about it the better I think the game might be for it. We open the door to the Cyclops "my eye blasts do all sorts of things" power with neither the hassle of EC nor the open-ended nature of VPP, although, yes, I admit to an increased complexity. Still, unlike VPP, we have given the GM a better administrative tool by declaring how the power must fit into a predefined, narrow group of powers AND SFX.

 

So anyway, if we proceed from my thoughts (and I hope DD's as well on this but am certainly open to discussion), to directly answer your question, the Fundamental Static slot could be apportioned so long as: the slot is ALWAYS taking up its points in the overall Framework (even if you're using less power in it); and the powers fit the proper predefined category and SFX.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I would just change the quoted sentence to something such as "Generally' date=' a character should have one framework power though possessing two is not entirely uncommon; GM's should review and specifically grant permission for more than one framework power." - Don't know if you agree, but I think that, aside from a few characters with very distinct gadgets versus elemental pools, typically this should encompass most characters needs in Fantasy or Champions or most other genres.[/quote']

 

Yeah - I suppose it puts the focus on one framework rather than a host of them without ruling anything out.

 

 

Not concerned with documenting this in the current "working rules"' date=' but as a comment, Defined Powers shouldn't have Limitations placed on the slot but rather typically only on the occupying power itself. For example a Defined Static slot that contains a power built on a Focus should not take the Focus Limitation on the slot but rather on the power. Thus, following this example, the occupying Defined Static power of, say, 60 points, would take the Focus Limitation and be valued appropriately, while the 60 point slot cost would have a -9 Limitation (NB - the Limitation values above should be "-" not "+" for rules consistency). The slot would not have -9 and the Focus Limitation. The only situations where slots would typically take Limitations would be where the Limitation will not be redundant to powers in the slot, typically in the case of a Universal slot in which any power can be placed but the slot itself has, for example, a Charges Limitation where no matter what powers are used the slot may only be used for "x" Charges.[/quote']

 

Hmm. I had looked at this. The current situation with multipowers (if I remember properly) is that they work out the active cost of the power - apply the slot limitation for ultra or multi - then apply a further limitation based on those limitations placed on powers. Thus a power with 60 active points in an ultra slot and an obvious accessible focus would first be reduced to 6 points due to the ultra and the to three points due to the focus.

 

In our new framework, the way I have structured it, the focus would add to the ultra slot and the final cost would be 5 points - 60/(1+9+1).

 

If I get you right, you would work out the real cost of the power and then apply the slot limitation? Thus giving the same cost as the current multipower. I can go with that! The question arises about fundamental and universal slots that have taken a commitment to have -1 limitations. Does the -1/2 apply before the slot or after. I'm assuming that a 60 active point universal slot would take the power limitation before the slot limitation. So a 40 real point power would have the slot limitation applied to it?? Yes?

 

 

Minor' date=' just noting I think you didn't intend the comma after "changing"?[/quote']

 

No. As far as my grammar stretches I have to put a comma at both ends of the and changing or not put commas in at all. I know my boss would prefer none at all and I'm slowly coming round to his way of thinking...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Thank you very much Intrope. Good grist for the mill.

 

Notes on the Framework itself:

I'd suggest Flexible rather than Fundamental for the middle slot type.

 

Yeah - I'm open to better names. The defined and universal seem good enough but the fundamental was an attempt to get away from elemental but flexible might be a better option. I will not defend the titles of these things to the death.

 

Small limitations on Defined' date=' Static slots tend to have no effect on the cost. That might be a good thing, actually; you're already getting a huge point break![/quote']

 

Well - Zornwil's suggestion would change that - making defined powers cheaper than a similar power in a universal or fundamental (I'll keep calling it that as a working name to avoid confusion) slot. I have no problem with that as a way of keeping the number of defined slots up.

 

BTW' date=' I assumed that the VPP control-like limitations and advantages would apply to the cost of the slot, rather than the cost of the power. Is that what you intend? If so, that does leave one problem area: Cosmic VPPs go from 2.5x base point down to 1.33x base points + 12. Applying the advantage to the slot cost probably won't work either; it would make it far more expensive than before: 4x base points + 4 (because the reserve has to be base points, cosmic (+2) in size). Maybe all control cost advantages should be halved? at +1 for Cosmic, and applied to the slot cost you get 2.66 x base points + 4 for a cosmic slot, which is just about right.[/quote']

 

I'll look at this in a bit more depth. You might have given me the solution that I'll choose though.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I am curious about (Fundamental, Static) -4

since the character has a 150 point reserve can the character use 2 different powers out of this 'slot' or would a second identical slot cost have to be purchased to do this?

 

I ask because my 'signature' character (hyper-man) is built with a 100 point reserve with all powers except 1 built on 50 active points. The 100 point power is a TK AA grab weapon manuever that's about his casual STR [20] defined as a hyper-speed multiple move by/grab. All of his slots are 'ultra' at the moment but with experience the first thing I would do is change the slots I want to eventually increase to 'multi' slots.

 

I know this is different from Zornwil's take but I was thinking of one slot one power at a time. I think it would give the GM a better handle on the power as he would know how many powers a VPP style character might have available to him at any one time. It _is_ more restrictive than than the VPP but I think a bit less messy.

 

In fact - this might be offset by the cheaper costs of powers indicated by Intrope.

 

Another good point though. Will look at it in more detail.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

So anyway' date=' if we proceed from my thoughts (and I hope DD's as well on this but am certainly open to discussion), to directly answer your question, the Fundamental Static slot could be apportioned so long as: the slot is ALWAYS taking up its points in the overall Framework (even if you're using less power in it); and the powers fit the proper predefined category and SFX.[/quote']

 

I guess its one of the things we can discuss. I hadn't ever thought of a slot containing more than one power at a time. I can see why it might but I think I'd go the way of your earlier post - "Most slots should only ever have one power at any one time. If a player wants a character to have more than one power active at one time then they should buy more than one slot."

 

I can see the argument for multiple powers within a slot though.

 

Doc

[Talon]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Hm, let's try some basics.

 

The "attack MP":

 

60 60 point pool

5 5 defined slots

6 power #1, 60 points (fundamental, static)

6 power #2, 60 points (fundamental, static)

 

Net result: cost is almost the same. Cool.

 

Cosmic VPP:

 

60 60 point pool

25 5 universal slots

30 power #1, 60 points (universal, fluid)

30 power #2, 60 points (universal, fluid)

30 power #3, 60 points (universal, fluid)

15 power #4, 30 points (universal, fluid)

15 power #5, 30 points (universal, fluid)

 

Holy crap! This as a VPP would cost around 90 (and have unlimited slots), this costs 205.

 

Comment: If the cost to reduce switching time and the skill roll is on each slot, the cost will be even higher.

 

Specific FX VPP:

 

60 60 point pool

10 5 fundamental slots

20 power #1, 60 points (fundamental, fluid)

20 power #2, 60 points (fundamental, fluid)

20 power #3, 60 points (fundamental, fluid)

10 power #4, 30 points (fundamental, fluid)

10 power #5, 30 points (fundamental, fluid)

 

Yikes! (A VPP would be in the 75 point range, assuming a -1/2 "limited FX" Lim on the control pool.) This is 150, again with the limited slot issue.

 

It seems like this doesn't do as good a job with VPPs -- you have to worry about how many slots you are going to need, plus the cost is just plain a lot higher.

 

Other comments:

 

Turning the slot power cost reduction into another Limitation is good because it simplifies the rules, but also greatly reduces the effect of other limitations on the slot – i.e., you have less incentive to take other Limitations on slots.

 

The language for applying other Limitations to slot powers is confusing, I'm not sure what it means.

 

It needs costs to reduce change time and skill roll (as with VPP).

 

I would suggest calling the defined slots "slots", then adding "variable power" and "fully variable power" as modifiers. I'd also take out a lot of the specific language describing fundamental slots and leave it up the GM to decide what constitutes a reasonably defined FX. You could also say that a "fluid" slot gets half the Limitation, and make that chart a lot simpler.

 

Unifying the frameworks is definitely a good idea, but I think the result would have to be numerically close to both MPs and VPPs -- or at least achieve similar design goals -- for it to be worth using.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Talon - thanks for looking at this. It needs lots of people to give it a good kicking to see where the stuffing comes out.

 

Cosmic VPP:

 

60 60 point pool

25 5 universal slots

30 power #1, 60 points (universal, fluid)

30 power #2, 60 points (universal, fluid)

30 power #3, 60 points (universal, fluid)

15 power #4, 30 points (universal, fluid)

15 power #5, 30 points (universal, fluid)

 

Holy crap! This as a VPP would cost around 90 (and have unlimited slots), this costs 205.

 

Comment: If the cost to reduce switching time and the skill roll is on each slot, the cost will be even higher.

 

This is where Hyper-Man and Zornwil's thoughts on allowing individual slots to have more than one power available at any one time would come into its own.

 

If a 60 point universal slot was available then you wouldn't need more than one (if the reserve was 60 points) - thus you could remove 70 points of cost almost immediately. Probably you'd remove the 30 point slots as well bringing the cost down by another 40 points and thus it would cost 95 points - or very close to the VPP as it stands. Where the universal framework comes into its own is adding defined slots to the universal ones - or more particularly adding universal slots to what would otherwise have been a fairly staid multipower.

 

Your example tends to convince me that you should allow the universal and fundamental slots to have more than one power in them...

 

It seems like this doesn't do as good a job with VPPs -- you have to worry about how many slots you are going to need' date=' plus the cost is just plain a lot higher[/quote']

 

 

I think there is a possibility of VPPs being more expensive - but that GMs may be more willing to allow them into a game in the belief that they will be less problematic. I think it is better to have something a bit more expensive that will be allowed than something less expensive that will be vetoed...

 

Turning the slot power cost reduction into another Limitation is good because it simplifies the rules, but also greatly reduces the effect of other limitations on the slot – i.e., you have less incentive to take other Limitations on slots.

 

The language for applying other Limitations to slot powers is confusing, I'm not sure what it means.

 

You're right. I'll have a look at that. I think that I need to think about the whole limitation thing - perhaps applying limitations and advantages before talking about slot limitations. Will do that tonight. What I can see is that defined slots benefit little from further limitations while universal slots gain a more substantial benefit.

 

It needs costs to reduce change time and skill roll (as with VPP).

 

Universal slots need that same control as VPPs do just now. In the universal framework the skill requirements etc are not as onerous as the VPP stuff is.

 

Unifying the frameworks is definitely a good idea' date=' but I think the result would have to be numerically close to both MPs and VPPs -- or at least achieve similar design goals -- for it to be worth using.[/quote']

 

Keep chippin in Talon - its appreciated. The values presented have been done to give us a starting point rather than a finishing one. I'll amend what we have as we see problems (or have them pointed out to us).

 

 

Doc