Limitation Minimization

[RDU Neil]

Brain dump warning... here I go again.

 

I may be speaking to something that has already been discussed... but I wanted to throw this out for folks to comment on.

 

There have been a number of threads that read something like, "How much is X Limitation worth?" or "Shouldn't Y limitation be worth less/more?" etc.

 

A lot of this seems... to me... to be based on a lot of old school carryover from past editions. Certain limitations "by the book" have established multipliers (OAF is -1, etc.) and these are often so ingrained through habit, that I wonder if they are correct.

 

Now, it is VERY helpful to have a lot of different SUGGESTED limitations and their worth... but in almost every thread, most folks agree "The actual worth of the limitation is campaign relative."

 

This last comment is a truism... but often unhelpful, because many folks seem to be really asking, "Can you help me determine what X Limitation should be worth for my campaign?" Again... this is the problem with Hero... it gives you rules to build with, but often the decision making part... which rules fit the campaign, which don't... is left up to trial and error. There is often little or contradictory guidance on things. It is the curse of the generic system.

 

To that point, I wondered if we could actually provide some guidance without locking Limitations to a specific number. It seems to me that this is possible... so I'm throwing it out to all of you to rip it apart.

 

Idea: There should be a simple, general guidance for all Limitations that overrides any "set" value for limitations. That guidance should be...

• When putting limitation on a power, don't pick off a list and apply the total values... instead, look at the total CONCEPTUAL limitations on a power as a whole.

• 
  Example: If a power will have Beam, Charges and No Knockback... select those, but then examine THE WHOLE EFFECT created by this.
  

• Finally, compare the WHOLE LIMITING EFFECT to the following chart
  

The power is less effective/doesn't work about 1 out of five times. -1/4

or

The power is less effective/doesn't work about 1 out of 3 times, -1/2

or

The power is less effective/doesn't work about half the time, -1

etc.

 

This way... there is really only one Limitation value applied to the power, but it can be a collection of limitations making up that value.

 

I do realize this raises another question I can just formulate. That would be... "Is there a difference between a Limitation that makes a power "less effective" and one that makes a power "not work."

 

Example would be Beam on an EB (-1/4) vs. say OIHID for -1/4. Beam never stops the power from working... but limits it's flexibility... while OIHID sets conditions for when the power will flat out not work. There seems to be some inherent incompatibility there... but I can't quite figure it out.

 

Maybe... from a System Mechanic level... there should be a base differentiator between "Less Functional" and "Non-Functional" limitations. Things like "Visible" and "Extra Time" are limiting, but they don't stop the power from flat out working like an Activation Roll or a lost OAF.

 

Probably a question for another thread. Anyway... the point I'm asking for is... could it work to look at the limitation as a Conceptual Whole for determining the value... rather than cherry picking values off of a pregenerated list that may or may not match campaign needs?

[MitchellS]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

The problem, as I see it, is that how often something works, or doesn't work, is sometimes very biased based on a chart. You might have 10 sessions where -1/4 limitation causes you no problems and then bah!, 2 sessions where it effects you all the time. Example: Not in intense magnetic fields - then spend 2 sessions fighting Magneto on asteriod M. So losing that force field for those 2 sessions really was a bigger problem than what a -1/4 limitation might indicate.

 

I personally just prefer to have an "official" fixed, CU campaign, number which I can decide to adjust up or down depending on my own campaign. Most of these things need to be learned through trial and error anyway. I really don't want to spend too much time deciding whether something should be -1/4 or -1/2. I'd rather have someone else to the piddly thinking, leaving time for me to do more important thinking. If I find a limitation value doesn't work after some time it's easy enough to change, either by asking the player to adjust it or by making the situation of the limitation occur more or less times.

[casualplayer]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

All the limitations are essentially extrapolated Limited Power. Imagine the learning curve if all power limitations were batched together under one roof!

 

Personally I would have liked to have seen two things happen with the HERO Resurrection, as far as power modifiers are concerned. I would have like to have seen ranges of values given, as one GM's Focus enforcement barely warrants a -1/4 for an OAF where some GMs have nothing but Foci destroying/denying NPCs and OAF should be worth -2.

 

Also I would have like to have seen HERO join the 21st century and use decimal instead of fractions. You would receive a much more versatile, intuitive and flexible gradation if power modifiers could range from +/- 0.10 to 2.00.

 

I'm not sure if I like the idea of batching and weighing all limitations and advantages as an aggregate. I have made characters that can Suppress selective power modifiers rather than the gross power, and your suggestion would make this even more difficult than it already is.

[Zed-F]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Batching limitations as an aggregate is not a bad idea, but you still have to consider the campaign when determining what reasonable batched levels for limitations might be. In a fantasy campaign where every spell has a whack of limitations applied automatically just because it's spellcasting, the batch levels might well be very different from a campaign where the players are superheroes with largely inherent powers. Both of these could be different from a "people with powers" or a Dark Champions game where limitations are more common than an "inherent power supers" game or a swords & sorcery game.

 

If you consider your campaign guidelines beforehand and have a good idea beforehand where you want those batched levels to be, then it can be a useful tool. Certainly it can help avoid those munchkined out effects such as a billion 'set-up' lims on a power, which is then given a trigger to make all those setup lims irrelevant when the power actually gets used.

[Fox1]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

The power is less effective/doesn't work about 1 out of five times. -1/4

or

The power is less effective/doesn't work about 1 out of 3 times, -1/2

or

The power is less effective/doesn't work about half the time, -1

etc.

 

You know, I consider this attempt to match points to percentage function to be... worthless. More than worthless, harmful.

 

 

This comes from two rather simple facts:

 

1. Points don't really mean that much in HERO. If I can run a freakn' 24 year campaign with multiple groups and have characters range in point cost from 400 to 1000 on the same team and adventures without balance issues- I'm sorry, the points don't matter.

 

 

 

2. People don't pay for percentage up time. They pay for perception first, and sometimes reality.

 

Would you buy a car that only ran 50% of the time if it *only* cost half the price? Would you buy two of these cars for the price of one? You'd be a fool if you did, as your chance of making it to work each day would only be 75%.

 

That was an example of the reality not matching the cost.

 

Another example. A character has a -1/4 limit, and thus a 20% failure. He goes through a five session mega-adventure facing off against his arch-foe. His power fails in the final battle and he loses. For many people, this would be a case of perception not matching the cost, sure it only failed 20% of the time and he got a 20% cost break- but dang it, who wants to risk a power failing 20% of the time WHEN IT COUNTS just for a little 20% cost break.

 

That was an example of the perception not matching the cost.

 

Even HERO itself used to know this. It gives a 1/3 cost break for something that fails less than 10% of the time (the 14- activation roll with it's -1/2 limit).

[atlascott]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Fox: "If I can run a freakn' 24 year campaign with multiple groups and have characters range in point cost from 400 to 1000 on the same team and adventures without balance issues- I'm sorry, the points don't matter."

 

I would see this a a pretty big balance difference-- 400 points adventuring with a 1000 point character. Even 100 points can be a massive difference, even in a high powered campaign. Can you give us some details about the genre/powers/types of characters/AP attack and defense campaign guidelines that have helped you make this work? As a mere floating abstraction, and based on my experience, what you wrote is absolutely not true, but I am open to hear about how you did it, if you are willing to share that info.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

See... part of me agrees with this whole, "Don't try to map limitations to percentages" bit... which is why I asked the question in the first place. Trying to micromanage every little lim gets quickl ridiculous... whereas, looking at the conceptual aggregate of the lpower and limitations helps me as GM and the player to have a holistic view of the power, and how it will work in the campaign.

 

Now, maybe I shouldn't have said -1 equals doesn't work half the time... that's legitimate. But -1 means this power is not very dependable... well, that makes more sense to me. This is why even OAF at -1 shouldn't be set, because as casualplayer indicated, even something so straight forward in concept is very campaign dependent. The idea of a "range" of limitation worth is exactly what I was thinking about.

 

To me, limitations really could be one simple construct... ranging from -1/4 to -2.

 

-1/4 = very occasionally limiting

 

to

 

-1 = undependable at best

 

to

 

-2 = Totally out of your control

 

Look at the conceptual whole of the power... then assign a limitation level agreed upon by both GM and player.

 

Yes, this is big picture rather than granular... but that's how I think. It makes limitations closer to how I use them in the game... as story telling bits like disadvantages. Hooks and elements of the character that the GM can pull and control to some extent.

 

See, I disagree that points don't matter. They aren't the end all be all, but they are a first metric, and do a damn fine job of keeping most characters in an equivalent range. There are more metrics which have to be viewed as well, but points is the first.

 

ALSO... points are important in showing "level of player control" in some ways. I've argued this before and will restate it here... if you pay "full cost" for a power/skill/characteristic... then as the player, you are saying "I have as much control over this aspect of the game as possible for a player." Thus, every limitation you put on a power... the greater the total limitation... is really a measure of how much player control you have given up to the GM.

 

To this point, I think you CAN apply limitations to percentages... roughly. Take a total -1, and you are saying, "About half the time, I'm giving up my control of that power" -2 is giving up almost all control.

 

To be honest, if players want a power with more than -2 limitations, I look at it from the point of "Do you really need to pay points?" Sometimes, yes... if the limitation is something like "200d6 EB, 1 charge, Cost End, x3 END" then such a power is incredibly useful and that one shot has a lot of player control around it. This opposed to someone else who takes something like an enhanced sense that is so minor, has such minor effects, and is tweaked to be so finely specific to a certain need that it is more SFX than power... then I'd say, "Just consider it part of your powers, but don't pay points." They don't pay points... but I as the GM know to use that power when I need to for story purposes.

 

So points do matter... not just as a rough balance metric... but as a measure of Nar style interaction between GM and players over director stance/game control.

 

I'd like to see Limitations better fit this model. And again... this is just IMO. Wondering if anyone else looks at it like this.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Although I'm fairly new to HERO, I feel it might be constructive to break in on this conversation for just a moment.

 

The HERO 5E book gives us preset values for all Limitations. We are free to change them, if we so choose. If you decide you don't like the value set for a given Limitation by the book, you should probably change said value to suit your campaign. If you are not capable of using some very elementary logic and judgement to do this, you probably shouldn't be Gamemastering. I'm not saying this to be insulting; a good GM simply can't obsess and worry over every change he wants to make. Careful thought is one thing, lengthy scrutinization and analysis are another. IT'S OK TO CHANGE THE VALUES SET BY THE BOOK, EVEN WITHOUT THE BLESSING OF OTHER HERO GAMERS OR STEVE LONG.

 

If you want this board's opinion on a value which you have changed, that's fine. However, I strongly suggest you learn to make most such decisions on your own. Frankly, I find these "should I change this to this" threads annoying. I'm brand-new to HERO, I've been ad-hocing rules from the get-go, and experienced HERO gamers who see my stuff tend to say, "That's pretty cool, man." No "Oh my GOD, you ruined the rules! What the heck!"

 

Just a thought. (Don't take my ranting personally, either. )

[Fox1]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

I would see this a a pretty big balance difference-- 400 points adventuring with a 1000 point character. Even 100 points can be a massive difference' date=' even in a high powered campaign. Can you give us some details about the genre/powers/types of characters/AP attack and defense campaign guidelines that have helped you make this work?[/quote']

 

It's a campaign set in our own version of the Marvel Universe.

 

As for campaign guidelines, that's rather difficult to pin down (which is the reason I didn't post in a thread asking this question of the board). Because I only have two simple 'rules'.

 

1) The character is built to be a fair and interesting representation of the Marvel character it is based on. This character can have significant differences in history/personality, but rarely powers although there are a couple exceptions.

 

2) The character has to have its own niche in the team.

 

 

Dex has ran from 18 to 35, SPDs vary from 4 to 8, Damage output varies from 9d6 to 21d6, PD/ED vary from 12 to 55 just to toss some numbers out.

 

Point Values of a current X-Men group as an example:

 

Cyclops: 585

Phoenix: 954

Angel: 475

Colossus: 430

Iceman: 465

 

Here DEX runs from 18 to 33, SPD from 4 to 6, Damage from 12d6 to 17d6, PD/ED from 15 to 50.

 

It's the mix that counts. Character niche, not points or power is the most important balancing element in any game.

[casualplayer]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Just a thought. (Don't take my ranting personally' date=' either. )[/quote']

 

You're gonna have to try harder for rant status; this was far too reasonable.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

You're gonna have to try harder for rant status; this was far too reasonable.

 

I suppose you're right.

[pinecone]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

I tend to take a "story based" view of limits, so I ask "Is this a limit?" opposed to just special effects. If the answers yes it's -1/4. -1/4 means it comes up once in a while,-1/2 means you lose about half it's usefulness or it comes up often (example act(14) -1/2, it comes up often) -1 means you lose about all its usefullness or it come up constantly (example OAF, its always an issue and if you lose it its useless to you) -2 means its so useless that its more flaver than power (example "One time Ultron.....) Something like Power defense:only to prevent becomming dizzy...how likely is that Ever going to come up? But if I really think Pan Rycle should be immune to being dizzy then I gots to spend points....I base the story around the lims....other base the lims around the story. Both aprouches are valid, but my way means you always "pay" for your lims and I seldom argue about what something is "worth" because You decide that...if you take -2 then expect that ability to seldom (Very seldom ) prove useful......so if you take "Only vs Heat/flame at -1/2 its useful often, take it at -1 and it seldom proves useful...you can't complain because You decided it was useless not me....In decades of playing my character Nightowl has only "used" his LS:Never sleeps Once, and that is cool with me, I only spent something like 3 points on it, how often should it come up?

[CourtFool]

Limitation Min/Maximization

 

I like the idea.

 

I agree that percentages would give more granularity and might be easier for some people to grasp.

 

I also agree that the value of a limitation greatly depends on the GM.

 

When setting a value to 'collection of restrictions' you might want to consider what disadvantages/limitations/restrictions you want to encourage/discourage.

[greymankle]

Re: Limitation Min/Maximization

 

From a munchkin-ing/power gaming perspective.

 

Part of the existing limitations add to the feel of the power. When/where it wont work. If you make one general limitation it could be a bone of contention between player and GM if this is the 20% of the time when it wouldn't work. Currently it's spelled out. You can check the character sheet. "Nope, you picked IAF, I can disarm it in combat"

 

With a more general limitation you would either have to write out every possible function of the power or hope that the GM knows what you mean.

 

I personally love the crunchie-ness of HERO. I may not understand it completely, yet. but there is a set of rules I can reference. Once you add in general impressions i.e. "I think about 20% of the time I should be wihtout this power" it gets less fixed.

 

I do agree that the current rating of limitations dosen't fit the amount of time the power is limited. You had that Focus thread a while ago. So maybe a house-rule rebalancing is in order as opposed to a new system.

 

YMMV, this is the player that tried to put OIHID, Visible, Non-persistant, Activation 15- on a strength boosting power. :shrug: Hey live and learn.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere. Steve had to put SOMETHING down as the value of a given limitation in the book, and I'm going to take it on faith that, one way or another, he chose wisely.

 

That's not to say I won't change something if I feel like it. I will, but with the understanding that some thought went into the value of the limitation in the first place.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Also I would have like to have seen HERO join the 21st century and use decimal instead of fractions. You would receive a much more versatile' date=' intuitive and flexible gradation if power modifiers could range from +/- 0.10 to 2.00.[/quote']

Oh, hell no! I don't want to have to have a calculator every time I calculate the value of a Power. With quarters, I can do it all in my head. I could probably do that with eigths or sixteenths as well, but not hundredths! I'm never going to want to apply something worth 0.43 to a Power. Sorry. A little tiny bit more granularity might be nice, but there is such a thing as going too far in a gaming system.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

I think more important than whether it's percentages or "general impact" or such is this fundamental shift towards aggregated Limitations. I'd suggest doing so virtually requires something similar but very differently shaded with Advantages, because doing this severely constricts the perhaps-munchkiney but nonetheless time-honored and strictly utilitarian aspect of being able to define a series of Limitations that offsets a series of Advantages. In other words, it has a dramatic impact on Play Experience.

 

To reconstruct Advantages similarly, you'd have to review two divergent paths: diminishing returns and exponential power increase. With the former, adding Trigger and AoE and, say, additional Charges doesn't probably add up to as much of a real Advantage as totaling out the points. But with the latter, adding Does BODY and AoE and Autofire to a Mental power gets overly effective. It's very tricky. And similar to capping Lims at, say, -2, as presented earlier, we lose granularity for rare powers which really are just that bizarre/off the charts. But it has its strength in begging GMs to make exceptions only rarely. So I think you declare some sort of top end for the aggregation of Advantages in effectiveness, maybe +3 or +4, and give some ideas as to where Advantages stack well and where they don't.

 

Doing this does enforce some better simplicity and I'd argue a somewhat better scalability, though it deprives as aforementioned granularity on the more extreme end of things.

 

In "Hillbilly HERO", the gross over-simplification of HERO, I suggested this sort of thing, aggregate the effective power change and apply that way, though I suggested so doing by looking at Advs and Lims together and applying a single modiifying number.

 

Anyway, I can see value in this approach, but I'm not sure that it resolves, satisfactorily, what I see as a larger issue in determining the synergy and lack thereof of stacked Advs and Lims.

 

PS - RDU N, can't rep you until later but will do, nice work.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

I think more important than whether it's percentages or "general impact" or such is this fundamental shift towards aggregated Limitations. I'd suggest doing so virtually requires something similar but very differently shaded with Advantages, because doing this severely constricts the perhaps-munchkiney but nonetheless time-honored and strictly utilitarian aspect of being able to define a series of Limitations that offsets a series of Advantages. In other words, it has a dramatic impact on Play Experience.

 

To reconstruct Advantages similarly, you'd have to review two divergent paths: diminishing returns and exponential power increase. With the former, adding Trigger and AoE and, say, additional Charges doesn't probably add up to as much of a real Advantage as totaling out the points. But with the latter, adding Does BODY and AoE and Autofire to a Mental power gets overly effective. It's very tricky. And similar to capping Lims at, say, -2, as presented earlier, we lose granularity for rare powers which really are just that bizarre/off the charts. But it has its strength in begging GMs to make exceptions only rarely. So I think you declare some sort of top end for the aggregation of Advantages in effectiveness, maybe +3 or +4, and give some ideas as to where Advantages stack well and where they don't.

 

Doing this does enforce some better simplicity and I'd argue a somewhat better scalability, though it deprives as aforementioned granularity on the more extreme end of things.

 

In "Hillbilly HERO", the gross over-simplification of HERO, I suggested this sort of thing, aggregate the effective power change and apply that way, though I suggested so doing by looking at Advs and Lims together and applying a single modiifying number.

 

Anyway, I can see value in this approach, but I'm not sure that it resolves, satisfactorily, what I see as a larger issue in determining the synergy and lack thereof of stacked Advs and Lims.

 

PS - RDU N, can't rep you until later but will do, nice work.

 

Well what you did here was just take the next logical step (which I was going to do later) which is apply the same reasoning to Advantages. Also... I was thinking of applying the "single number" in the end, as well.

 

Kind of a "well, it has beam and increased END... but has AP and double knockback... so I'd judge that to be worth a total +1/2" (or whatever... making that up off the top of my head.)

 

What this would do is avoid munchkinism (which I have a crotchety attitude towards) and avoid the expectation that most players have that the values in the book are "hard and fast, true and tested" which is simply not a fact.

 

Also... IMO, it would help the issue of dealing with synergy better. By this, I refer to you comments on stacking... where some advantages (and limitations for that matter) really work well together... other don't... and others make things worse than they should. By looking holistically, you can make an overall judgment on the power, rather than expecting arcane formulas and based on traditional values to give you a true balance.

 

Now many would say that the open ended "judgment call" this requires would nto be exact... but I'd say that it is no less exact than the current values. The issue is, do you want to fight the munchkin wars... or do you want to fight the "Let's come to an agreement on this value" battle? I prefer the latter.

 

I also realize that this comes from three elements of my play style. One, the older I get, the less granular I think actual mechanics need to be, and instead appreciate the granularity coming into play in a more narative/story based way. i.e. the details matter if they matter to the story... not if they matter to character creation math.

 

Two, I'm also looking at this from a more social/FtF game/interactive mode. I'm less concerned with sitting in my room alone building perfect characters... and more with group interaction of play style, story/character/campaign compatibility, etc.

 

Three, this also fits my model of "points are indicators of player control." When looking at that final value (say from -2 to +0 to +2) you can establish a baseline for just how effective the power is considered... how effective the PLAYER expects to be when using it. How much control the GM has over that power, etc. If you get below -2, the question is "does it really need to cost points at all?" or if you get above +2, the question becomes "Is the power too effective, too dominating, for the game?"

 

Maybe it is just me, but I think something like this would actually enhance the Play Experience... because it wouldn't stop someone from having a granular description of their powers, with various mechanics attached... it just avoids the granular math that often drives non-story based decisions (i.e. munchkin point cost decisions) along the way.

 

Appreciate the feedback.

[Fox1]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

The issue is' date=' do you want to fight the munchkin wars... or do you want to fight the "Let's come to an agreement on this value" battle? I prefer the latter.[/quote']

 

I don't fight munchkin wars. I approve or disapprove suggested characters and remove players who object to that from the game.

 

As a result, I don't have any problems using the current methods for advantages/limits.

[zornwil]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Well what you did here was just take the next logical step (which I was going to do later) which is apply the same reasoning to Advantages. Also... I was thinking of applying the "single number" in the end, as well.

 

Kind of a "well, it has beam and increased END... but has AP and double knockback... so I'd judge that to be worth a total +1/2" (or whatever... making that up off the top of my head.)

 

What this would do is avoid munchkinism (which I have a crotchety attitude towards) and avoid the expectation that most players have that the values in the book are "hard and fast, true and tested" which is simply not a fact.

 

Also... IMO, it would help the issue of dealing with synergy better. By this, I refer to you comments on stacking... where some advantages (and limitations for that matter) really work well together... other don't... and others make things worse than they should. By looking holistically, you can make an overall judgment on the power, rather than expecting arcane formulas and based on traditional values to give you a true balance.

 

Now many would say that the open ended "judgment call" this requires would nto be exact... but I'd say that it is no less exact than the current values. The issue is, do you want to fight the munchkin wars... or do you want to fight the "Let's come to an agreement on this value" battle? I prefer the latter.

 

I also realize that this comes from three elements of my play style. One, the older I get, the less granular I think actual mechanics need to be, and instead appreciate the granularity coming into play in a more narative/story based way. i.e. the details matter if they matter to the story... not if they matter to character creation math.

 

Two, I'm also looking at this from a more social/FtF game/interactive mode. I'm less concerned with sitting in my room alone building perfect characters... and more with group interaction of play style, story/character/campaign compatibility, etc.

 

Three, this also fits my model of "points are indicators of player control." When looking at that final value (say from -2 to +0 to +2) you can establish a baseline for just how effective the power is considered... how effective the PLAYER expects to be when using it. How much control the GM has over that power, etc. If you get below -2, the question is "does it really need to cost points at all?" or if you get above +2, the question becomes "Is the power too effective, too dominating, for the game?"

 

Maybe it is just me, but I think something like this would actually enhance the Play Experience... because it wouldn't stop someone from having a granular description of their powers, with various mechanics attached... it just avoids the granular math that often drives non-story based decisions (i.e. munchkin point cost decisions) along the way.

 

Appreciate the feedback.

I more or less agree in concept...but execution I see as quite difficult. Ultimately, expressing the synergy of Advs and Lims is something HERO does poorly already, but the current system is at least simple to explain, even if something of a facade. And I think we do have to acknowledge that it basically works (well, I think so, anyway).

 

So in going to something like this, I think it comes down to exploring how well it can be executed and explained, and ensuring it really improves on the current system. It has an advantage in that it plays on the intuitive approach many have mistakenly come into HERO with - add up the Advs and Lims and apply one number! I think that one has to define the various "sub-values" with standards, then there's a lengthy synergy/disconnect discussion with more standard guidelines. The question really becomes - to my mind - "can this be made as easy or easier to grasp than the current system?" ESPECIALLY for new players - I worry less for established players, they will find their way almost no matter what.

 

There's also an interesting utility aspect...the current system, however flawed, allows for relatively rapid "field design" of powers, enabling open VPPs and such. Whatever one's view of such things, this is an important aspect for many who play the game, and I would argue fundamental to a "toolkit game". Any successive system for this must be able to meet the same bar.

 

In the end, I'm just saying this seems like a very big task to execute, though I'm not trying to be discouraging about it.

[tesuji]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Actually, if you want to talk direction and new directions... IMO

 

1. HERO needs to emphatically EMPHASIZE the "and once you have built the power "correctly" look at the final cost in comparison and see if it makes sense. At a minimum, compare to an "obviously weaker than" and an "obviously better than" (based SOLEY on effect not points) pair of powers and make sure the final cost lies between them. (Easiest example case in point: tale of two tails, tale of two bases, and 5er's multipowers)

 

2. HERO needs to move from giving a single value and hpoing it works out to giving a small range of value AND in play scripting recommendations for how to choose which and how to "script to fit" the points. Something like "if you put only vs fire at -1/2 then a frequent hunted of the hero should be fire-based or a major recurring adversary group should be fire-powered."

 

Arguably, these can apply to lims, advantages and even base power costs.

 

That is, HERo should if HERo wants to worry about mitigating the trial and error stages of figuring out how to make the points worth their effort.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

Actually, if you want to talk direction and new directions... IMO

 

1. HERO needs to emphatically EMPHASIZE the "and once you have built the power "correctly" look at the final cost in comparison and see if it makes sense. At a minimum, compare to an "obviously weaker than" and an "obviously better than" (based SOLEY on effect not points) pair of powers and make sure the final cost lies between them. (Easiest example case in point: tale of two tails, tale of two bases, and 5er's multipowers)

 

2. HERO needs to move from giving a single value and hpoing it works out to giving a small range of value AND in play scripting recommendations for how to choose which and how to "script to fit" the points. Something like "if you put only vs fire at -1/2 then a frequent hunted of the hero should be fire-based or a major recurring adversary group should be fire-powered."

 

Arguably, these can apply to lims, advantages and even base power costs.

 

That is, HERo should if HERo wants to worry about mitigating the trial and error stages of figuring out how to make the points worth their effort.

 

very well put... this is addressing the same basic issue, but from a simple, pragmatic addition to Hero, rather than a philosophical re-interpretation of Hero. Kudos for that... as for me... what can I say, I think in very broad strokes and big picture most of the time.

 

I totally agree that implementing such a philosophical shift in terms of rewriting Hero would be monumental.

 

I would also say that my current style of GM evaluation of characters uses this model... both my big picture and tesuji's concise way of stating it.

 

Essentially... no matter how the math comes out or the what the book says... does the final real cost fit your game and a general framework of balance.

 

(Love the idea of comparing cost to two powers... one clearly superior and one clearly inferior as another metric.)

[Vondy]

Re: Limitation Minimization

 

IT'S OK TO CHANGE THE VALUES SET BY THE BOOK' date=' EVEN WITHOUT THE BLESSING OF OTHER HERO GAMERS OR STEVE LONG.[/b']

 

 

You learn quickly young Padawan...