No Frameworks?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

That's too bad because you are missing out. When Scott Bennie was play-testing his VIPER book, he allowed our 150 point VIPER agents with only 40 points of powers using no frameworks and we all had loads of fun.

 

 

 

.

He was also cutting down what powers you could have in a single stroke via the 40 point cap and the idea that you are Viper Agents and not any other origin, so the idea of limiting your design choices was central to the general approach.

 

Thats much more of a narrow design threshold from the word go and the lack of PF's is just part and parcel of that.

 

It was not a standard campaign, but rather a limited scope campaign with different operating assumption than are usual.

[DrFurious]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

By their nature' date=' ECs powers must be linked by a common special effect - i.e., a coherent concept. This is true of most VPPs as well - the most common Limitations on VPPs refer to special effects, or to shared game mechanics (i.e., a gadget pool) which innately force the Powers to have something in common. [/quote']

 

Ah, but you see this is still a judgement issue. The Hero system doesn't make these judgements - you don't see Advantage X being only for Sfx Y. Character concept but its very nature is something that is determined by a human being. While you *can* put such determinations in a game system - Hero doesn't do this. For Hero, it is the effect that the system specifies while the sfx/trappings is what the player decides.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I've got the Hero System Resource Kit. In it there is a character creation checklist the GM can hand out to players before they create characters. It enables the GM to say that any power, skill, talent, perk or framework is required, and if not,whether it is permitted at all. You don't want them, you don't have them and boo sucks to the nay-sayers. It may or may not make characteristics more desireable and points efficient, but I'm sure the campaign will accomodate it. Hell, you could have a house rule that no one without an energy blast can have an ED of over 12. Whatever works for you.

 

However, I think that frameworks can be useful for the GM: Flame Femme may have effectively twice the number of powers as anyone else in the team, but she'll have nothing when her arch-enemy Snuff comes along with his flame suppression powers. You shouldn't just take advantage and destroy carefully crafted and loved killing machines though, at least not if you think you can't get away with it.

 

As has been pointed out though you don't need frameworks for coherent character design - just someone who is designing a character and not a points efficiency machine. I like to think that at least some of the characters I create make internal sense, but not all of them have frameworks. When I do use them I favour multipowers over elemental controls: making someone pay full price for two or three different attacks that go logically together doesn't seem fair to me, but you may differ in your opinion, and long may it be so. Mind you in a game based on magic and mysticism, where a range of powers and effects can be built in to a single multipower it may lead to less differentiation betweeen characters.

 

The ultimate in control, I suppose, is to require a half page+ of concept from the player and you design the character based on that. If you leave out frameworks, so be it.

[Metaphysician]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Without frameworks, quite a few concepts are simply outright impossible to build. Any superheroic elementalist or mage, for starters.

 

Without frameworks, all you can build are one-trick ponies, because being able to do many different things costs disproportionately high, even if you can only do one at a time.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Without frameworks, quite a few concepts are simply outright impossible to build. Any superheroic elementalist or mage, for starters.

 

Without frameworks, all you can build are one-trick ponies, because being able to do many different things costs disproportionately high, even if you can only do one at a time.

 

I think it depends how your game is set up. If you want to have every 'spell' have a list of REQUIRED limitations, they can work out quite cheaply, and if the whole thrust of the game is magic, the tights and laser bolt brigade might not be making an appearance at all. It certainly is not impossible to build these characters, but I grant you they will not be as powerful as they could be with frameworks.

 

One interesting idea is to remove any upper limit on active points: you then have a game in which everyone is, in effect, carrying nukes. It is definitely superpowered, but combats tend to be very short (whoever hits first) and a lot more tactical. This works very well for 'spell-power' games where it is logical to have a whole slew of limitations on the powers.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Ah' date=' but you see this is still a judgement issue. The Hero system doesn't make these judgements - you don't see Advantage X being only for Sfx Y. Character concept but its very nature is something that is determined by a human being. While you *can* put such determinations in a game system - Hero doesn't do this. For Hero, it is the effect that the system specifies while the sfx/trappings is what the player decides.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure if you're misreading me, or the rules, or what.

 

The very descriptions of EC and VPP in the rules state that the constructs have to have common special effects. While you're correct in stating that the rules themselves don't say much about special effects, you do have to justify the Power constructs in terms of special effects. For example, you can't purchase an EC and put just any pile of powers in it - you have to demonstrate how your specific versions of those powers relate conceptually.

 

Does this require some judgment? Well, yeah, but it's not that hard for someone to tell whether a given set of powers make sense under the special effect of "fire powers" or "flexible form powers" or "crustacean powers" or whatever.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

One interesting idea is to remove any upper limit on active points: you then have a game in which everyone is' date=' in effect, carrying nukes. It is definitely superpowered, but combats tend to be very short (whoever hits first) and a lot more tactical. This works very well for 'spell-power' games where it is logical to have a whole slew of limitations on the powers.[/quote']

 

That might be interesting from a wargaming standpoint, but how does that idea in any manner reflect any form of genre fiction, be it superhero, action film, wuxia or whatever? The Hero system is made to produce stories, and promote RP, not as a tactical wargaming system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

That might be interesting from a wargaming standpoint' date=' but how does that idea in any manner reflect any form of genre fiction, be it superhero, action film, wuxia or whatever? The Hero system is made to produce stories, and promote RP, not as a tactical wargaming system.[/quote']

 

One of my favourite superhero characters was a 2000AD chappie name of Zenith. Loved the style and the stories, certainly in the early parts, and one thing they were not afraid to do was kill off characters (heroes and villains) for dramatic effect, demonstrating that this was a dangerous world. This was not a character that was going to be generating sales month in, month out - they were just interested in telling a story, not contriving ways for their heroes to survive in unlikely circumstances for commercial ends.

 

Also there are any number of action films where there are big guns (or the equivalent) and relatively low defences on both sides: how about Aliens, for starters.

 

You give everyone nukes (by which I mean attacks easily capable of overcoming anticipated defences), make it clear that characters can and will die if they act stupidly, and you will find that the players will want to research their foes before confronting them, try and avoid violence at all if possible, but if not try and set things up so that they have the advantage (and the first shot!), all of which promotes roleplaying (there is a thread elsewhere where it is being argued by many that combat is roleplaying. I love Champions combat but do not subscribe to that view).

 

Using the word 'tactics' does not a wargamer make: it means an action planned to acheive a specific end. It is in the planning far more than the action that the role playing has a chance to come through.

[DrFurious]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I'm not sure if you're misreading me' date=' or the rules, or what.[/quote']

 

Let me see if I can distill out my point. I recognise that the rules do state that these frameworks need to have a common sfx. My position is that this really shouldn't be explicitly a part of the system. A GM needs to evaluate each character and the set of powers anyway so why have this requirement in the rules? The incentive to save points (or to award more points) is a GM responsibility involving GM judgements. Why have frameworks that potentially give players a loophole to exploit? If the concept is sound then give the player extra points to realise it. Extra points (or a point break from a framework) should be awarded on a "come to the GM with a concept" basis - not as a matter of course for the rules.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

One of my favourite superhero characters was a 2000AD chappie name of Zenith. Loved the style and the stories, certainly in the early parts, and one thing they were not afraid to do was kill off characters (heroes and villains) for dramatic effect, demonstrating that this was a dangerous world. This was not a character that was going to be generating sales month in, month out - they were just interested in telling a story, not contriving ways for their heroes to survive in unlikely circumstances for commercial ends.

 

Also there are any number of action films where there are big guns (or the equivalent) and relatively low defences on both sides: how about Aliens, for starters.

 

You give everyone nukes (by which I mean attacks easily capable of overcoming anticipated defences), make it clear that characters can and will die if they act stupidly, and you will find that the players will want to research their foes before confronting them, try and avoid violence at all if possible, but if not try and set things up so that they have the advantage (and the first shot!), all of which promotes roleplaying (there is a thread elsewhere where it is being argued by many that combat is roleplaying. I love Champions combat but do not subscribe to that view)..

 

Even in the ALIENS films, the star characters do not get killed by a single hit. That's an extremely rare occurrence in any sort of genre fiction. In most superhero comics, people trade punches, psi bolts and energy blasts back and forth for awhile. In martial arts movies, the stars and the main villains kick each other all over the place and get up for more. In westerns and detective movies, only the mooks die from a single shot most of the time.

 

What you are talking about may be somewhat interesting, but it really doesn't represent the genre very much at all. Even you admit ZENITH was very much an exception.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Let me see if I can distill out my point. I recognise that the rules do state that these frameworks need to have a common sfx. My position is that this really shouldn't be explicitly a part of the system. A GM needs to evaluate each character and the set of powers anyway so why have this requirement in the rules? The incentive to save points (or to award more points) is a GM responsibility involving GM judgements. Why have frameworks that potentially give players a loophole to exploit? If the concept is sound then give the player extra points to realise it. Extra points (or a point break from a framework) should be awarded on a "come to the GM with a concept" basis - not as a matter of course for the rules.

 

I guess we just see this very differently. I see the Framework rules as written (and I wish they'd change Multipower to more explicitly express the same idea) as a good thing because they actively encourage coherent character concepts, and state that a unified concept - vs. just a hodge-podge of powers - is the expectation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Even in the ALIENS films, the star characters do not get killed by a single hit. That's an extremely rare occurrence in any sort of genre fiction. In most superhero comics, people trade punches, psi bolts and energy blasts back and forth for awhile. In martial arts movies, the stars and the main villains kick each other all over the place and get up for more. In westerns and detective movies, only the mooks die from a single shot most of the time.

 

What you are talking about may be somewhat interesting, but it really doesn't represent the genre very much at all. Even you admit ZENITH was very much an exception.

 

...well, if you define the star characters as Ripley, Newt and the Alien Queen, I agree. Everyone else got taken apart in one hit (Bishop survived, but was instantly disabled), and all the marines were reasonably major characters given the limited (human) cast. The point is that if they survive it is as an editorial/storywriting decision. The environment is genuinely dangerous, but the lead characters are lucky enough to avoid extinction because the scriptwriter says so, not because they have defences that adequately balance the offensive potential of their opponents...even Ripley died in Alien 3...but again that was a script decision. We don't quite have that luxury in gaming.

 

If you don't genuinely feel that your character could be finished if the do something stupid, you are losing a lot of drama. Zenith may be an exception, but contained more plot and character development than many titles that run to 100 issues or more, so it is a shame it is the exception. Nothing makes you feel more alive than knowing you can die in the next ten minutes...

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

If you don't genuinely feel that your character could be finished if the do something stupid' date=' you are losing a lot of drama. Zenith may be an exception, but contained more plot and character development than many titles that run to 100 issues or more, so it is a shame it is the exception. Nothing makes you feel more alive than knowing you can die in the next ten minutes...[/quote']

 

It depends on what you're going for. If you want to portray an Iron Age superhero setting, most characters potentially should be vulnerable to very sudden death if they are unlucky or do something stupid. In a Silver Age setting, where the fun is more about playing that sort of character than actual risk - since defeat usually means a death-trap or something less-than-immediately-fatal - such lethality goes entirely against the tone. Think of the classic Legion of Super-Heroes. Most of those characters had minimal defenses and no resistant defenses, yet they didn't drop like flies. They'd get KO'd, then be back up for the next scene more often than not, dying only in very dramatic and heroic ways.

 

Most Champions characters should be built so they can either not get hit easily, or so they can take at least a couple of hits. Same with cinematic heroes in most genres. If you want to play a realistic, Delta Force sort of game, that may be different.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I guess we just see this very differently. I see the Framework rules as written (and I wish they'd change Multipower to more explicitly express the same idea) as a good thing because they actively encourage coherent character concepts' date=' and state that a unified concept - vs. just a hodge-podge of powers - is the expectation.[/quote']

 

Sounds to me like it should be the responsibilty of GMs to say yeah or nay to particular characters: if they make sense and are going to be good for the game, let them in, but don't do so if they are legal but unbalancing. I'm pretty sure the important thing is having a good game that everyone enjoys, frameworks or not.

 

The trouble with a lot of ec frameworks is that it takes no imagination to think of a justification for 'the usual suspect' powers: yeah, I have flight, EB and force field - all granted by my control over gravity - I can use it to move myself, deflect attacks or use tidal forces to rip opponents apart. I'll call myself Singularity.

 

That, my friend, is a justification masquerading as a coherent character concept, mainly to get more points. We all do it, but some of us feel bad afterwards.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

The trouble with a lot of ec frameworks is that it takes no imagination to think of a justification for 'the usual suspect' powers: yeah, I have flight, EB and force field - all granted by my control over gravity - I can use it to move myself, deflect attacks or use tidal forces to rip opponents apart. I'll call myself Singularity.

 

That, my friend, is a justification masquerading as a coherent character concept, mainly to get more points. We all do it, but some of us feel bad afterwards.

 

While that's not the most imaginative justification on earth, I see nothing wrong with it. Gravity control is a reasonable special effect, and the powers noted go along with it okay.

 

Beats the heck out of "I have Armor, Ego Attack and a big HKA sword with +3 STUN multiplier" because its' really a tough and cost-effective combo."

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

It depends on what you're going for. If you want to portray an Iron Age superhero setting, most characters potentially should be vulnerable to very sudden death if they are unlucky or do something stupid. In a Silver Age setting, where the fun is more about playing that sort of character than actual risk - since defeat usually means a death-trap or something less-than-immediately-fatal - such lethality goes entirely against the tone. Think of the classic Legion of Super-Heroes. Most of those characters had minimal defenses and no resistant defenses, yet they didn't drop like flies. They'd get KO'd, then be back up for the next scene more often than not, dying only in very dramatic and heroic ways.

 

Most Champions characters should be built so they can either not get hit easily, or so they can take at least a couple of hits. Same with cinematic heroes in most genres. If you want to play a realistic, Delta Force sort of game, that may be different.

 

Unbalanced characters are more difficult to run and play very often, but far more rewarding when you do than their more avarage brethren. I am not advocating that you regularly kill characters, I am advocating that characters shouldn't feel that the first hit doesn't matter much, they can always dodge until they get a post segment 12...

 

I can't remember the last time a hero died in one of my games, but I like to think that the players all go home in need of a change of underwear...

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

While that's not the most imaginative justification on earth, I see nothing wrong with it. Gravity control is a reasonable special effect, and the powers noted go along with it okay.

 

Beats the heck out of "I have Armor, Ego Attack and a big HKA sword with +3 STUN multiplier" because its' really a tough and cost-effective combo."

 

I was given the Arms and Armour of Rightousness by the Wizard McNair, to battle for good and truth. They were forged in the deep past by demi-gods to protect the innocent. The sword can not only strike at the flesh of the ungodly, but even at their minds, turning their lies and hatred into pain, the better to cast them down...the armour girds me against their mightiest blows so that I can continue the battle...

 

Point is, you can justify about any combination of powers. You're just handing out points to slick talkers.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I was given the Arms and Armour of Rightousness by the Wizard McNair, to battle for good and truth. They were forged in the deep past by demi-gods to protect the innocent. The sword can not only strike at the flesh of the ungodly, but even at their minds, turning their lies and hatred into pain, the better to cast them down...the armour girds me against their mightiest blows so that I can continue the battle...

 

Point is, you can justify about any combination of powers. You're just handing out points to slick talkers.

 

Oh, I'd let someone play that character, but I just wouldn't say the special effect is coherent enough to qualify for a framework. Similarly, if someone wanted to stick Mind Control in his Gravity Powers EC, I'd nix it. You can be the Psionic Knight if you want, but you're not going to get any cost savings for doing it. Similarly, the Martian Manhunter would be paying full cost for his powers - I don't buy "Martian Powers" as a valid EC rationalle.

 

Judgment is always required to be a GM, but I don't have a problem with some aspects of that being specifically promoted in the rules.

[Rapier]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

That's too bad because you are missing out. When Scott Bennie was play-testing his VIPER book' date=' he allowed our 150 point VIPER agents with only 40 points of powers using no frameworks and we all had loads of fun.[/quote']

Well, there are times when no frameworks are appropriate. In normal or heroic games it works very, very well. Must norms, heroes aren't dumping enough points into powers to bother, if they have enough powers to warrant an EC to begin with.

 

You're comparing Apples and Killing Attacks!

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Oh, I'd let someone play that character, but I just wouldn't say the special effect is coherent enough to qualify for a framework. Similarly, if someone wanted to stick Mind Control in his Gravity Powers EC, I'd nix it. You can be the Psionic Knight if you want, but you're not going to get any cost savings for doing it. Similarly, the Martian Manhunter would be paying full cost for his powers - I don't buy "Martian Powers" as a valid EC rationalle.

 

Judgment is always required to be a GM, but I don't have a problem with some aspects of that being specifically promoted in the rules.

 

But wasn't that DrFurious' point? It all comes down to a rather arbitrary judgement call?

 

You wouldn't stick mind control in the gravity powers ec, you'd re-define it as, oooh I don't know, elictricity control. I have a static field which lets me repel matter and energy - including the ground, and I can create and control electricity at a gross level to send lightning bolts at my oponents or at a fine level to manipulate their nervous systems and make them my puppets...

 

If you'd intrioduced Martians with a particular set of unconnected powers, taking 'Martian Powers' would be a perfectly logical and valid ec. Let me redifine the armour as the sword's automatic parry power, and the effects are linked at least as closely as most 'valid' ec's.

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Without frameworks, quite a few concepts are simply outright impossible to build. Any superheroic elementalist or mage, for starters.

 

Without frameworks, all you can build are one-trick ponies, because being able to do many different things costs disproportionately high, even if you can only do one at a time.

 

 

Just give more points. If you feel 350 doesn't give the right feel, then just start the players off with 500 or 600.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Well, there are times when no frameworks are appropriate. In normal or heroic games it works very, very well. Must norms, heroes aren't dumping enough points into powers to bother, if they have enough powers to warrant an EC to begin with.

 

You're comparing Apples and Killing Attacks!

 

 

Elemental control: apple powers

 

1. Transform air to apples (3d6 major transform)

2. Hypervelocity apples (3d6 RKA)

 

Your point being....?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

But wasn't that DrFurious' point? It all comes down to a rather arbitrary judgement call?

 

Games have arbitrary elements. Does that maneuver justify a +1 or a +2 bonus? What happens when someone rolls two 1s on Unluck? It's not entirely arbitrary, but it isn't chemistry, either.

 

You wouldn't stick mind control in the gravity powers ec, you'd re-define it as, oooh I don't know, elictricity control. I have a static field which lets me repel matter and energy - including the ground, and I can create and control electricity at a gross level to send lightning bolts at my oponents or at a fine level to manipulate their nervous systems and make them my puppets...

 

If someone put appropriate Limitations on the Mind Control - starting with "vs. CON, not EGO - that might work. The point is, it's not completely arbitrary there - gravity control doesn't fly, electricity might.

 

Let me redifine the armour as the sword's automatic parry power, and the effects are linked at least as closely as most 'valid' ec's.

With the appropriate Limitations, maybe. It's a case-by-case basis. That's always going to be the case in a game system that uses general effects. Some concepts are still more coherent than others, though.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

The biggest pain is the VPP. Nothing slows a game down like The Cosmic Wonder trying to come up with something on the fly to combat the Flying Apples of Granny Smith.

[Rapier]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I was given the Arms and Armour of Rightousness by the Wizard McNair, to battle for good and truth. They were forged in the deep past by demi-gods to protect the innocent. The sword can not only strike at the flesh of the ungodly, but even at their minds, turning their lies and hatred into pain, the better to cast them down...the armour girds me against their mightiest blows so that I can continue the battle...

 

Point is, you can justify about any combination of powers. You're just handing out points to slick talkers.

Nope, nope and nope. The sword and armour could not be in an EC together. Two different SFX (one sword, one armour). Secondly, I would take a good REALLY REALLY hard look at an EC built through a focus. If anything the Sword (EGO Attack/HKA) should be built as an MP.

 

This is what the discussion about a common SFX is talking about. While you COULD pretend to come up with a justification (as above), any casual glance shows that the justicifcation is a lot of smoke.