EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

[Sean Waters]

OK, I've ranted a lot about how I dislike ECs. Now I'm going to refine my view a little.

 

Today I was building character templates so that new players could quickly generate characters (pick a character type...brick/blaster/brawler...whatever) that comes with a set of characteristics and a multiple choice checklist of add-in powers. Follow the checklist properly and you wind up with a reasonably balanced character of 350 points, without ever adding anything up. Easy.

 

Built an blaster and a brick archetype. Now I've made this point before, but I was scrabbling round for add-ins for the brick that were not going to substantially increase the overall combat effectiveness too grossly, but with the blaster, built with an EC, I was having to trim the fat from the character points.

 

I got it about balanced - just about - but I would never have done it without the EC.

 

EITHER:

 

1. The game is not balanced well and it needs to have costs looked at very carefully (we'll get into the the 'right' cost of strength here - let's not!), or

 

2. The EC is an integral and useful part of the game allowing us to create proper archetypes we would otherwise not be able to. Well, true, but you have to ask why it is needed if the game is properly balanced, or anywhere near...see 1. above...

 

We are not realistically going to have the cost of everything changed, so we have to work with the EC. There are various restrictions on ECs and (judging by other threads) most people would rather not have restriction, just the points.

 

Well, that's fine and doozy if you are building a concept character blaster, but it is a bit tight to allow a brick to take an EC on top of their already points efficient design...so...what can we come up with to limit the use of ECs?

 

Do we need to? I think so.

 

I can see no point in the restriction on 0 END powers, although I would be happy enough if all EC powers were non-persistent (getting no limitation) or had to be bought with 'Costs END'. You can have your damage reduction in an EC, but you still have to turn it on!

 

I wouldn't allow 'inherent' powers in an EC, even WITH GM permission.

 

I think that there should be a connecting principle for ECs: in effect the EC should arise out of your specific use of a single sfx - you can manipluate fire, or channel the power of the earth, or whatever. As such I can see how, if that 'core ability' were drained then the rest of the EC should suffer too, so I am happy with the 'drain one, drain all' rule.

 

One thing I thought should be added though is this: every EC MUST have one slot devoted to an attack power (and it can't be HA or HKA, although you can have those in other slots).

 

This is designed to discourage bricks from taking them, or at least to make them pay for something they don't need if they do. Moreover, I think it makes quite a lot of sense in terms of the way I see ECs: a points bonus marking your control of an element. I know we are not supposed to be too literal about names, but that isn't a bad idea in this instance.

 

So, what do you think of my little addition to the restrictions on ECs: frankly I don't think it will effect the characters who NEED them at all, but will make them a less efficient choice for those who don't. What do you think?

[Ehreval]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

EITHER:

 

1. The game is not balanced well and it needs to have costs looked at very carefully (we'll get into the the 'right' cost of strength here - let's not!), or

 

2. The EC is an integral and useful part of the game allowing us to create proper archetypes we would otherwise not be able to. Well, true, but you have to ask why it is needed if the game is properly balanced, or anywhere near...see 1. above...

 

I got a lot more long-winded than I intended with this, but that's a known flaw of mine. (PsychLim: Frequently, minorly impairing.) I prefaced each of my responses with a "Nickle Summary" that wraps things up quickly if you don't want to wade through. Thanks.

 

1. Nickle Summary: No gaming system is perfect, but most imbalances are either perceived or the result of a difference between how designers and actual gm's in the field want things to run.

 

I've played a good number of game systems over the years, and I've never seen a single one, no matter how much the makers tried, that was totally balanced.

 

There are a lot of reasons for this, but I think the primary one is that any game of sufficient complexity will be used by consumers in ways that the designers could not anticipate short of pulling the infinite number of monkeys trick with playtesters. You can see evidence for this in the "is this balanced" arguments that periodically crop up.

 

A mechanic that is balanced in one campaign or adventure (or even session) may be completely unbalanced in another. Evening these things out is, in the main, the gm's job, when it's necessary, but I think a lot of these imbalances have to do more with the milieu expectations of any given group than with any flaws in mechanics.

 

Note: I'm not trying to say Hero is flawless. Part of the problem is also that in any complex game system, there will be obvious and common uses for mechanics that the game designers can't anticipate or don't like.

 

Game designers enter into their task with their own assumptions, some valid and some not, and if their assumptions differ greatly from yours, you'll perceive an imbalance.

 

2. Nickle Summary: EC's are points-imbalanced, but needn't be imbalancing if you have a reasonable set of players or don't mind spending time and effort policing your game.

 

Of course I believe that the EC is an integral part of the game. I wouldn't call it "balanced", but that's likely because I have a very different idea of EC's than the designers seem to have intended.

 

From what I've seen, EC's are a primary example of Hero's expectation that the gm will spend a good amount of effort being a rules cop. "Heaven forfend your players would actually want to spend their points efficiently," they say. "An EC is only to be used for simulation value."

 

That's all well and good if your players don't believe efficient character builds are an important and enjoyable part of playing the game. My players *do* believe that building an efficient character is part of the challenge and part of the fun, so they'll try to be as efficient as they can be.

 

That doesn't mean they won't spend points on background skills and knowledges that'll likely never come up in the game or that they'll try to cheat. They'll just try to do what they perceive as a "good job."

 

However, doing that "good job" also means that you don't look for excuses to use an EC. You use it when it's appropriate for a build, and then you reap the rewards (in terms of efficiency) without shame.

 

So long as my players keep this sort of thing in mind, EC's aren't unbalancing at all, despite the fact that they're so terribly, terribly points-efficient.

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

1. The game is not balanced well and it needs to have costs looked at very carefully

 

It's option 1.

 

However no amount of looking at it, no matter how carefully done, will improve the result significantly.

 

Balance is not to be had in points, it's to be found in careful construction to individual campaign standards.

[Sean Waters]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Ack! You're all being far too reasonable (I did read it all, Ehreval).

 

I KNOW there is no Nirvanic Perfection to be had, I'm just tinkering.

 

I probably wrote a bit too much: the thrust of it boils down to this:

 

NEW RULE: EVERY EC MUST HAVE AN ATTACK POWER FOR AT LEAST ONE SLOT.

 

Thoughts?

[tesuji]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Balance is not to be had in points, it's to be found in careful construction to individual campaign standards.

 

or, an alternative view...

 

balance in play (in practice) does not come from points or construction, but from the scripting of and tailoring of challenges to make the characters that were approved play out as more or less equally involved, impactful and relevent in their actions choices and stories.

[tesuji]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

NEW RULE: EVERY EC MUST HAVE AN ATTACK POWER FOR AT LEAST ONE SLOT.

Thoughts?

 

Why not "every EC must have a power whose name begins with F"?

 

Ok, silliness aside, if the EC framework works, conceptually and pragmatically, why would you need oddball special cases like "no 0 end powers", "no inherent powers" or "must have one attack powerS"?

 

If it doesn't work fundamentally, why would you think a few quick special exceptions suddenly make the math work right?

 

if the process is good, you don't need gimmicks. If the process is flawed, odds are gimmick fixes are more of a happy accident than a proof of a working process.

 

All IMO of course.

 

In practice, whatever model math you choose, it will look right if your playtime events makes it look right. So, IMO, go with the simplest model you can make look like its working in play.

 

"m,ust have an attack power" doesn't do it for me.

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

balance in play (in practice) does not come from points or construction' date=' but from the scripting of and tailoring of challenges to make the characters that were approved play out as more or less equally involved, impactful and relevent in their actions choices and stories.[/quote']

 

One can't have a game without an adventure, so much of this goes without saying.

 

However...

 

If one doesn't control construction, the resulting influence on actual play can distort the resulting adventure in undesired ways.

 

What I'm saying is, the key to balance is constrution. The key to construction is the type of adventure and play style you desire.

 

Changing the order of influence is very likely to cause you problems if you're concerned about all three factors.

[Sean Waters]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Why not "every EC must have a power whose name begins with F"?

 

Ok, silliness aside, if the EC framework works, conceptually and pragmatically, why would you need oddball special cases like "no 0 end powers", "no inherent powers" or "must have one attack powerS"?

 

If it doesn't work fundamentally, why would you think a few quick special exceptions suddenly make the math work right?

 

if the process is good, you don't need gimmicks. If the process is flawed, odds are gimmick fixes are more of a happy accident than a proof of a working process.

 

All IMO of course.

 

In practice, whatever model math you choose, it will look right if your playtime events makes it look right. So, IMO, go with the simplest model you can make look like its working in play.

 

"m,ust have an attack power" doesn't do it for me.

 

Seems odd to try and justify ECs with a math model at all: they are free points because the GM says so. Maths don't get a look in.

 

The restrictions on ECs have nothing to do with making the maths model work, they are all to do with making the character you build with it work. I see lots of constructs posted I would never allow in one of my games: fair enough - they are not IN one of my games.

 

I have a view of how I'd like to see ECs work (well, actually I'd like to not need ECs at all, but that's a pipe dream). It won't be for everyone: many chafe at the very limited restrictions already in place JUST GIVE ME THE DAMN POINTS! I'm not going to come round and audit your characters.

 

Maybe I ought to start at a different point:

 

ECs as is:

 

1. Too powerful/points efficient

2. Just about right

3. JUST GIVE ME THE POINTS! MORE!! MORE!!!

 

Which camp are you in?

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

ECs as is:

 

1. Too powerful/points efficient

2. Just about right

3. JUST GIVE ME THE POINTS! MORE!! MORE!!!

 

Which camp are you in?

 

I'm in camp #4

 

4. EC should be used for closely linked 'powers' where the loss of one means the lost of all, thus justifying the point break.

 

 

I don't use them very often as I build to concept and forget about the point total. When they do show up, it's typically for a single focus item that contains a number of powers- one grab and you lose them all type thing.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

I'm somewhere between #2 and Fox's #4

I don't use EC's all that opften, and am not horribly offended by the IDEA of the Drain one drain all mechanic... I just have major issues with the double dipping way it currently work... Most adjustment powers in our games have been based on SFX drains rather than specific powers, and I don't like how, say, if you hit a fire EC user with a "Drains one power with Fire SFX" power, you get double the effect against the target power and full effect against all others. One possible fix I may mess with is having all drains vs EC powers drain the EC pool first, no matter what the target power was, then take any additional drain off the target power if and when the pool is gone. I don't mind the double effect if someone takes the "affects all" advantage...thats pricey enough to be worth the extra effect. I'm even considering treating all EC powers as seperate once the pool is drained to zero, so you can't utterly cripple an EC user with a simple drain... Take half his active points away, yes. Incapacitate completely... you'll have to throw a lot more drains his way.

Thoughts?

[Force]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

I'm in camp #4

 

4. EC should be used for closely linked 'powers' where the loss of one means the lost of all, thus justifying the point break.

 

 

I don't use them very often as I build to concept and forget about the point total. When they do show up, it's typically for a single focus item that contains a number of powers- one grab and you lose them all type thing.

 

But is this option better built using limitations instead of a power framework?

[tesuji]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

 

Seems odd to try and justify ECs with a math model at all: they are free points because the GM says so. Maths don't get a look in.

Actually, in the math model theory, it is argued by some that Ecs are a needed part of the math model to allow common character archtypes that are not predominantly CHARACTERISTIC based comparable for the same points with those characters who are CHARACTERISTIC based. The price break on POWERS ECs provide offsets the gains in free figured chatacteristics and what not.

 

That does put Ecs into the math model side of the page.

 

ECs as is:

 

1. Too powerful/points efficient

2. Just about right

3. JUST GIVE ME THE POINTS! MORE!! MORE!!!

 

Which camp are you in?

 

I detest the current EC rules with the hodgepodge of miscellaneous gimmick restrictions (no 0 end powers but see exceptions, no MPAs with ECs powers, the linked drain thing, etc) so count me wherever that fits in your list.

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

But is this option better built using limitations instead of a power framework?

 

Since its a built in effect of the EC, I see little reason to instead list a new custom limit on each individual power in place of the EC.

[tesuji]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Well, not to get into this again but...

 

IMo the needs in control at construction are minimal. yes, there are some, but you do not need a strcit, careful, highly precise or heavy handed crackdown here. What my goal is here is "balanceable" not "balanced".

 

Where the real efforts and focus are showing pay off is in script and challenge selection. Thats what produces balance results in practice.

 

However, we do not have to agree on this, nor do we need to argue yet again over it, so if you wanna fuss and fume again, find another partner.

 

One can't have a game without an adventure, so much of this goes without saying.

 

However...

 

If one doesn't control construction, the resulting influence on actual play can distort the resulting adventure in undesired ways.

 

What I'm saying is, the key to balance is constrution. The key to construction is the type of adventure and play style you desire.

 

Changing the order of influence is very likely to cause you problems if you're concerned about all three factors.

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

However' date=' we do not have to agree on this, nor do we need to argue yet again over it, so if you wanna fuss and fume again, find another partner.[/quote']

 

We certainly don't need to agree at all.

 

I did find this comment interesting however....

 

but from the scripting of and tailoring of challenges to make the characters that were approved play out as more or less equally involved, impactful and relevent in their actions choices and stories.

 

Bolding mine.

 

To pick up hated GDS for a moment, it seems that our difference springs (as is typical) from a different source.

 

I and the players in my game would never stand for Scripted or Tailored adventures- but rather insist on natural outcome of whatever occurs.

 

Looks to be a Sim vs. Drama conflict, assuming your word choice means anything like it appears.

[prestidigitator]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

I view ECs as a balance for MPs, which can do sooooooooo much for sooooooooo little. With MPs, there is basically no reason to have Variable Advantages in the system; it is utterly too expensive. The thing is, MPs only become so useful for two types of Powers: Attack Powers and Movement Powers. So everyone who doesn't carefully place things in well-planned MPs can be hosed for effectiveness. Why? ECs aren't nearly so cheap as MPs, but they allow a little more sloppiness and flexibility. Works for me.

[tesuji]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Actually, here is how i would state the difference...

 

I make some very broad general notions up about my game, just enough to have a chargen basically, and solict characters.

 

Once i get characters and approve them, I do most of the design work on my campaign, with the character's inherent stories taking as much center stage as possible. Challenges and drama is scripted and tailored to create balance of "screen presence" if you will and to develop their characters and tell their stories.

 

From a "tratis" perspective, i throw situations which make the traits costs work out, or more specifically, the characters balance out IN PLAY.

 

net result is there is a match between the traits of the characters and the challenge presented so that the characters play out balanced.

 

Now, here is my understanding of how you do thingsm which no doubt is incorrect due to my poor reading...

 

you get a firm and solid view of what the game you are going to run is like and from that already predetermine a lot of the natures of the challenges.

you run a rather tight chargen, vetting characters thru until they will all fare rather equally well against your expected campaign challenges.

you then follow thru in play with your expectated challenges, so...

 

net result is there is a match between the traits of the characters and the challenge presented so that the characters play out balanced.

 

So, both campaigns play out as balanced. neither game produces broken results because both Gms take efforts to match up character traits to campaign challenges, we just do it at different stages of play.

 

Hint: I did it your way (or maybe the way i think you do it as described above) for about 2 decades (ok more like 17 years). never had a breakdown there either and had many a fun campaign.

 

either can work.

 

For me tho, i get even better results the way i do it now and on top of that its less work, less hassle, less confrontational and all this adds up to more fun in my (and my players') books. I get to say "yes" a lot more and i like that.

 

YMMV and matter of fact, it might even change... i know mine has over the years.

 

enjoy your games.

 

 

 

To pick up hated GDS for a moment, it seems that our difference springs (as is typical) from a different source.

 

I and the players in my game would never stand for Scripted or Tailored adventures- but rather insist on natural outcome of whatever occurs.

 

Looks to be a Sim vs. Drama conflict, assuming your word choice means anything like it appears.

[tesuji]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

The thing is' date=' MPs only become so useful for two types of Powers: Attack Powers and Movement Powers. [/quote']

 

Actually, i find this to be very not true.

 

Some of the most mismatched cost for effectiveness multipowers come when the have widely disparate powers in them.

 

See, everyone can agree on the relative value of two Ebs only one at a time being cheap, but where Mp turn into literally free savings is when you have something like an Eb and a mind scan or an XDm... two powers which you are likely to never be needing at the same time.

 

Now you have the savings with no real draw back.

 

or consider a 12d6 fire Eb and a 0 end smoke desolid where you do not have ARW on the firebolt. Again, never going to use them at the same time but you save tons of points.

 

Mp pricings seem Ok to me for very similar powers

[prestidigitator]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Actually, i find this to be very not true.

 

Some of the most mismatched cost for effectiveness multipowers come when the have widely disparate powers in them.

 

See, everyone can agree on the relative value of two Ebs only one at a time being cheap, but where Mp turn into literally free savings is when you have something like an Eb and a mind scan or an XDm... two powers which you are likely to never be needing at the same time.

 

Now you have the savings with no real draw back.

 

or consider a 12d6 fire Eb and a 0 end smoke desolid where you do not have ARW on the firebolt. Again, never going to use them at the same time but you save tons of points.

 

Mp pricings seem Ok to me for very similar powers

True enough. I tend to say Attack Powers and Movement Powers because that is where the MP also tends to have a big Focus Limitation to save crud-loads of points.

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

Now' date=' here is my understanding of how you do thingsm which no doubt is incorrect due to my poor reading....[/quote']

 

You are correct, you're understanding of my campaign and methods are in error.

[prestidigitator]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

You are correct' date=' you're understanding of my campaign and methods are in error.[/quote']

Hah! Well, no one understands me! Ha, ha...er, though maybe no one would want to. Then again, maybe I am so transparent that I shouldn't even post on these boards, as everyone knows what I would say anyway. Arrr!

 

EDIT: Just for clarification, that last, "Arrr!" was a pirate, "Arrr!" though maybe you already knew that.

[Fox1]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

though maybe no one would want to.

 

I think that likely.

[prestidigitator]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

I think that likely.

Yeah, I thought that was the more probable scenario.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

I feel that ECs are an integral part of the game that allow for the creation of characters otherwise too expensive to fit under artificially low point ceilings. I admit to looking at unframeworked characters with a bit of what is the word...contempt? Or is it pity?

 

In either case I see the waste of points, true they are less vulnerable to the dreaded adjustment powers. So? Adjustment powers in standard games are catagorized as rare or uncommon in the Disads section so that is how often they should come up: One Gimmicky Villian with a special SFX, not the most common setting on a blaster.

 

I do think of MP, ECs and VPPs as cost constructs to reduce the amount of points *ANY* character should cost. Each of the frameworks provide cost savings and efficiency for a slight disadvantage. If you simply accept that they exist you have less angst and can just enjoy the game. It is like Israel, love or hate it, its there and will be for a looooong time.

 

Of course in an ideal world I'd get to build my 600-900 point lovelies, but I'd admit I'd probably still use a framework or four.

 

Hawksmoor

[Sean Waters]

Re: EC AN (Ad Nauseam)

 

I am not keen on any type of framework, but I do see the MP as the least of several evils.

 

In any event, ECs do not just give points to 'otherwise unbuildable' characters but to all characters. Maybe if a character couldn't be built without extra points for free it shouldn'e be built?