Meta SFX

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

That's very well stated and a good reason to consider it even more deeply, "casual"player.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Perhaps I have been stating things a bit strongly. I like the vast separation between mechanics and SFX. A little bit of mixing of the two I find decent and helpful. More starts to deteriorate the possibilities for creative and original game authoring. If we still want Hero to be able to, "handle anything," then I believe the degree to which the mechanics interfere with the SFX cannot increase beyond the state of the current system.

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

I think the point of this thread could well improve on how things are without embedding SFX into the system any more than they are informally already are. I think we're a little blind to the extent they've been pushed into the system - casualplayers' point on LS makes this loud and clear, I wasn't really thinking so much of the positive consequenes of streamlining how SFX play with the system, and I think this effort speaks to that.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Perhaps I have been stating things a bit strongly. I like the vast separation between mechanics and SFX. A little bit of mixing of the two I find decent and helpful. More starts to deteriorate the possibilities for creative and original game authoring. If we still want Hero to be able to' date=' "handle anything," then I believe the degree to which the mechanics interfere with the SFX cannot increase beyond the state of the current system.[/quote']

 

Oh come now Presdigitator! How are we supposed to argue when you behave so reasonably!

 

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Oh come now Presdigitator! How are we supposed to argue when you behave so reasonably!

You aren't.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Meta SFX

 

I think the point of this thread could well improve on how things are without embedding SFX into the system any more than they are informally already are. I think we're a little blind to the extent they've been pushed into the system - casualplayers' point on LS makes this loud and clear' date=' I wasn't really thinking so much of the positive consequenes of streamlining how SFX play with the system, and I think this effort speaks to that.[/quote']

I suppose Life Support is an interesting example. I find the breathing portion of it to be quite separate from SFX, since Expanded Breathing, for example, simply defines some environment in which you can breathe (or exist without suffocating, anyway). The Safe Environments and Immunities, on the other hand, list out a specific set of SFX, which could be done without. We could simply have values for 1.) "uncommon," environments--vacuum costs 1 IIRC; 2.) "common," environments--intense heat, costs 2; 3.) "all," environments--the equivalent of buying everything on their current list, and inclusive of a wide variety of things that are not (how about a highly electrically charged environment such as might be found within certain astronomical phenomena or in an electrical, "plane," or dimension?).

 

This is a little different from how casualplayer presented it; I believe his approach was more from the direction of system, rather than SFX. I consider that a wholly different question; a very valid one, but one that can be considered independently.

 

BTW, what do you do once things have been categorized and something comes along and doesn't fit into the scheme? Re-work everything? If you have nice rows 1, 2, 3 and columns A, B, C, and I bring in something that fits into 1A, 2C, and has a component that hasn't been addressed at all, shall we refactor our categorization, or must my idea be a bastardized collection of your definitions? Categorizing SFX is like categorizing every single Advantage and Limitation that you could ever apply to a Power. Doing so is not only impossible, but the attempt may wind up directly or indirectly (perception, number of custom rules required or standard rules ignored) limiting those things left out.

 

I'm all for categorization, but only for those things it makes sense to categorize. System effects are natural, and give us a basis for game balance and the gamer's love of semi-random story determination. Without categorizing things in terms of Characteristics, Skills, Powers, Modifiers, Disadvantages, etc., we wouldn't have much of a system. On the other hand, does it make sense to categorize works of fiction, for example? The Lord of the Rings obviously fits quite well (i.e. has a high level of correlation with those axioms without needing to, "fit within them," the way I handle matters) the notions of, "epic," and, "fantasy," but what about the, "Incarnations of Fate," series by Piers Anthony? Are you going to force it into, "fantasy," or "sci-fi?" Are you going to create a new label for it merely because it contains elements of both and things that may appear in neither, or are you simply going to allow it to be what it is? Only by broad themes can you really apply such labels, and even then there are examples that will break any such systematic approach to what is truly and rightly an infinite spectrum of creativity.

[casualplayer]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Nah, really what I am saying is that everything that LS does could easily been done with rDEF and Power Defense. Want immunity to snake venom? 10 pts rDEF, 10 pts Power Defense Only vs. snake venom (probably worth much more than +2 Limitation.)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Then what seems to me to be the major issue is that no on is really openly admitting that this is a huge potential problem for Hero.

 

Continuing with the programming metaphor (and understand, I'm not a computer guy and have a general loathing for these things equal to my fascination) if Hero is the language, and the character are the programs... then 99% of the time when individuals build individual programs, those programs are incompatible and can "crash" the systme.

 

i.e. - two characters with differing concepts and interpretations crash the game when they are played together.

 

Sometimes it is easy to see the incompatibility. A 300 pt. Super and a 300 pt. Heroic Fantasy character are clearly incompatible with a slightly knowledgable glance.

 

Oftent he crash comes after a great deal of successful gaming... because a small piece of innocuous code (an unused power construct, say) suddenly comes into play and the whole Play Experience goes to hell.

 

My biggest concern is that with such a focus on SYSTEM in Hero (rather than Game) the likelyhood of game crashes and the difficultly of creating compatible programs (characters and game worlds) increases.

 

Well, not to go to far into the coding analogy, but there are a number of things here.

 

A) Any careless or bad coder can f it up for people that have to follow along behind them. The real problem in this case isnt the fact that the code is flexible enough to allow a bad coder, so much as the problem is that not all coders are equally proficient. Another subproblem is that a coder might be good at one sort of coding and not good at another. In character-building terms there are some people that are good at making balanced heroic level characters but suck at making supers, and vice versa for instance. And unfortunately there is little one can do about bad character designers except opt not to use their badly designed characters.

 

Code/Characters are not always designed to be broadly compatible, and that's not really a problem. The problem is that if you expect code/characters to have a high degree of compatibility with other code/characters then the two codebases/characters need to agree on some kind of interface to make that happen. That requires forethought and compliance to some kind of standard. It can be done. In character building context, certain underlying assumptions between characters of different genres must be evaluated, such as Hit Location usage, END costs, damage levels, Equipment for points or cash, etc.

 

C) Different platforms have different tolerance levels and available resources. You can write code that runs fine on one platform but completely blows up on another. It's not bad code; it's just platform-specific code. In the context of character building you can have a character that runs fine under one GM, but causes another GM issues. Is that a fault of the character?

 

D) You can have managed code or unmanaged code; with managed code you let the framework or runtime handle the gritty low level stuff. Or you can opt to override that behavior and explicitly manage things yourself. Going unmanaged can give you more power to get things done in unusual situations, but it's also taking away the safety net of the system. In character building context, you can stay pretty mainstream with your character design, or get funky with it and go for something a little more outre but prone to unforseen ramifications.

 

E) Actual build errors and syntax flaws are generally caught at compile time; these are glaring major problems that prevent the app from even building. If the compiler is lax, then a large number of critical issues that should be weeded out are allowed into the build, but a good compiler is going to weed all of that out before it becomes an issue. In character building context that's where the GM comes in -- he's the compiler that checks the character's build before the character enters play. If the GM is not good at this, then the opportunity for in-play (runtime) problems/bugs is much much higher.

 

 

So basically many of the same processes that apply to programming to identify and prevent bugs apply to character building in the HERO System. How they are applied is purely in the hands of the character designer and their GM.

[Kristopher]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Then what seems to me to be the major issue is that no on is really openly admitting that this is a huge potential problem for Hero.

 

Continuing with the programming metaphor (and understand, I'm not a computer guy and have a general loathing for these things equal to my fascination) if Hero is the language, and the character are the programs... then 99% of the time when individuals build individual programs, those programs are incompatible and can "crash" the systme.

 

i.e. - two characters with differing concepts and interpretations crash the game when they are played together.

 

Sometimes it is easy to see the incompatibility. A 300 pt. Super and a 300 pt. Heroic Fantasy character are clearly incompatible with a slightly knowledgable glance.

 

Oftent he crash comes after a great deal of successful gaming... because a small piece of innocuous code (an unused power construct, say) suddenly comes into play and the whole Play Experience goes to hell.

 

My biggest concern is that with such a focus on SYSTEM in Hero (rather than Game) the likelyhood of game crashes and the difficultly of creating compatible programs (characters and game worlds) increases.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RDU Neil again.

 

For the thoughtful analysis.

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

I suppose Life Support is an interesting example. I find the breathing portion of it to be quite separate from SFX' date=' since Expanded Breathing, for example, simply defines [i']some[/i] environment in which you can breathe (or exist without suffocating, anyway). The Safe Environments and Immunities, on the other hand, list out a specific set of SFX, which could be done without. We could simply have values for 1.) "uncommon," environments--vacuum costs 1 IIRC; 2.) "common," environments--intense heat, costs 2; 3.) "all," environments--the equivalent of buying everything on their current list, and inclusive of a wide variety of things that are not (how about a highly electrically charged environment such as might be found within certain astronomical phenomena or in an electrical, "plane," or dimension?).

 

This is a little different from how casualplayer presented it; I believe his approach was more from the direction of system, rather than SFX. I consider that a wholly different question; a very valid one, but one that can be considered independently.

 

BTW, what do you do once things have been categorized and something comes along and doesn't fit into the scheme? Re-work everything? If you have nice rows 1, 2, 3 and columns A, B, C, and I bring in something that fits into 1A, 2C, and has a component that hasn't been addressed at all, shall we refactor our categorization, or must my idea be a bastardized collection of your definitions? Categorizing SFX is like categorizing every single Advantage and Limitation that you could ever apply to a Power. Doing so is not only impossible, but the attempt may wind up directly or indirectly (perception, number of custom rules required or standard rules ignored) limiting those things left out.

 

I'm all for categorization, but only for those things it makes sense to categorize. System effects are natural, and give us a basis for game balance and the gamer's love of semi-random story determination. Without categorizing things in terms of Characteristics, Skills, Powers, Modifiers, Disadvantages, etc., we wouldn't have much of a system. On the other hand, does it make sense to categorize works of fiction, for example? The Lord of the Rings obviously fits quite well (i.e. has a high level of correlation with those axioms without needing to, "fit within them," the way I handle matters) the notions of, "epic," and, "fantasy," but what about the, "Incarnations of Fate," series by Piers Anthony? Are you going to force it into, "fantasy," or "sci-fi?" Are you going to create a new label for it merely because it contains elements of both and things that may appear in neither, or are you simply going to allow it to be what it is? Only by broad themes can you really apply such labels, and even then there are examples that will break any such systematic approach to what is truly and rightly an infinite spectrum of creativity.

Well, I think we can look to the HERO system itself for the first layer of SFX because...lo and behold, in fact, there is a STRONG system precedent - PD, ED, and MD. It is, at the least, interesting that PD and ED were split out instead of just being DEF. Some believe these should be folded in together, even. But anyway, the system has a core mechanic around "type of defense" with (very) broad SFX as the differentiator. There's a lesson here somewhere, at the least that we don't want characters to have all-encompassing defense and there's a core SFX used to defeat that.

 

Then the system goes on to include that further limiting SFX is worth a Limitation. And that some powers require SFX definition, even, and expanding SFX is an Advantage.

 

So I think the message here is that in order for the system to work well we need solid guidelines as to what constitutes broad SFX and what constitutes narrow SFX in a given campaign. Much of that is implicit in the current book and some of it is even explicit. I don't think anyone is suggesting one list will fit all campaigns, but at least that there could be a system to govern the relationships among the non-SFX fundamentals and the SFX layer already present on the system, with hierarchal schema building if needed and matrixing of effects. At least that's how I would view this endeavor. Out of it there may be a "standard" or multiple genre standards but that's not really relevant compared to the methodology of how one derives or rewrites that standard for one's campaign.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Well, I think we can look to the HERO system itself for the first layer of SFX because...lo and behold, in fact, there is a STRONG system precedent - PD, ED, and MD. It is, at the least, interesting that PD and ED were split out instead of just being DEF. Some believe these should be folded in together, even. But anyway, the system has a core mechanic around "type of defense" with (very) broad SFX as the differentiator. There's a lesson here somewhere, at the least that we don't want characters to have all-encompassing defense and there's a core SFX used to defeat that.

 

Then the system goes on to include that further limiting SFX is worth a Limitation. And that some powers require SFX definition, even, and expanding SFX is an Advantage.

 

So I think the message here is that in order for the system to work well we need solid guidelines as to what constitutes broad SFX and what constitutes narrow SFX in a given campaign. Much of that is implicit in the current book and some of it is even explicit. I don't think anyone is suggesting one list will fit all campaigns, but at least that there could be a system to govern the relationships among the non-SFX fundamentals and the SFX layer already present on the system, with hierarchal schema building if needed and matrixing of effects. At least that's how I would view this endeavor. Out of it there may be a "standard" or multiple genre standards but that's not really relevant compared to the methodology of how one derives or rewrites that standard for one's campaign.

Hmm. I suppose, though I have always thought of those as a mechanical differentiator rather than a descriptive one. It's really the gamist balancing factor, as you say, of, "we don't want characters to have all-encompassing defense." Even though defenses are in general, "less expensive," than attacks, there has to be some way of getting around that, or the game wouldn't be much fun. The PD/ED split is one of the first methods of doing this. It introduces a little necessary tactical planning.

 

Myself, I am not above making similar SFX (different acid attacks, for example) work against different defenses (one PD, one ED, one NND, one split into both physical and energy attacks, etc.), but perhaps there is an aspect of this that is a bit limiting on SFX: there is nothing in the core system that allows me to make one attack work against both PD and ED; I can split it so some works against PD and some works against ED, but then the attack is no longer a single cumulative attack; there is no room for making an attack work against 3/4 of your PD plus 1/4 of your ED (or some other affine combination of the two). Of course, there is also really nothing in the system that explicitly disallows this....

 

Anyway, there are definite things in the system (especially now) that allow for any combination or totally alternate defenses: NND, AVLD, Multi-Power Attacks, etc. It is like a, "A, B, or whatever you'd like to call it," choice.

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

I agree, and I think that's another reason to take stock of the SFX and compare to the tools we have. And don't forget, Adjustment Powers essentially demand not only an SFX declaration (as normal) but then a very specialized adjudication of those SFX against defenses. Currently it allows for this Power Defense construct. Some like it just fine, and I understand the argument that it's ultimately no less abstract than "Energy Defense" and simply addresses a particular class of attack. Others don't like it as we've discussed. I think reviewing SFX against these tools becomes at least a useful analysis even if, in the worst case, a dead end - at least we'll know (or rather have better-informed opinions as to) why it's a dead end when done.

 

I tend to think of it two ways:

 

as said, each attack and defense type is defined as abstract classes which are dependent upon the object of an attack, and the object of an attack is either Energy Damage, Physical Damage, Mental Damage, Power Damage, Sensory (Flash) Damage, and whatever else I'm forgetting. But basically it's grouped by the target, strictly. If we perform this method, I tend to think we should combine ED and PD into DEF, but of course that's entirely another argument. Anyway, in this school, we have a choice, then, when SFX matrixed on this stop making sense - one method is we construct the SFX to suit this method, basically, indicating that the class of defense "must" by definition catch the broad category and SFX be thusly derived, and if they are not in line, then there must be a Limitation or such on the class of defense. So in other words, if we purchase Power Defense, it is either very broad/abstract - "My Amulet of Thargon protects my vitality!" or "I'm really lucky!" or "My tough skin acts as a resistant against the types of drains that would hit my powers because they are all under my skin/bio-based" - or then we must pay a Limitation if the PowDef is indeed "only versus biochemical attacks" or the like. Where the SFX comes into play as Lims and Advs, we are into the traditional issue of selecting appropriate values. The other possibility, though, is that SFX is simply considered equally and unless particularly restrictive (whatever that means, again requiring definition) then we simply review the intersection of results and the GM rules accordingly, so the PowDef is described in some specific detail as is any incoming attack and judged accordingly. And, of course, one can certainly do this somewhere in-between, I'm not suggesting it's black and white.

 

The other way is to view that attacks come in certain broad SFX flavors, Energy, Physical, or Mental. We can then give guidelines (maybe only in a compendium, maybe not a core book thing) to how to broaden or narrow that (to address if people want only "DEF" for Phys/Ener or (more likely) they want to broaden to, as Fantasy HERO suggests, Arcane, which basically I already had in my supers game as Supernatural). If this is true, I would posit we only need to define things as Limited further by SFX if more restrictive (again guidelines are helpful) and we need also then only AVLD and NND to help us much of the time. Reviewing Flash Defense and the like becomes an exercise in utility and comparison to these values, whether we keep that explicitly or not. There certainly remains reasons to keep the other Defense types, for pragmatic purposes, but they then need to be viewed in light of "attack SFX" reasoning as opposed to "target object" reasoning.

 

The real condundrum is that it is not at all clear which is the "correct" (in this context meaning as it relates to original intention as neither is right nor wrong) way from the HERO core. In fact, there probably isn't a correct way, it's likely that the authors didn't think this through all the way to this level of detail, particularly given the way the system evolved. I'm not sure which is better even if I tend to lean towards basing the dynamics on broad attack type rather than target type - there are certainly strengths to both approaches. I think in the end the system would be streamlined and clarified by choosing one approach and then ensuring the rules revolve around that method very clearly, and the gaps are filled in with that approach in mind. Especially if you then consider how this factors into other related issues such as Life Support.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Perhaps it would help to use the method of another thread to talk about this. I view the separation of defenses (and thus attack types) from a 80% gamist/15% simulationist/5% narrativist perspective. In that light, I believe a defense should not be all encompassing (i.e. there should be more than one defense/attack type), but that all defenses, when considered as a whole, should completely cover all attack types (the union of defenses should be a superset of the union of attack types). There are rare and expensive exceptions to this, such as those introduced by NND. All good.

 

As for Special Effects, I view them from a 75% narrativist/20% simlulationist/5% gamist perspective. Thus, I don't want there to be any restrictions to my SFX; they should be as freeform as possible, and not have to conform to any categories, system rules, or meta-rules. No Powers, Advantages, Limitations, or Frameworks should form stereotypes about or discriminate against any particular SFX. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have some ties to the system, or allow the GM/campaign setting itself to discriminate (very common, common, uncommon) between them. It means all system rules and mechanics should be, "SFX neutral."

 

With those things in mind, I think the physical/energy/power/flash/mental distinction is about right. Some of those (e.g. flash) are in fact mechanical distinctions, which is fine, and the rest are so ridiculously broad that I can pretty much fit any SFX into at least a combination of them. When I can't (decently rare cases), I do have other options (NND, AVLD, etc.).

 

I'm probably not saying anything particularly new in this post, but maybe it is a slightly clarified or different perspective.

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

I don't think I'm suggesting anything in violation of that. Nor am I saying you said that. Just to be clear, I'm suggesting that since SFX are a topic, and one already enmeshed in the system, that clarifying and treating them properly is not in any way contradictory to remaining free in employing them.

[Nadrakas]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Might I suggest an all New Category and Sub-Category?

 

Category: Mentally Unbalanced

Sub-Category: Foxbat

 

Just a thought...

 

 

Nadrakas..."Who is most definately having a Foxbat Day. Right Zornwil?"

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

Indeed, super-being. The General Council is eager to greet you. We will be bearing arms to give you a 21-gun salute...

 

[zornwil]

Re: Meta SFX

 

I just made a connection of Classes of Minds to Classes of SFX notion. Perhaps a truly systemic approach would justify both, if carefully deployed and explained as to how a GM would NEED to tweak it (it should not/cannot be presented as "this is a useful standard for everyone" as CoM currently is). Please see post http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=758058&postcount=80 .

 

Interested in comments. I was going to write something on a potential Classes of SFX approach, but just don't have the time to think that through to the extent it needs.