Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

[Tom McCarthy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I must admit that each time I've tried this, I've meandered down different paths.

 

==========

 

I always start with a reserve which defines the maximum active points of each power the framework can manifest but which can be reduced by limitations (which you've got).

 

Variable Expressions

In general, for +1/2, the pool can manifest any number of powers, built using any power (with no more active points in one power than are in the reserve and no more real points in all the powers than in the reserve), but it takes either an hour and no roll or a full phase and a skill roll (-1 per 10 active) to create such a power. For +3/4, you can reduce that to a half phase and a skill roll. For +1 it's zero phase and a skill roll or a phase and no skill roll. For no phase and no skill roll (cosmic), it's +1 1/2. These are 'variable' expressions. It is possible to apply these advantages to only a portion of the reserve. Without these advantages, the framework is limited to the expressions below.

 

Fixed or Ultra Slots

Some people are very adept at selected manifestations or expressions of the power. By defining the power precisely, the power can be manifested or expressed as a zero phase action with no skill roll. Each such power definition counts as naked adder to the pool, and its cost is the real cost of the power divided by 10 (slot cost). However, such fixed expressions are limited because, when active, they reduce the available active and real points in the pool. A wide suite of attack powers can be built up as expressions of a pool fairly inexpensively, but typically only one is usable at a time.

 

Flexible or Multi Slots

A slightly more flexible option allows the slot cost to be doubled (i.e. the real cost of the power divided by 5), but the power then only consumes real and active points from the pool at the level the power is being activated at.

 

Free Slots

In many cases, a character will have powers which are thematically expressions of the same root power as the framework, but which they wish to always have available (typically movement powers, defences, some continuous attack powers, etc.). Such powers must be a tightly defined as a fixed or ultra slot and gain the benefits that they do not consume active or real points from the pool. However, they are much more expensive; the slot cost to have such a power is the real cost of the defined power divided by 2.

 

=========

 

So, the above is pretty long and meandering and varies only slightly from the existing VPP, EC and MP in use. The Free Slots (being like EC slots) differ by allowing low active point powers to fit the EC but give less savings for a framework which is all Free Slots; you could try to change this by making the first Free Slot free, but that seems very easy to abuse. You could also just say all free slots are not constrained by the pool size, but the maximum reduction in their real cost is the reserve size or half their real cost, whichever is less.

 

For example, consider the following:

 

Fire Guy

 

60 point multipower

6u 12D6 EB

6u 12D6 Sight Flash

6u 4D6 RKA

6u 8D6 EB Penetrating

 

20 Elemental Control (Fire)

25a Forcefield (15, 15), 0 END

20b 20" Flight

70c 6D6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield, 0 END

 

30 VPP minor fire tricks

30 Control cost (15 pts base), No skill roll (+1)

 

284 points

 

vs.

 

90 pt. Fire Powers (VPP reserve plus MP reserve)

6 12D6 EB ultra slot

6 12D6 Sight Flash ultra slot

6 4D6 RKA ultra slot

6 8D6 EB Penetrating ultra slot

22 Forcefield (15, 15) 0 END free slot

20 20" Flight free slot

45 6D6 EB Continuous Damage Shield 0 END free slot

30 Variable expression of up to 30 active points, 30 real points with no skill roll

 

231 points

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I must admit that each time I've tried this, I've meandered down different paths.

 

[snip]

 

20 Elemental Control (Fire)

25a Forcefield (15, 15), 0 END

20b 20" Flight

70c 6D6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield, 0 END

 

[snip]

 

22 Forcefield (15, 15) 0 END free slot

20 20" Flight free slot

45 6D6 EB Continuous Damage Shield 0 END free slot

 

 

Well Tom - I like the idea up until the EC part of it - you can see that all of the cost savings come from making the EC powers cheaper. The main problem with that is that all of the complaints about frameworks tend to be about how ECs are too cheap...

 

If you can sort that aspect out then I reckon you're framework is better than ours. The cost of the free slot needs to be almost the same as normal buying of powers - I'd probably limit the powers by making them subject to the adjustment powers for -1/4 or -1/2. That might actually work out not too bad.

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

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

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

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

There may be commentary later, but as I understand it the slot divider (5 for vari, 10 for fixed) is applied at the very end of the power's costing, and in "traditional" MPs no limitation/advantage applies to the "slot" itself (in fact the divide by 10 or 5 thing is not a limitation, it's just a "do this" step).

 

Yeah, commas can be confusing in grammar.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

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

As stated, open to discussion, but I THINK this would work. I think the total character costs will help dictate as well, but I think it would be balanced.

 

My starting presumption is that character costs in CU are "balanced" with the possible exception of Elemental Controls (given it's a hot topic) and my hope at the end of the process would be to end up at about the same totals with the only exceptions showing up as some (not all) characters who have ECs getting slightly more expensive. But that's a hope and not a mandate in my view; I think a superior framework structure that is in the same ballpark (regardless of rather granular consideratinos) would be a positive boon.

 

As to the Fundamental Static many-or-one question, I think the strictness of definition really helps keep it balanced but maybe not. To your point maybe the GM consideration as well indicates it should be one per. Not sure.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

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

PS - I thought that Universal slots were essentially VPPs and could have any number?

 

And sorry, I had already forgotten it was one power per slot. I think at least in Universals that may not work; in any case I think it would be an incorrect step to totally ban such constructions, given the role of VPPs and how they work currently, and the need to maintain that (reasonably proven) functionality.

[Doc Democracy]

Cost comparison

 

I thought that I should look at the costs of 60 point active powers within a range of slot types:

combined limits sequential limits

static defined, OAF 60/(1+1+9) = 5 (60/(1+1))/(1+9)=3

static fundamental, -1 limitations 60/(1+1/2+4) = 11 (60/(1+1/2))/(1+4)=8

static universal, -1 limitations 60/(1+1/2+2) = 17 (60/(1+1/2))/(1+2)=13

fluid universal, -1 limitations 60/(1+1/2+1) = 24 (60/(1+1/2))/(1+1)=20

 

Now that I have come round to having more than one power in a slot I envisage that a framework power would have one universal slot and a range of defined and fundamental slots.

 

I was considering making slots cost 1 point + 1 point for every extra power that a character would want to include in the slot. So a two point slot would allow two powers, a three point slot would allow three powers etc etc.

 

I was thinking about Hyper-man's example where all the powers were 50 active points except for a TK AA grab weapon manuever that cost 100. In my vision of Hyper-man he would have a 100 point reserve, one defined power of 100 active points and two 3 point universal slots of 50 active points.

 

That would give him an option of using the 100 active point power or the two universal slots that allow six powers at any one time.

 

Costs? Well a 100 point VPP would cost 150 points - I suppose maybe 125 after limitations.

 

The framework power?

 

reserve 100

slot 1 - 10 points

slot 2 - 17 points

slot 3 - 17 points

 

151 points plus 7 slot points - so 158 - more expensive than the VPP and more limited....

 

What about in real life Hyper-man? You done a conversion?

 

 

Doc

[Talon]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Bigger problem:

 

Currently, a character with a 60 point VPP and -3 worth of Limitations can put 4 60 point powers in the VPP at once (60 Active, 15 Real). OTOH, a character with a 60 point MP can only have 1 60 point power going, regardless of Limitations.

 

With this framework, the MP model is used, making it difficult/expensive to duplicate the existing VPP functionality. The only way you could really do it would be to buy the pool up, which also increases the Active Point total.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Bigger problem:

 

Currently, a character with a 60 point VPP and -3 worth of Limitations can put 4 60 point powers in the VPP at once (60 Active, 15 Real). OTOH, a character with a 60 point MP can only have 1 60 point power going, regardless of Limitations.

 

With this framework, the MP model is used, making it difficult/expensive to duplicate the existing VPP functionality. The only way you could really do it would be to buy the pool up, which also increases the Active Point total.

 

Like I said - Zornwil envisaged more than one power per slot. Taking the simple example of a 60 point VPP and a framework power with a single slot.

 

60 point VPP -3 worth of limitations costs 90 points. 4 powers going at once.

 

Framework power

60 point reserve

4 point slot

60 point static universal slot with -3 limitations

 

60+4+8 = 72 points

 

More limited (possibly) but 18 points cheaper. I'd be inclined to suggest it should not be this much cheaper - neither should it be as bad as you suggested. We need something in between - though closer to what I suggested than what you did...

 

Doc

[Talon]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

So then you could do the same thing with a multipower-like construct?

 

60 point reserve

1 point slot

60 point defined static slot with -3 Limitations: 4 attack powers at 60 Active each

3 more attack slots.

 

That seems way more powerful than the current rules allow.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Re Tom McCarthy's construct, I think the primary immediate issue is of course that it gets significantly cheaper, though I like the construct better. I think the cheapness is why I strayed away from a similar concept earlier (and way back, which I believe was based on an old Champions version, I used to run ECs as largest power at full value, rest at divided by 2, which essentially is very similar to yours, and I think was rejected (the /2 part) by the HERO rules over time).

 

There's a fundamental philosophical divergence, stronger than my earliest take, of Doc's, as opposed to Tom's. Tom's remains philosophically consistent. Doc's reconstructs the variables into a matrix. As a third option, as evidenced elsewhere, I considered getting rid of frameworks completely and applying a system of limitations and advantages with no underlying reserve. I was last headed moreso in that direction, until Doc's post. Doc's inhabits a middle ground, where frameworks continue to exist but, essentially, I think nearly all character powers will get grouped into one or two for characters, given the dynamic nature. And Doc's moreover creates an environment in which Power Stunts and similar dynamic applications of a single power base may occur as an intrinsic part of the construct.

 

Philosophically, I think Doc's takes HERO in the best direction, but at the sacrifice of familiarity, whereas the other two extremes (a framework that mimics the existing ones "bunched" together, where I started, versus no framework at all with just limiters and advantages, as I was going to last) both most easily are accommodated.

 

I daresay Doc has it more correct than HERO has had it since inception

 

Why? Not because Doc is such a genius and we're all dummies. Not at all; it's because he took a "blank slate" approach and leveraged the complaints and praises of the system, as opposed to a slavish concern as to the fanbase's inherent conservatism as well as minimizing impact on existing characters.

 

So I believe the "radical" solution is the best. Just as D&D has now grown through occasional radical change to d20, and, like it or not, really has overall improved, particularly as I understand it with v3.5, so should HERO be willing to take the plunge. I posit that the constructs of MP and then EC and VPP grew out of an evolution at first entirely fueled by limitations of a new system - one originally, understandably, built SOLELY to model the superhero genre - with a lack of self-awareness as to being the "ULTIMATE GAMER'S TOOLKIT". In fact, early on the system had no such ambition. Yet here we are, over 20 years later, using the same mechanics but with increased contention over whether EC works and 3 ways to model groupings of powers which REQUIRES players in many, many cases to use at least 2 ways in one character design.

 

WE WILL NOT BE THE ULTIMATE TOOLKIT IF WE DO NOT LEARN TO EMBRACE FULL MODULARITY AND MINIMIZE SPECIALIZED APPLICATIONS!

 

That being said, I would argue that while Tom's approach highlights the fundamental compatibility of MP and VPP (and that's good), it doesn't go far enough. Whereas Doc's scheme has the advantage of a promising paradigm but (obviously) lacks proven balance.

 

I have a meeting in 3 minutes so I'll stop here. Will come back after and try to put something more together based on the above input.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

So then you could do the same thing with a multipower-like construct?

 

60 point reserve

1 point slot

60 point defined static slot with -3 Limitations: 4 attack powers at 60 Active each

3 more attack slots.

 

That seems way more powerful than the current rules allow.

No, because those "MP" slots are DEFINED. A Defined slot is...well, defined! It can't be changed mid-stream. Note the limitation we posited on Fundamental slots; while DD and I have not reached a decision on having multiple powers to one Fundamental slot, the purpose of that slot is very different, hence the different treatment.

[Tom McCarthy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

[ Minor clarifications ]

I always start with a reserve which defines the maximum active points of each power the framework can manifest but which can be reduced by limitations (which you've got).

 

Variable Expressions

In general, for +1/2 naked advantage, the pool can manifest any number of powers, built using any power (with no more active points in one power than are in the reserve and no more real points in all the powers than the real cost of the reserve), but it takes either an hour and no roll or a full phase and a skill roll (-1 per 10 active) to create such a power. For +3/4, you can reduce that to a half phase and a skill roll. For +1 it's zero phase and a skill roll or a phase and no skill roll. For no phase and no skill roll (cosmic), it's +1 1/2. It is possible to apply these advantages to only a portion of the reserve. Without these advantages, the framework is limited to the expressions below. Additional real points for the reserve may be purchased for 1 pt each.

 

Fixed or Ultra Slots

Some people are very adept at selected manifestations or expressions of the power. By defining the power precisely, the power can be manifested or expressed as a zero phase action with no skill roll. Each such power definition counts as naked adder to the pool, and its cost is the real cost of the power divided by 10 (slot cost). However, such fixed expressions are limited because, when active, they reduce the available active and real points in the pool. A wide suite of attack powers can be built up as expressions of a pool fairly inexpensively, but typically only one is usable at a time.

 

Flexible or Multi Slots

A slightly more flexible option allows the slot cost to be doubled (i.e. the real cost of the power divided by 5), but the power then only consumes real and active points from the pool at the level the power is being activated at.

 

Free Slots

In many cases, a character will have powers which are thematically expressions of the same root power as the framework, but which they wish to always have available (typically movement powers, defences, some continuous attack powers, etc.). Such powers must be a tightly defined as a fixed or ultra slot and gain the benefits that they do not consume active or real points from the pool (and may exceed the active point total in the reserve). However, they are much more expensive; the slot cost to have such a power is determined based on half of the active points of the defined power or the active points reduced by one-half the size of the reserve, whichever active point total is greater.

=========

 

So, the above is pretty long and meandering and varies only slightly from the existing VPP, EC and MP in use.

 

For straight multipowers, it should work out the same.

For straight VPPs, it will be slightly weaker and cheaper since limitations on the reserve will reduce the real cost but also reduce the amount of powers available.

For straight ECs, you have to buy more reserve to get the same discount. For an EC with four slots of 60 active point/real cost powers (240 points), an EC costs just 150 but this framework costs 180. Also, a single power high active point, highly limited power in an EC is no longer cost effective.

 

For example, consider the following:

 

Fire Guy

 

30 VPP minor fire tricks

30 Control cost (15 pts base), No skill roll (+1)

60 points

 

60 point multipower

6u 12D6 EB

6u 12D6 Sight Flash

6u 4D6 RKA

6u 8D6 EB Penetrating

84 points

 

20 Elemental Control (Fire)

25a Forcefield (15, 15), 0 END

20b 20" Flight

70c 6D6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield, 0 END

135 points

 

284 points

 

vs.

 

Individually

 

30 30 pt Fire Powers reserve (VPP pool)

30 Variable expression of up to 30 active points, 30 real points with no skill roll

60 pts

 

60 60 pt. Fire Powers reserve (MP reserve)

6 12D6 EB ultra slot

6 12D6 Sight Flash ultra slot

6 4D6 RKA ultra slot

6 8D6 EB Penetrating ultra slot

84 points

 

45 45 pt. Fire Power reserve

22 Forcefield (15, 15) 0 END free slot

20 20" Flight free slot

67 6D6 EB Continuous Damage Shield 0 END free slot

154 points (ouch !)

 

but collectively...

 

90 90 pt. Fire Powers reserve

30 Variable expression of up to 30 active points, 30 real points with no skill roll

6 12D6 EB ultra slot

6 12D6 Sight Flash ultra slot

6 4D6 RKA ultra slot

6 8D6 EB Penetrating ultra slot

22 Forcefield (15, 15) 0 END free slot

20 20" Flight free slot

45 6D6 EB Continuous Damage Shield 0 END free slot

 

231 points

 

So, while ECs got more expensive, the combination of two or more frameworks into one for a character gives point savings.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Sorry, Tom, looking at this too hastily at work, I thought ECs were getting way cheaper. I will dig deeper on all accounts later.

 

Back to my job, for now, despite my earlier comment about digging in when back from the meeting...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I daresay Doc has it more correct than HERO has had it since inception

 

Why? Not because Doc is such a genius and we're all dummies. Not at all;

 

Gee Zornwil - you were doing fantastic until you got there!

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

[ Minor clarifications ]

So, while ECs got more expensive, the combination of two or more frameworks into one for a character gives point savings.

 

The reason for that being that the reserves are combined into one and the benefits of having a large reserve realised by the larger powers in the EC.

 

I understand why the powers in the EC got cheaper, and understand that using the system to replicate an EC directly would result in higher costs but the system would discourage anyone from taking a straight EC and suddenly the character gets more powers for less points - it just seems contrary to the whole basis of the system where you pay for functionality.

 

Now frameworks are also contrary to this but they provide a way of tying together powers in a coherent fashion - a bonus for having a good consistent theme for your superhero. I was trying to avoid increasing the benefits provided while streamlining the frameworks into a single construct.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

PS - I thought that Universal slots were essentially VPPs and could have any number?

 

And sorry, I had already forgotten it was one power per slot. I think at least in Universals that may not work; in any case I think it would be an incorrect step to totally ban such constructions, given the role of VPPs and how they work currently, and the need to maintain that (reasonably proven) functionality.

 

I am now convinced that we should allow multiple powers in undefined slots. I also think we should limit the number of powers by making more powers more expensive - there should be a breakpoint somewhere that would make two slots cheaper than continually increasing the number of powers you can have in one slot.

 

I think I'll have to convert a few characters before going any further on this...

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Gee Zornwil - you were doing fantastic until you got there!

 

Well, y'know, I figured I was sounding fanatical enough....

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I am now convinced that we should allow multiple powers in undefined slots. I also think we should limit the number of powers by making more powers more expensive - there should be a breakpoint somewhere that would make two slots cheaper than continually increasing the number of powers you can have in one slot.

 

I think I'll have to convert a few characters before going any further on this...

 

 

Doc

 

Good thoughts. Yeah, we should play around with some characters, may have time tonight or tomorrow. I do think you hae a good point about powers/slot ratios. Aside from GM permissoin for unusual/outstanding concepts, it might be as simple as imposing a limit which then forces multiple slots. Then you could bulid Linked Powers across slots for very large powers (bearing in mind as well that MPAs are on their own way to getting well-defined thanks to 5th).

 

I'm going to try to propose a tweak to your system to accomodate above comments and ideas and perhaps rewrite a few CU characters. I think that so long as we post the NEW framework versions and do NOT post the old versions we're on HERO's good side in neither infringing nor giving anything away. We should avoid posting any background info, as well. I may be stating the obvious here, but I'd rather state it than have anyone contributing to the thread make a mistake.

[Doc Democracy]

Some comparisons

 

OK

 

I've tried to convert some of the power sets from CKC to the proposed

system. Personally I think the exercise has highlighted some structure

concerns. I'll come to those later.

 

THUNDERBIRD

Thunderbird is based around weapons and has two multipowers, one for

blasters and one for grenades. In addition he carries a back-up blaster

bought straight and a combat knife. This comes to a grand total of 164

points...

 

Under the new proposal Thuderbird would have a weapons framework power with

four slots, two static defined and two static fundamental.

 

A 90 point reserve.

An 80 point blaster static fundamental [OAF] costing 13 points and two for

the slot.

A 90 point grenade static fundamental [OIF] costing 20 points and two for

the slot.

A 60 point static defined slot for the back-up blaster costing 3 points and

two for the slot

A 30 point static defined slot for the combat knife costing 1 point and two

for the slot.

 

This cost 135 points, 29 points cheaper and a bit more flexible than the

original. The converse argument is that the new situation requires skill

rolls and if the slot costs were doubled to remove the need for skill rolls

(x1 advantage) then that would cost 37 points - bringing the cost to

slightly more.

 

THORN

Thorn becomes a man-plant hybrid with plant features and an ability to

control and manipulate plants. In his original form he has a Plant Attacks

multipower and a Plant Control EC with a series of powers that didn't fit in

either framework [bark-like skin, burrowing, tendrils and vines, rapid

growth]. all these powers were OIHID. This cost a total of 171 points.

 

After due consideration I thought that the whole bundle of powers could

easily be converted into a 130 point reserve and three static fundamental

slots [60pt Plant attacks, 60pt plant characteristics & 70pt plant control].

That cost a total of 154 points, if skill rolls were required to change

powers and 204 if no skill rolls were required.

 

GRAVITAR

Gravitar is a high point villain - I thought it might be instructive to see

what might happen at high levels. She has a gravitic powers MP,a gravitic

mastery EC and two powers that did not go into either framework - Gravitic

manipulation (large TK based power) and Gravitic defence (missile

deflection).

 

This cost a grand total of 571 points.

 

Using the new framework proposal I decided on four static fundamental slots

(I've found myself repeatedly using them which might indicate something

wrong somewhere). Three of the slots are 135 point slots and the fourth is

90 points. Gravity Field Manipulation, Tidal Stress, Gravitic Shields and

Gravity interaction manipulation.

 

I found that some of the powers would be grouped differently under the new

framework than under the old set. There is a slight limitation on the

nuimber of powers available at any one time but far more flexibility. The

reserve would have to be 360 for the power set to work. The whole thing

came to 467 points with skill rolls, 558 with no skill rolls required.

 

 

DISCUSSION

So. The cost structure of the new framework would appear to be fairly good.

It has a cost roughly similar to the old system but I have seemed to overuse

the fundamental slot - especially the static form of it.

 

I have also noticed that I'd rather have a big slot that could contain a

couple of powers than a couple of slots containing just one - the problem

there is that it makes the slots large enough to have bigger powers. In the

case of Gravitar I had to have a slot of 135 for the TK power when most

other powers would be 90 active points - increasing the slot also provided

opportunity for other powers to be bigger.

 

I propose that one good use of static defined slots would be to provide for

higher cost powers that are manifest in fundamental or universal slots.

I'll have a look at the costs etc but I think there is a definite need for

something like this.

 

Anyway. So far so good. Will try other power sets to see what comes up. I

haven't done anything that has a VPP yet.

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Some comparisons

 

Okay, Doc Democracy and I have spoken (yes, I mean literally!), and I'm submitting the next draft version for consideration.

 

Particular highlights: I've added some Limitation/Advantage values according to how many powers may function at once in a Fundamental or Universal slot. This may or may not be a good balancing device. It is very much up for consideration and not remotely a final decision. Also, Doc Democracy suggested and we've worked in an ability to assign a Defined Slot as available to boost a particular power in a Fundamental or Universal slot (it was really designed with Fundamental in mind but I felt it could as easily apply to either). This also should be reviewed carefully for balance.

 

Side comment: I was pretty impressed that the characters Doc worked up were so close in points to the original values! Of course really it may vary according to "efficiency experts" and how they take advantage of the framework, so would be most interested in others' write-ups with it.

 

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.

 

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. Powers within one framework should not add to similar powers in a second. A power outside the framework may be Linked with GM permission.

 

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). In particular, Fundamental powers intended to be used must be declared prior to the gaming session. With GM consent, minor modifications (change in an Advantage, variation on a Power such as changing a Drain to a Suppress if appropriate, etc.) may be made during play using Power Skill. 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 modifiers are as follows:

 

Slot TypeStaticFluid

color:black">1 Power per Slot Maximum

2 Powers per Slot Maximum3-4 Powers per Slot Maximum5-7 Powers per Slot Maximum8+ Powers per Slot Maximum

Defined Power-9-4(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)(NA)

Fundamental Power-4-2-0+1/4+1/4+1/2+1

Universal Power-2-1-1/2-1/2-1/4-0+1/4 (GM Discretion)

 

Fundamental and Universal slots may have more than one power in them at a time, but note that for a Fundamental Power an Advantage must be applied according to how many powers may function in the slot at a given time (if more than one), while Universal Power slots may take a Limitation or Advantage, depending on the number of powers. The last four columns of the above chart describe the affect on the slot for the number of maximum powers allowable at a given time. Note that, as always, a Limitation that does not limit a power is not worth points, therefore very small Fundamental or Universal slots may not receive a Limitation either at full value or at all for a small number of powers per slot. The GM should feel free to adjust the Powers per Slot Limitation as necessary for either a setting or as otherwise seen fit.

 

Slot Advantages and Limitations apply after the Real Cost of the power within the slot is calculated.

 

Slots should typically not carry other Advantages and Limitations unless they will apply to all powers in the slot, and even then it ought to be a meaningful effect. For example, if Charges are applied to the slot, that would indicate the number of uses for the slot in total, so that if one switched and used powers as many times as one has Charges, each power would be used only once before the slot ceases to have Charges available. Typically, a Defined Power would not have any additional Advantages or Limitations at the slot level as those would apply to the power itself.

 

In some cases, a character may have a “signature power†or otherwise some power which does not fit in a Fundamental or Universal slot but is inherently a part of that slot in terms of SFX/origin. In these cases the character may receive a Defined Static slot for the sole purpose of boosting that power which otherwise would exceed the number of points for the Fundamental or Universal slot; however, this requires an additional +1 Advantage, “Boosts Another Slotâ€, to the Defined slot cost. For example, if a character has a 60 point Fundamental slot in which, among other powers, there is a 12d6 Fire Blast but this Fire Blast is his signature power and he requires an additional 6d6 available, the character may be assigned a 30 point Defined Static slot. The Defined Static slot would take a -9 Limitation for being Static but also a +1 Advantage would be applied for Boosts Another Slot.

 

Framework Power Example:

 

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, however changing powers requires 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).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Hi Doc Democracy and Zornwil

 

I think both of you have done a great job so far but I still end up needing to refer to nearly every post to keep track of the "new" terminology and meanings.

 

Any chance that one of you could post a more condensed version (an advanced house rule option or 6ed proposition) of your latest ideas?

 

(yes, this is sort of a bump )

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

Hi Doc Democracy and Zornwil

 

I think both of you have done a great job so far but I still end up needing to refer to nearly every post to keep track of the "new" terminology and meanings.

 

Any chance that one of you could post a more condensed version (an advanced house rule option or 6ed proposition) of your latest ideas?

 

(yes, this is sort of a bump )

 

I thought that's what Zornwil's last post was - an updated version of my first post...

 

I think we've stalled a bit as the next thing to do is convert several characters from the current frameworks to the new one. I will see whether I can come up with a nice condensed version with numbers in it. I'm looking at characters just now. I may look at a few of my own so that I can post all the stats at once rather than 'discussing' published characters powers in CKC.

 

 

Doc

 

PS: nice bump.

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I thought that's what Zornwil's last post was - an updated version of my first post...

 

I think we've stalled a bit as the next thing to do is convert several characters from the current frameworks to the new one. I will see whether I can come up with a nice condensed version with numbers in it. I'm looking at characters just now. I may look at a few of my own so that I can post all the stats at once rather than 'discussing' published characters powers in CKC.

 

 

Doc

 

PS: nice bump.

Agreed with DD, I'm on vacation and currently a bit drunk in Dublin, so please don't expect anything on my end ofr a few days, but please do contribute if you're interested (anyone).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I will post a condensed version of the costs later today along with some of the issues outstanding in my head. I think it really needs as many people as possible to tug at the construction and see where it falls apart.

 

 

Doc

 

PS: keep downing the Guinness Zornwil - it's good for you...

[zornwil]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

 

I will post a condensed version of the costs later today along with some of the issues outstanding in my head. I think it really needs as many people as possible to tug at the construction and see where it falls apart.

 

 

Doc

 

PS: keep downing the Guinness Zornwil - it's good for you...

(please pardon the OT post in advance...)

 

Thanks, it seems to be!

 

(you know, i will say the quality here is much more stable/predictably good than in the States and I do daresay even in London from the only time I've been there before)

 

Would add, I've been drinking water alongside the Guinness (it's so darn available here!) just to not get dehydrated or hung over, and that's worked out well also.