No Frameworks?

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Get rid of ECs and people will "Abuse" VPPs and MPs. Get rid of VPPs and MPs and quite weak characters cost absurd numbers of points.

 

Put the heads of abusive players on spikes as a warning to others and the actual problem is solved.

 

Or design all of the characters yourself. Or only play with player who are willing to be reasonable.

 

It all works.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I remain enthusiastic about a bar that Hugh set as part of a conversation - an EC should have the same unifying factor as an NND, in that what it takes to counter an NND attack is the same bar as that which it takes to create an EC. Therefore an EC, in other words, must have some "reasonably common" method of countering. I would add that it doesn't mean that any Tom, Dick, or Harry, could casually do so, but with a little preparation and a trip to a hardware store in advance, one could concoct a reasonable way to diminish or defeat the powers of an EC. I think that fits with heroid fiction generally as well. If you want, you could just bump this up to say that any super character could devise such a defeat with analagous preparation (a trip to the evil fiend's warehouse supply store and some forethought), to keep it out of the reach of the common man. But either way you can concoct a bar as that, I think.

 

Just a thought.

 

To a certain extent, this is built into the 5E rules for ECs. As is, Adjustment Powers that affect one Power in an EC affect *all* the EC's Powers. Since many things that Powers are vulnerable would be - or at least could reasonably be bought as - Adjustment Powers (Supress, Drain, etc. - Suppress Fire Power - fire extinguisher), that partly covers the effect you want. Similarly, it is very common (at least in my experience) for all of the slots of an EC to have a similar or identical Limitation - for example, a group of Shadow Powers that do not work in sunlight or in light of intensity equal to sunlight.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I think that with out power frame works you are going to have lots of bricks in your game.

 

Well, more likely bricks, martial artists and guys with one or two weapons - heroic knights, gun-bunnies, ninja dudes - but yeah, pretty much.

[zornwil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

To a certain extent' date=' this is built into the 5E rules for ECs. As is, Adjustment Powers that affect one Power in an EC affect *all* the EC's Powers. Since many things that Powers are vulnerable would be - or at least could reasonably be bought as - Adjustment Powers (Supress, Drain, etc. - Suppress Fire Power - fire extinguisher), that partly covers the effect you want. Similarly, it is very common (at least in my experience) for all of the slots of an EC to have a similar or identical Limitation - for example, a group of Shadow Powers that do not work in sunlight or in light of intensity equal to sunlight.[/quote']

IMHO, I don't believe it is TRULY built in at all, in that the dictates such as "no END" and "these types of powers" is rather arbitrary and has no role in replicating SFX, either. Althought he "drain one, drain all", to your point, works. I think that the "drain one, drain all" only works in conjunction with a better underlying rationale, and back when it came up I think Hugh hit the nail on the head as to how that rationale should have been explained in the book. Then we could also get rid of these more arbitrary (even if intended for game balance) restrictions.

[Rapier]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Ok, took a nap and grabbed a quickshower and had this thought:

 

Someone made the argument that it is impossible to know if the concept warranted the EC or if the EC warranted the concept. To some degree I agree. However, there are occassions (apple powers, as above), where you could just look at the character and raise your eyebrow and they'll be "yeah, sorry."

 

I have always looked at ECs like this (and we will ignore concept for the moment):

 

Cosider a character with an HKA (OAF Sword), EGO Attack (natural power), a +6d6 HTH Attack (with linked 2" Stretching, linked 6d6 Electric EB, OAF Extending Shock-Staff) and an RKA (.72 caliber hand-cannon). All powers are bought straight out without any frameworks. This guy is pretty much ALWAYS going to be running around with a full load of powers. Maybe one or two of these powers might get shut down through environment, enemy action etc, but he will just move to another attack and keep on truckin.

 

Now consider Flamey McHotty. Flamey is your proto-typical flame guy. Flame Blast EB, Flame Wings Flight, Flame Field FF, Flame Barrir FW, Flare Flash. All of these powers are built through an EC. Dr Meany LaReau sees the heroes coming and turns on the fire suppression systems in his Not-So-Secret-Hideout. The place is flooded with Halon (a fire suppression gas). Suddenly, Flamey McHotty is wandering around and can't so much as toast a marshmallow.

 

In my mind, Flamey is taking a risk by having "all of his eggs in one basket" (eg in the EC). I believe that this warrants a break in cost. This could be represented by a common limitation, but that is 6 of 1.

 

The EC concept was problematic in the BBB. I saw a number of characters cross my screen with a "Xantronian BattleMaster EC," "Movement Mania EC," etc. It was sometimes difficult to reason why EC A is allowed and EC B is not. I believe that Steve has done us a great service by further quantifying WHY EC A is allowed and EC B is not. It gives me something to hang a cloak on and work through certain character concepts with a little more "evenness." Does this mean my judgement is foolproof? Heck NO! But it gives me a leg up.

 

ECs can be abused, no doubt about it. They are probably THE most power/framework to be abused. EDM can also be abused. Does that maked EDM an less valid? I don't think it does. The open-ended, cookie-cutterness of Hero leaves a lot of room for abuse. That is part of the reason I'm here. To help my players navigate the gauntlet of abuse and design/concept that will create a character that is not only enjoyable for them to play, but enjoyable for me to GM and enjoyable for the other players/characters to game with.

 

Ok, so it was a looooooong shower.

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Gravitar might benefit from doing a VPP like that in place of her MP, but leaving her EC and her independent TK powers alone. Having her stuff spread out like that is a crucial part of her build, one that allows her to effectively fight many hero teams - namely, she is able to do devastating Multiple Power Attacks and to attack effectively while maintaining some powerful ongoing effects like the Area TK. Putting all her stuff in a VPP would probably make her substantially weaker.

 

 

Gravitar's MP by itself is more expensive than the equivalent sized Cosmic VPP and it's a lot less useful. You don't even need to touch her EC or independent TK powers at all.

[Kristopher]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Blowing out suns costs under 80 points, or even less with a GM's call. It's much more a matter of what you consider a balanced power structure than points.

 

I would never allow a character to "blow out a star" or crack a planet in half for anything resembling 80 points. Ever. One of the inherent flaws in the HERO system as constructed is that it allows some people to think they can get away with enormous effects for relatively miniscule point costs.

 

"No, sorry, Munchkin Lad, you cannot destroy a star with the equivalent of a 16d6 Energy Blast."

 

I want to throw something through my computer screen every time I see a post claiming that a planet has less than 100 pts of BODY.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Gravitar's MP by itself is more expensive than the equivalent sized Cosmic VPP and it's a lot less useful. You don't even need to touch her EC or independent TK powers at all.

 

As a side note, I'd say that most published characters are not very point effective. I've never know if that was an intentional design choice on the part of Hero games or what.

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

If I were to redesign the game, I might do something like this:

 

1) Eliminate ECs. If you want a drain one drain all type effect, take a -1/4 limitation on the relevant powers. You can finally place powers of all levels in the same "framework" without screwing up the point costs and without any arbitrary no 0 end powers.

 

2) Keep multipowers, but eliminate ultra slots. An ultra slot isn't worth a -1 limitation compared to a regular slot. That leaves all slots at a 1/5 cost.

 

3) Keep VPPs, but the base cost would be 1.5 times the pool cost. The control cost would remain the same. Thus a 60 pt VPP would cost 90 pts plus control cost. This keeps VPP costs in line with the new multipower structure and more accurately reflects the value of a VPP.

 

4) Eliminate figured characteristics and reprice characteristics as follows:

 

Str 1

Dex 3

Con 1

Body 1

Int 1

Ego 2

Pre 1

Com 1/2

PD 1

ED 1

Spd 10

Rec 1

End 1/3

Stun 1/2

 

Con, Body, and Stun are considered "defensive powers" for the purpose of adjustment powers. Some GMs might also like to put Rec and End in that category as well.

 

Of course while I suspect my system would work, I also suspect that nobody would play it. 20+ years of ingrained Hero system are pretty difficult to overcome.

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I would never allow a character to "blow out a star" or crack a planet in half for anything resembling 80 points. Ever. One of the inherent flaws in the HERO system as constructed is that it allows some people to think they can get away with enormous effects for relatively miniscule point costs.

 

"No, sorry, Munchkin Lad, you cannot destroy a star with the equivalent of a 16d6 Energy Blast."

 

I want to throw something through my computer screen every time I see a post claiming that a planet has less than 100 pts of BODY.

 

 

I guess you wouldn't like my nuclear bomb built on 1 real point (or 3 real points if you disallow megascale) then.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I would never allow a character to "blow out a star" or crack a planet in half for anything resembling 80 points. Ever. One of the inherent flaws in the HERO system as constructed is that it allows some people to think they can get away with enormous effects for relatively miniscule point costs.

 

"No, sorry, Munchkin Lad, you cannot destroy a star with the equivalent of a 16d6 Energy Blast."

 

This in no way contradicts my point. The problem is not mechanically simulating Vast Cosmic Power on 350 points or less; the problem is that the tool kit Hero gives you to do this does not jibe with some GM's concept of game balance.

 

And as a side note, I would not let Planet Smashing Man into most of my campaigns; However, if we were playing Cosmic Level Supers, I might consider it.

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

As a side note' date=' I'd say that most published characters are not very point effective. I've never know if that was an intentional design choice on the part of Hero games or what.[/quote']

 

 

Agreed. It's fairly easy to rebuild most of them more effectively if you want to. I guess it was so they could be a challenge to starting PCs, but would still lose in a fair fight the majority of the time. It wouldn't do for your PCs to have an even chance of losing every fight!

[zornwil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

If I were to redesign the game, I might do something like this:

 

1) Eliminate ECs. If you want a drain one drain all type effect, take a -1/4 limitation on the relevant powers. You can finally place powers of all levels in the same "framework" without screwing up the point costs and without any arbitrary no 0 end powers.

 

2) Keep multipowers, but eliminate ultra slots. An ultra slot isn't worth a -1 limitation compared to a regular slot. That leaves all slots at a 1/5 cost.

 

3) Keep VPPs, but the base cost would be 1.5 times the pool cost. The control cost would remain the same. Thus a 60 pt VPP would cost 90 pts plus control cost. This keeps VPP costs in line with the new multipower structure and more accurately reflects the value of a VPP.

 

4) Eliminate figured characteristics and reprice characteristics as follows:

 

Str 1

Dex 3

Con 1

Body 1

Int 1

Ego 2

Pre 1

Com 1/2

PD 1

ED 1

Spd 10

Rec 1

End 1/3

Stun 1/2

 

Con, Body, and Stun are considered "defensive powers" for the purpose of adjustment powers. Some GMs might also like to put Rec and End in that category as well.

 

Of course while I suspect my system would work, I also suspect that nobody would play it. 20+ years of ingrained Hero system are pretty difficult to overcome.

Yeah, plus I think a lot of people - like me - believe the current system, for all its "imbalance" more properly approximates the way to build heroic fictional characters than what you suggest. (no offense of course, Gary) Although I do really like to see all sorts of tinkering. I'd really like to see a HERO compendium with all sorts of suggestions, including yours, as among the best of approaches towards changing the system. You've done great work here, and my departure from you is philosophical moreso than something we could sort out on points, as previously discussed. As such, I think your work, along with a few others', well warrants a place in the legacy of HERO.

[Kristopher]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

This in no way contradicts my point. The problem is not mechanically simulating Vast Cosmic Power on 350 points or less; the problem is that the tool kit Hero gives you to do this does not jibe with some GM's concept of game balance.

 

And as a side note, I would not let Planet Smashing Man into most of my campaigns; However, if we were playing Cosmic Level Supers, I might consider it.

 

I was just off on a tangent about a pet peeve and not even responding directly to what you were getting at.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I was just off on a tangent about a pet peeve and not even responding directly to what you were getting at.

 

No worries. Munchkin players piss most GMs off. I think it's very necessary to be able to tell your players "This is the power level, and no, your character can't pass it" right from the start. A player who won't respect that isn't worth having in the game.

[Zed-F]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

No worries. Munchkin players piss most GMs off. I think it's very necessary to be able to tell your players "This is the power level' date=' and no, your character can't pass it" right from the start. A player who won't respect that isn't worth having in the game.[/quote']

 

I've found, however, that sometimes it's difficult for people to accurately state what their expectations of the power level should be in a manner that's convincing. As a GM, it's annoying when people try to break caps or otherwise unbalance the game. As a player, it's annoying when a GM comes up with a seemingly arbitrary restriction that might be intended to uphold an idea of game balance, but is not well-phrased or well-conceived and so doesn't come across well. People also don't always agree on what a reasonable definition of "balanced" is.

 

This is, of course, an issue of clear communications, not anything pertaining to Hero itself.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I've found, however, that sometimes it's difficult for people to accurately state what their expectations of the power level should be in a manner that's convincing. As a GM, it's annoying when people try to break caps or otherwise unbalance the game. As a player, it's annoying when a GM comes up with a seemingly arbitrary restriction that might be intended to uphold an idea of game balance, but is not well-phrased or well-conceived and so doesn't come across well. People also don't always agree on what a reasonable definition of "balanced" is.

 

This is, of course, an issue of clear communications, not anything pertaining to Hero itself.

 

Agreed. It's also frustrating to be in a game with a GM who has not communicated clearly or thought things through, or to play in a game world where the designers have failed to think things through in terms of their own game's mechanics. Not much you can do there other than try to talk it out.

[Rapier]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Agreed. It's also frustrating to be in a game with a GM who has not communicated clearly or thought things through' date=' or to play in a game world where the designers have failed to think things through in terms of their own game's mechanics. Not much you can do there other than try to talk it out.[/quote']

Not to toot my own bugle or anything, but not everyone can GM. The same way that, at work, I see people in management that should NEVER EVER be allowed to manage people. Not everyone can manage others. Its not even necessarily a bad thing. Who says everyone has to be equal?

 

There are bad GMs, bad players, great players that make bad GMs and great GMs that make bad players. Sometimes all you need is experience. If you have a good group with good communication and are able to keep the egos out of it (eg "because I'm the GM and I said so, that's why!") even a not-bad/not-great GM can improve his skills and everyone can have fun.

 

Heck, there are times when one of us has bought a new game and we give it a go. In each and every one of those situations, even the GM didn't know the rules inside out. We still had fun, even though we had to pause every once and again and challenge the GM ("you sure about that?").

 

Even after all these years of GMing I am still hit every once in a while with something I didn't plan on. You have to make a snap judgement. Sometimes I'm wrong, and correct it on the spot. Sometimes it gets corrected after the game (usually with a bonus XP or three for the offended party). At the end of the day, we all still love each other and are best of friends. I mean, its only a game right?

[RDU Neil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

This is, of course, an issue of clear communications, not anything pertaining to Hero itself.

 

But I would argue that Hero, as opposed to other systems, more openly requires mature, well structured, effective communication OUTSIDE of the game rules. This is a game that NEEDS boards like these. This is a game system that doesn't allow simple assumptions, but requires debate and open, two-way communication. We'd think that all games do... but some systems can be muddles through without this, others, D&D specifically, isn't about interpretation, but about memorizing what the rules say is right. Hero requires an open, flexible thought process that adapts and changes and analyzes. This is not natural or comfortable or necessarily well developed in a lot of people, especially younger kids/teens. A person has to develop a "philosophy of Hero" IMO, one that is well enunciated, consistent and still flexible... to get the system to work for them. This is what I love about the game, but it is not readily apparant, nor easy to do. It is one of the major barriers to enty with the Hero System. I just don't know how to discuss the importance of this with new players without utterly disillusioning them with what Hero is all about.

[zornwil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

But I would argue that Hero' date=' as opposed to other systems, more openly requires mature, well structured, effective communication OUTSIDE of the game rules. This is a game that NEEDS boards like these. This is a game system that doesn't allow simple assumptions, but requires debate and open, two-way communication. We'd think that all games do... but some systems can be muddles through without this, others, D&D specifically, isn't about interpretation, but about memorizing what the rules say is right. Hero requires an open, flexible thought process that adapts and changes and analyzes. This is not natural or comfortable or necessarily well developed in a lot of people, especially younger kids/teens. A person has to develop a "philosophy of Hero" IMO, one that is well enunciated, consistent and still flexible... to get the system to work for them. This is what I love about the game, but it is not readily apparant, nor easy to do. It is one of the major barriers to enty with the Hero System. I just don't know how to discuss the importance of this with new players without utterly disillusioning them with what Hero is all about.[/quote']

That's a great post, I had to rep that. I'm not sure to what degree I agree, in that I do think that so many issues are begged in other systems, but those systems simply mask them "better" by disallowing so much. But players stumble on the same issues very often, IMHO, just through a game design less ready to deal with the issues in so many cases. In any event, I do think what you identify is good advice for any game but is an excellent point about HERO.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I'd be interested to see OddHat's 'blow out the sun' power. Does it include the limitations, 'only vs The Sun' and '1 non-recoverable charge'?

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I'd be interested to see OddHat's 'blow out the sun' power. Does it include the limitations' date=' 'only vs The Sun' and '1 non-recoverable charge'?[/quote']

 

 

My guess is that it involves a 1 pip Major Transform with some combination of Megascale Area and Megascale Range, and perhaps Autofire.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

My guess is that it involves a 1 pip Major Transform with some combination of Megascale Area and Megascale Range' date=' and perhaps Autofire.[/quote']

 

I've always liked the way you think Gary.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Here is one version:

 

Blowing Out the Sun (27 real points): Major Transform 1 point (Sun into a small rubber duck), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), MegaScale (1" = 100,000 km; +1 1/2), Autofire (10485760 shots; +12) (82 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Concentration (0 DCV; Character is totally unaware of nearby events; -3/4)

[Gary]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I've always liked the way you think Gary.

 

 

Great minds think alike!

 

Care to guess how I got a nuclear bomb on 1 real point (3 without megascale)?