An impact question

[tesuji]

Consider the following character, who is a character i have played a time or two, more or less.

 

Enforcer

 

Str 13

Dex 23

Con 23

Bod 15

Int 13

Ego 14

Pre 18

Com 14

PD 6

ED 6

Spd 5

Rec 8

End 56

Stun 35

CHAR COST 120

 

Powers

 

Force Fields EC 30 rp pool total EC 150

12d6 Eb (6 end) 30 rp slot

40 str TK (6 end) 30 rp slot

24/24 force field +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

24" flight +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

 

80 pts of skills and such

 

Total 350 pts.

 

Ok yeah, the defense levels are higher than the %er norm, more 4e in fact, but lets pretend the GM allowed these benchmarks and liked the "3-4 hits to drop a hero" 4e flavor. it makes the math simple to see, Ok?

 

Now consider the exact same character with the following changes.

 

Force Fields EC 30 rp pool total EC 140

12d6 Eb (6 end) ACT 14- 20 rp slot

40 str TK (6 end) 30 rp slot

24/24 force field +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

24" flight +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

 

versus

 

Force Fields EC 30 rp pool total EC 140

12d6 Eb (6 end) 30 rp slot

40 str TK (6 end) 30 rp slot

24/24 force field +1/2 (0 end) ACT 14- 20 rp slot

24" flight +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

 

Compared to the original each gains 10 more cp to spend.

 

Impact analysis for a 10-15d6 game, say 12d6 average.

 

If the blast ever fails when it would have hit, one lost attack phase and blown 6 endurance. No biggie and certainly not a "scenario ender" in most cases.

 

If the force field ever fails when hit, the character is con stunned, likely knocked out by the single shot (even if fresh as a diasy before), all force fields drop, and it is likely a scenario over issue or at the very least a sudden "scrambling to survive scenario" crisis-maker.

 

These are woefully disparate severity of problem, impact of limitation, yet they cost the same cp, they save the same 10 cp.

 

Is the same cost for same effectiveness failing us here?

 

Thoughts?

[Sean Waters]

Re: An impact question

 

You get the same problem if you put the activation on flight: one phase without it at the wrong moments and....

 

The problem comes from activation having to be rolled every phase whether the power is instant or constant: the limitation should (IMO) be bigger for constant powers as they are (usually) only particularly effective if they don't stop.

 

You could het around it by using RSR: the mechanics are different and once a power starts it doesn't require further rolls: this generally means RSR works out worse for instant powers!

 

I'm not sure it is necessarily a problem: in isolation it is unfair, but so long as you you know what to expect you can work around it.

 

Sean

[Fox1]

Re: An impact question

 

Is the same cost for same effectiveness failing us here?

 

Thoughts?

 

Same cost for same effectiveness is an illusion in HERO system, always has been- always well be.

 

Another really simple example:

 

12d6 EB, Active Points 60

 

10d6 energy EB fired in multpower attack with 2d6 Phsyical EB: Active Points 60

 

 

I consider points to be a budget, nothing more. They don't imply balance, they don't imply effectiveness.

 

Of course this comes form a person who's superhero campaign has almost 600 points of difference between some characters without any balance issues.

[tesuji]

Re: An impact question

 

You get the same problem if you put the activation on flight: one phase without it at the wrong moments and....

But, this isn't an "at the wrong moment" kind of thing where a specific set of circumstances causes the failure to be especially troublesome. its a case of "when it fails, oh boy whammo".

 

I mean if the EB blast happoens to fail at just the wrong moment in a particular case where its vital, like say blasting falling debris before it crushes small child, then hey, thats a major impact.

 

But, excluding those, for normal use, when this fails its a major difference normally between them. (This is true whether your ff sfx cause the act roll to be done "when hit" (like paetial coverage) or "start pf phase" (like "shields are down"))

 

The problem comes from activation having to be rolled every phase whether the power is instant or constant:

Actually, NO. The problem comes from seriously different magnitudes of "what happens when the power fails" but the same cost break.

 

I agree, there may be another issue regarding activations for constant powers, but this is not that case.

 

Same cost for same effectiveness is an illusion in HERO system, always has been- always well be.

Hmmm...

Another really simple example:

 

12d6 EB, Active Points 60

 

10d6 energy EB fired in multpower attack with 2d6 Phsyical EB: Active Points 60

Nah, see here is the difference.

 

obviously, one can build a deliberately weaker-than-it-should-be power. By making what could be a single attack vs a single defenses go against double defenses, you do that just then.

 

I can buy flash vs normal sight with a limitation only when in total darkness or an NRay vision that has as its can't see thru "opaque materials" and end up with something not very much worth its cost, assuming normal costs.

 

but this isn't that case.

 

Its a case of applying a standard MECHANICAL limitation (as opposed to conditional, cricumstantial, or subjective) to two totally basic vanilla extremely commonly used traits (simple offense and simple defense) and getting a result that yells "hey, whoa! something is out of whack here."

 

It sone thing to take your car to the gas station and deliberately put sprite in your gas tank and then have it die on you than it is to put the manufacturer's recommended oil in the oil tank and have it go kablooey.

 

 

I consider points to be a budget, nothing more. They don't imply balance, they don't imply effectiveness.

 

balance is certainly not derived from points, or at least, from points alone. That we agree on.

 

but on the subject of cost and effectiveness, in your game specifically, if cost is not meant to have a relationship to effectiveness, to not even imply effectiveness, what criteria do you use for assigning cost at all? Does a 12d6 Eb cost more in your game than a 3d6 RKA? if so, why, if its not because the 12d6 eb would be more effective?

 

HERO 5 of course, does link cost to effectiveness. its like unto an axiom.

 

"Because of the system's internal rules and logic, characters, spells, and other game elements which have the same or similar point cost, have the same or similar effectiveness or power, all other things being equal." -- Hero System, Fifth Edition, p5

 

BTW, as an aside, what purpose do you feel the budget in your game serves?

[Fox1]

Re: An impact question

 

obviously' date=' one can build a deliberately weaker-than-it-should-be power. By making what could be a single attack vs a single defenses go against double defenses, you do that just then.[/quote']

 

This is true, however one may build a weaker-than-it-should-be power without intending to. Your example in fact shows this in spades. The one I gave was just over the top clear and to the point about it.

 

In general this happens with people who build to concept or SPX without considering game impact.

 

 

 

but on the subject of cost and effectiveness, in your game specifically, if cost is not meant to have a relationship to effectiveness, to not even imply effectiveness, what criteria do you use for assigning cost at all?

 

I think you quoted the wrong person there, it was me you were replying to...

 

Costs? Why the ones in the book of course. I don't think for a moment that I could make up better costs that actually would balance.

 

 

HERO 5 of course, does link cost to effectiveness. its like unto an axiom.

 

Like all axioms, it's only true upon assumption

 

Sadly, unlike most axioms it can be proven wrong. For example, look at points as money for just a moment. You spend them to gain in-game resources (i.e. your EB, skill with computers, etc).

 

That means that they have to follow basic economic rules as result. One of those rules is that the value of a resource depends upon the needs of a buyer.

 

Consider now a buyer who's not interested in high damage dice, but instead is interested in being the center of the storyline. In HERO, oddly enough he doesn't have to pay for that- he gets PAID for it, by means of disadvantage points for his Hunted and Romance disads.

 

This highlights one simple fact about point systems and balance- the only ones that can work AS BALANCE is one tailored specifically to the individual player within the individual game.

 

 

BTW, as an aside, what purpose do you feel the budget in your game serves?

 

For my superhero campaign, I don't use a budget at all. I just build to concept. The points there are just there serving no purpose at all. As a result PCs range in cost from 405 total points to 1000 total points- on the same team and without balance problems.

 

IME, character niche always matters more than points.

 

For other games, the points function as a budget. Some guildline as to what you can and cannot build is needed and points work in that respect. Player A can afford to buy abilities A, B, and C but not D unless he drops A.

 

Actual game balance is done by insuring character niche again, as well as a general oversight of how those points are spent.

 

I hold a heavy hand over character design. For superhero games, I'm the only one who actual does do a design (using player suggestions and desires as a guide).

[tesuji]

Re: An impact question

 

 

This is true, however one may build a weaker-than-it-should-be power without intending to. Your example in fact shows this in spades. The one I gave was just over the top clear and to the point about it.

 

In general this happens with people who build to concept or SPX without considering game impact.

but the point is, if the system is used to determine all costs and it fails with even the very basic example i chose, one absolutely mechanical and not subjective in its effects, that begs the question of the accuracy of the system.

I think you quoted the wrong person there, it was me you were replying to...

aaack!! corrected now... i got 3 of the 5 quotes right!

Costs? Why the ones in the book of course. I don't think for a moment that I could make up better costs that actually would balance.

this seems to contradict you entire position.

 

you have in your game characters with 600 pt variances who are balanced. This seems to say that the book costs are not proving balanced much at all, since such a difference would normally indicate imbalances.

 

i suspect that you, like me, recognize and implement play balance, where your challenges and scripts end up setting the balance far more than points do.

 

So, were you to assign "different costs" then as long as your scripting and chllenging were as good as it is now, your balance would still be fine.

 

right?

Like all axioms, it's only true upon assumption

But as a design goal, shouldn;t it be true in practice, if one considers the gaol attained in the design?

Sadly, unlike most axioms it can be proven wrong. For example, look at points as money for just a moment. You spend them to gain in-game resources (i.e. your EB, skill with computers, etc).

right, you spend cp to buy "things my character can do".

That means that they have to follow basic economic rules as result. One of those rules is that the value of a resource depends upon the needs of a buyer.

true... notice however that NEED and VALUE here are not the same as "PREFERNCE" or "PERCIEVED VALUE".

 

For example, in a scifi game where a lot of alien races with unusual languages are encountered, a NEED for TRANSLATION exists and TRANSLATION aptitude has value.

Consider now a buyer who's not interested in high damage dice, but instead is interested in being the center of the storyline.

See, now you have jumped subjects.

 

Now you are talking about his preferences, NOT an in game NEED, and his PERCIEVED VALUE of traits, not an actual value as in how useful they are or how much they enable his character to perform successfully.

 

thats a whole nuterh issue.

 

For example, ME, i like shapeshifting. Even if shapeshifting were overpriced for its utility, i am likely to just bite the bullet and pay thru the nose cuz i like those kinds of characters. Its a preference, not a need, and a percieved value, not an actual one linked to effectiveness.

 

the system and its accounting is, according to its own statements, trying to match up effectiveness and cost, not "enjoyment" and cost.

 

So, i think you have gone afield a bit here.

In HERO, oddly enough he doesn't have to pay for that- he gets PAID for it, by means of disadvantage points for his Hunted and Romance disads.

 

I have seen this argument before, but really, in my games its just not the case that those who take disads get more screen time or screen presence than those who don't. I dont accept as a Gm that its Ok for me to run my game so that those who do disads have more fun. its my job to run a game thats fun for everyone and whether its drawing on their player contributed "background" (things written up before the campaign starts) or drawing on the character "foreground" (things written up after the campaign starts) i do my best to give everyone similar fun, screen time, screen presence, being the "right guy", man-with-the-solution, key guy minutes as everyone else.

 

So, no, you don't spend cp or get paid back cp for "being the center of the storyline" in my games and , truth be told, in any decently run game i have seen.

 

point in fact, something i often point out, having seen the same players in various combos in Champions, Fantasy hero, traveller, DND, WOD etc over the years... the best most ""story producing" characters with backgrounds i have seen came from the "not points for disads" games.

 

In those, every single flaw, every single drawback, every person listed in their background was solely there because they thought it would be fun and never for "cost benefit bookkeeping". I got very diverse writeups and as the campaign progressed they evolved freely and naturally as a matter of course of the story..

 

on the otherhand, when disads were part of accounting and especially when a major part of accounting, like say champs or Fh where 1/3 to 1/2 of your pts came from disads, they were more limited, more a case of "something i have to do" and often very similar to one another as the same cost-effective mechanics and accounting influenced everyone.

 

but i digress.

 

Again, its not my experience that "being the center of the storyline" has anything to do with points for disads.

 

This highlights one simple fact about point systems and balance- the only ones that can work AS BALANCE is one tailored specifically to the individual player within the individual game.

or as i put it... balance IN PLAY comes from the script and challenges and how the character can affect those, not from the points themselves. IMBALANCE in play usually results from a mismatch between what the Gm "charged" in chargen and what the Gm makes "valuable" in practice.

 

For my superhero campaign, I don't use a budget at all. I just build to concept. The points there are just there serving no purpose at all. As a result PCs range in cost from 405 total points to 1000 total points- on the same team and without balance problems.

Gotcha. no problem there.

IME, character niche always matters more than points.

part of the "ke guy" issues... and i agree completely.

For other games, the points function as a budget. Some guildline as to what you can and cannot build is needed and points work in that respect. Player A can afford to buy abilities A, B, and C but not D unless he drops A.

which doesn't seem in principle to need a very complex point buy mechanic.

Actual game balance is done by insuring character niche again, as well as a general oversight of how those points are spent.

Ok

I hold a heavy hand over character design. For superhero games, I'm the only one who actual does do a design (using player suggestions and desires as a guide).

gotcha.

 

cool

[atlascott]

Re: An impact question

 

Same cost for same effectiveness is an illusion in HERO system, always has been- always well be.

 

Another really simple example:

 

12d6 EB, Active Points 60

 

10d6 energy EB fired in multpower attack with 2d6 Phsyical EB: Active Points 60

 

 

I consider points to be a budget, nothing more. They don't imply balance, they don't imply effectiveness.

 

Of course this comes form a person who's superhero campaign has almost 600 points of difference between some characters without any balance issues.

 

 

 

 

While I generally agree with this, especially in comparing, say, a 40 and 50 pt power (40 can be more powerful than 50). I do believe that the HERO points ina character are a useful GENERAL tool to gauge rough equivalency.

 

A 20 pt character is much less generally useful than a 75 pt, and a 75 pt is useless compared to a 150, etc, etc. So its an issue of scale--don't expert absolute mathematical precision in the 'balance' of the system even in the microscale, and you'll be fine.

 

Name one system that a rules lawyer cant break. It doesnt exist.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: An impact question

 

Very interesting topic, tesuji. Your rules analyses are always worth examining.

 

Let me just recap your example for easy reference:

 

Consider the following character, who is a character i have played a time or two, more or less.

 

Enforcer

 

Str 13

Dex 23

Con 23

Bod 15

Int 13

Ego 14

Pre 18

Com 14

PD 6

ED 6

Spd 5

Rec 8

End 56

Stun 35

CHAR COST 120

 

Powers

 

Force Fields EC 30 rp pool total EC 150

12d6 Eb (6 end) 30 rp slot

40 str TK (6 end) 30 rp slot

24/24 force field +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

24" flight +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

 

80 pts of skills and such

 

Total 350 pts.

 

*SNIP*

 

Now consider the exact same character with the following changes.

 

Force Fields EC 30 rp pool total EC 140

12d6 Eb (6 end) ACT 14- 20 rp slot

40 str TK (6 end) 30 rp slot

24/24 force field +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

24" flight +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

 

versus

 

Force Fields EC 30 rp pool total EC 140

12d6 Eb (6 end) 30 rp slot

40 str TK (6 end) 30 rp slot

24/24 force field +1/2 (0 end) ACT 14- 20 rp slot

24" flight +1/2 (0 end) 30 rp slot

 

Compared to the original each gains 10 more cp to spend.

 

 

Just as a preliminary observation, your character writeup includes a second offensively-useful Power (the Telekinesis) which is more reliable than the Energy Blast, whereas almost all of the character's Defenses are in that Force Field. To make this comparison more balanced, the EB should really be the only offensive Power in the Multipower. If you don't mind I'm going to make that assumption for the rest of my analysis.

 

 

Impact analysis for a 10-15d6 game, say 12d6 average.

 

If the blast ever fails when it would have hit, one lost attack phase and blown 6 endurance. No biggie and certainly not a "scenario ender" in most cases.

 

Couple of things to keep in mind here: probabilities being what they are, it's possible for Activation Rolls to keep failing in sequence, so that a character may lose two, three or more combat actions in a row. Rather than just losing one attack Phase, the character may become virtually useless offensively for most or all of a Turn. He's still blowing that 6 END every time his EB fizzles out, too, and that can add up.

 

Also, the attack Action ends the character's Phase, so if the EB fails the character is unable to do anything except Abort to a defensive maneuver. If the character's Force Field fails he also has that Abort option, plus is still able to move, use an attack, and anything else that could reasonably fit into a Full Phase (assuming he wasn't KO'd by a successful attack in the meantime, which is a valid concern).

 

 

If the force field ever fails when hit' date=' the character is con stunned, likely knocked out by the single shot (even if fresh as a diasy before), all force fields drop, and it is likely a scenario over issue or at the very least a sudden "scrambling to survive scenario" crisis-maker.[/quote']

 

May I just reiterate than IMO any supers PC who puts almost all his defensive eggs in a basket with an Activation Roll is just asking for trouble?

 

Again, a couple of points to keep in mind: we're still dealing with probabilities, so for the worst-case scenario you describe to occur we have to have the confluence of a character being attacked, the Attack Roll being successful, and the Force Field Activation Roll failing on the same segment. That's certainly far from impossible, and the consequences could be as bad for the target as you describe (assuming the attacker didn't roll poorly, which is also possible). However, the probability of random rolls resulting in that is far lower than just the chance of the Activation Roll itself failing.

 

Note that if you allow the optional Roll With A Punch Maneuver, that "scrambling to survive scenario" can include a chance to greatly diminish the effects of a HTH attack which connects when the character's FF is down.

 

 

These are woefully disparate severity of problem, impact of limitation, yet they cost the same cp, they save the same 10 cp.

 

Is the same cost for same effectiveness failing us here?

 

Thoughts?

 

Despite my comments above, I do think there is a bit of a discrepancy here, and I agree with Sean Waters that you could justify granting a higher discount for Activation Rolls for Constant Powers vs Instant Powers. There are certainly enough precedents for that in the system already. However, I don't think the imbalance is as severe as you're suggesting. There are a very few rules that I think are quite egregious in this way *cough* Damage Shield *cough*, but IMO this isn't one of them.

[Fox1]

Re: An impact question

 

but the point is' date=' if the system is used to determine all costs and it fails with even the very basic example i chose, one absolutely mechanical and not subjective in its effects, that begs the question of the accuracy of the system. [/quote']

 

We're in agreement here.

 

So, were you to assign "different costs" then as long as your scripting and chllenging were as good as it is now, your balance would still be fine.

 

True, but since I don't believe a point system can be balance by itself- I don't see a reason to change the costs. I gain nothing from it.

 

At least this way I can 'compare' character write-ups.

 

 

 

But as a design goal' date=' shouldn;t it be true in practice, if one considers the gaol attained in the design?[/quote']

 

Having done a number of designs before, the question this begs is "under want conditions was the goal attained in design"

 

Or before that in the case of HERO itself, was the goal even attained in design. I don't really think so, but I do think the designers were happy enough with its illusion.

 

For the short term anyway. Then came the Rule of X along with various other methods that attempted to judge balance (all of which fail to one degree or another).

 

 

 

true... notice however that NEED and VALUE here are not the same as "PREFERNCE" or "PERCIEVED VALUE".

 

While there is a difference, you really can't split these factors apart and just ignore them. They are real forces, and they impact the game.

 

Now you are talking about his preferences, NOT an in game NEED, and his PERCIEVED VALUE of traits, not an actual value as in how useful they are or how much they enable his character to perform successfully.

 

Given a game when the disadvantages are used as the book intended (i.e. to drive storylines) and a player who likes bad things happening to his PC (i.e. he thinks bad things are good because he likes angsty role-play), they do in fact have a positive value.

 

Now just because the concept wouldn't work in your game you can't jump to the conculsion that it wouldn't work another's game. They are playing to different standards and getting different results.

 

You used the term "decently run game i have seen" and this is where you break with reality for what you are saying in effect is that "unless their game matches my view of the assumptions of the system, it's a bad game". That line of thought does not follow.

 

This is why I said it all depends upon the individual AND the campaign he's playing in.

 

 

the system and its accounting is, according to its own statements, trying to match up effectiveness and cost, not "enjoyment" and cost.

 

The system can say what it wishes, it does not make it true for anyone else but (perhaps) the person who wrote it.