Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

[Hyper-Man]

Just an idea I had....

I was recently reading a thread on the Champions forum discussing the application of "Costs END" to Damage Reduction to allow it to be added to an Elemental Control.

 

Current "By The Book" rules:

• A power with normal END costs can take the Advantages "Reduced END" (+1/4 for half END, +1/2 for zero END) or "Costs END Only To Activate" (+1/4)
  
• A constant power that costs 0 END can take the Limitations "Costs END" (-1/2) or "Costs END Only To Activate" (-1/4).
  
• A power that takes the Limitation "Costs END" cannot also take "Reduced END".
  

Why not add another option for 0 END powers?

• "Costs Reduced END" (-1/4)
  

Just figure the END cost as though the power had "Costs END" and one level of "Reduced END". There is somewhat of a mathimatical precident for this since "Costs END Only To Activate" is about as limiting and is also a (-1/4) Limitation (or (+1/4) Advantage) as well.

 

HM

[prestidigitator]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

That's the way I've always House-Ruled it.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Why not add another option for 0 END powers?

• "Costs Reduced END" (-1/4)
  

 

I do not see a problem with it. On the other hand, I think the system would be better if the concept of END were removed from the game entirely. It's a needless complication.

[Fox1]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Go for it.

 

Just realize that from a game design Philosophy PoV you are overriding the commandment "Thou shall not combine 'Costs END' with "1/2 END Cost".

 

Sure the math is a little different (it's easier) and with the application of other advantages/limits there is going to be real point difference.

 

But you're still getting to an end result point where the rules say you shouldn't go.

 

But I think that rule is stupid- so again, go for it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Technically, I am not breaking that commandment. I am not giving a power both an Advantage AND a Limitation regarding END. I am just creating a new limitation that produces the same end result. The math in one case is very different from the other.

 

As a player I would almost always choose the Advantage: "Costs END Only To Activate" anyway since it is only a one time hit. But as a GM I would sometimes want to encourage the player to choose the Advantage "Costs Reduced END" instead for play balance issues even though both are just (+1/4).

 

If END were to be eliminated from the game something would invariably be created to replace it to produce "Incredibly Heroic Effort" effects as described on the other 2 END threads.

 

HM

[lemming]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Seems fine to me.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Just realize that from a game design Philosophy PoV you are overriding the commandment "Thou shall not combine 'Costs END' with "1/2 END Cost".

 

Sure the math is a little different (it's easier) and with the application of other advantages/limits there is going to be real point difference.

 

But you're still getting to an end result point where the rules say you shouldn't go.

 

But I think that rule is stupid- so again, go for it.

I suspect the philosophy of the rule was to keep a Power from taking Costs End and Reduced End Cost: 0 End (possibly even multiple times). The reason someone might do this is: for a Power that already has Advantages, tacking on a small Advantage isn't that big of a cost, whereas tacking on even a small Limitation reduces the cost of all those Advantages. Compare:

RKA: 2d6;

Autofire: 3 shots (+3/2);

NND (+1);

[105 Active, 105 Real]

to:

RKA: 2d6;

Autofire: 3 shots (+3/2);

NND (+1);

Reduced End Cost: 0 End (+1/2);

[120 Active]

Costs End (-1/2);

[80 Real]

Just as an example. See the difference in Real Cost? The same reason you can't take Increased End Cost and Reduced End Cost.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

...for a Power that already has Advantages' date=' tacking on a small Advantage isn't that big of a cost, whereas tacking on even a small Limitation reduces the cost of all those Advantages.[/quote']

Just thought I'd point out that multiplicative Advantages and Limitations would eliminate this problem; by applying a Limitation that exactly balanced an Advantage, the Real Cost would be exactly the same (though the Active Points might be increased, so you have just hurt yourself). Of course, that is assuming that an Advantage and Limitation that have exactly opposite effects would be of reciprocal value, which might be a fair assumption even after re-costing, but in any case a deviation from this would likely be in favor of the Advantage being more costly than the Limitation cheap (so again you would be shooting yourself in the foot).

 

Had to poke at this one again.

[Fox1]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Technically' date=' I am not breaking that commandment. I am not giving a power both an Advantage AND a Limitation regarding END. I am just creating a new limitation that produces the same end result. The math in one case is very different from the other.[/quote']

 

Not breaking technicalities is the first and greatest tool of the weasel power-gamer It's most certainly against the spirit.

 

But I'm on your side. Stupid spirits should be broken. Besides I don't think it was ever about the spirit of the idea- it was all about the math and the names of the advantages/limits (or the fact that 1/2 End is different than No End was forgotten, take your pick).

 

I will point out that your way of doing it is actually in many cases a better deal than the outlawed method. You haven't increased Active Point cost for example which makes it easier to avoid Cap limits.

 

So not only did you end up in with the same result of the outlawed method, you did it under evil AP caps

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

If END were to be eliminated from the game something would invariably be created to replace it to produce "Incredibly Heroic Effort" effects

 

All that's needed for that is an Ego roll and the GM's permission. END is irrelevant, as always.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Just thought I'd point out that multiplicative Advantages and Limitations would eliminate this problem...

 

Indeed. Maybe someday I'll revisit Jazz and actually finish it, and we can see what such a game system would look like. Until then, we'll have to play the game we have.

[Fox1]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

All that's needed for that is an Ego roll and the GM's permission. END is irrelevant' date=' as always.[/quote']

 

 

END has huge tactical effects in my campaign. It's also a major balancing element in some of my character builds.

 

Simply put, I couldn't run my current game without it.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

END has huge tactical effects in my campaign. It's also a major balancing element in some of my character builds.

Simply put, I couldn't run my current game without it.

 

If tracking Endurance is a central focus of a role-playing game -- any role-playing game -- then there is something seriously out of whack. It's a role-playing game, not Starfleet Battles.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

END has huge tactical effects in my campaign. It's also a major balancing element in some of my character builds.

 

Simply put, I couldn't run my current game without it.

I certainly like it for, "Spell Point," type magic systems, though as I have said on other threads I wish there were more options and costs were better balanced.

[Fox1]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

If tracking Endurance is a central focus of a role-playing game -- any role-playing game -- then there is something seriously out of whack. It's a role-playing game' date=' not Starfleet Battles.[/quote']

 

I do so love it when people pull out the old tired "It's a role-playing game" cliché. Like they have some right given them from upon high to determine how I should play the game I paid my money for and dump my time into.

 

The rules specifically state you can ignore END costs in your campaign. Why do you feel you must insult mine even so?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

The rules specifically state you can ignore END costs in your campaign. Why do you feel you must insult mine even so?

 

I went out of my way to avoid insulting you, because I do not bear any ill will against you personally. I simply hate seeing something worthwhile done poorly.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

I went out of my way to avoid insulting you' date=' because I do not bear any ill will against you personally. I simply hate seeing something worthwhile done poorly.[/quote']

I think it could have been stated more tactfully, since it is sometimes easy for people to take things the wrong way on these boards. I understand what you were trying to say, and I rather agree: the system is there to facilitate roleplaying, not become the central focus. In fact, it isn't built particularly well for a careful audit of End and End Costs. I actually find this a bit unfortunate: I am trying to build a magic system, and would like a standard set of rules by which I can more carefully keep track of costs (especially for long-lasting effects). I find it much easier to simplify rules and ignore optional ones than to build in custom ones and muck a lot with existing costs. However, I still wouldn't call it a, "central focus;" it is more something I am using to help strike a bit of balance in where Powers should be rather extraodinary things.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

I think it could have been stated more tactfully...

 

I am sure you are correct. I would have a very short career as a diplomat.

 

I am sorry for any offense I may have given. I was trying quite specifically to avoid giving any.

[Fox1]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

I understand what you were trying to say' date=' and I rather agree: the system is there to facilitate roleplaying, not become the central focus.[/quote']

 

I find even that statement insulting, if to a much lesser degree. What my central focus should be is not for you to determine.

[lemming]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

If tracking Endurance is a central focus of a role-playing game -- any role-playing game -- then there is something seriously out of whack. It's a role-playing game' date=' not Starfleet Battles.[/quote']

Well we could just write a description on our sheets of the character to take it to your extreme. END cost is a fine mechanic for those who want to use it.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

Well we could just write a description on our sheets of the character to take it to your extreme.

 

That's certainly an extreme, but it is not my extreme.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

END has huge tactical effects in my campaign. It's also a major balancing element in some of my character builds.

 

Simply put, I couldn't run my current game without it.

I also find END to be extremely important to the game. There are many dramatic possibilities that can be played as a result. Like getting tired during a fight. I find it disruptive to my willful suspension of disbelief to have characters continually bash each other without ever exhausting their energy.

 

ITRW, there is such a thing as endurance, and I like being able to reflect that RW fact in my games. Some characters have a lot of endurance, and some don't. Each requires different tactical decisions, and can lead to different dramatic situations.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

I find even that statement insulting' date=' if to a much lesser degree. What my central focus should be is not for you to determine.[/quote']

I wasn't talking about your focus. I was talking about the purpose of the game system. The intent of its developers, as I think you will find if you take careful note of their wording or ask them directly, is to facilitate the roleplaying experience, not create a game system that is a cause unto itself.

 

P.S. - ...and as such, I don't think the game system is particularly conducive to the maticulous tracking of End. As I have already said, I find that to be a bit unfortunate in some ways. In others, I am glad it is not overly complicated, and I often forget about keeping track of End myself when I don't find it dramatically important (or balancing in the case of a magic system purposefully developed around End).

[zornwil]

Re: Endurance Proposal: Costs and Effects

 

If tracking Endurance is a central focus of a role-playing game -- any role-playing game -- then there is something seriously out of whack. It's a role-playing game' date=' not Starfleet Battles.[/quote']

I think END adds a lot to roleplaying, and it's better to have a mechanic for the player who wants to be END-constrained rather than to leave it to his acting and the GM's/his discretion. It's relatively easy to ignore END (just buy things to 0 END or Charges or such) if the concept calls for it, but I think a roleplayer can find END a rewarding thing to manage, helping him enforce a character's fatigue level.