Mental Powers

[Vondy]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Re: Classes of Minds.

 

I do the following:

 

The default classes of minds are as written in the book, however, most characters fall into the human class. This includes rubber suit aliens, most sentient machines (like androids), and beast-men. To qualify for another class of minds the "mind" in question must be truly divergent from the human mind. I find this reflects the comic and science fiction (at least, space opera) genres well without imposing too much of a penalty on the average mentalist, or providing normative character concepts with a free immunity.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mental Powers

 

good point TRL which is why I always point to the -3 EOCV -10 effect (-5 Ego Blast) rules in 5e and 5er.

 

That gives exactly what you are suggesting. Only I took two lines.

 

Hawksmoor

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Re: Classes of Minds.

 

I do the following:

 

The default classes of minds are as written in the book, however, most characters fall into the human class. This includes rubber suit aliens, most sentient machines (like androids), and beast-men. To qualify for another class of minds the "mind" in question must be truly divergent from the human mind. I find this reflects the comic and science fiction (at least, space opera) genres well without imposing too much of a penalty on the average mentalist, or providing normative character concepts with a free immunity.

 

 

A very commendable approach, and one which avoids a lot of difficulty. Well done.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I'm not speaking to that level of detail. I'm speaking of the fact that we know that radar exists and pretty much what it does. Same with sonar. Same as, discussed prior, Energy versus Physical attacks.

 

As to "bolt of mystic force," I agree. The best we do is approximate it with "Energy Blast" and let people declare SFX.

 

Zornwil, it may be that I have had more experiences that included contentious players or simply am a more contentious player, but I have had more trouble with conflicting expectations over real world stuff and stuff with a lot of basis in heroic fiction than I have ever had over a purely original construct, because too often it is assumed that I'm on the exact same page as them and they don't ask, or don't tell me (depending on if I am a player or a GM). The rules can not be expected to serve as a substitute for communication between GM and players. Nor can the rules be expected to cover for the faults of the people using those rules, which are what some of the arguements come down to.

 

You say you do not want to get to this level of detail, but fairly frequently you and Hugh are getting to that level of detail on the Class of Minds. Very often, like with the plants below you claim that the mechanic itself is flawed because the write up does not tell you exactly what you want it to tell you.

 

Where are the instructions for CoM?

 

Because Limited Power has a considerable amount of instructions and examples.

 

Yes, there is certainly a lot of text there, I agree. I disagree with you on how much of that text is actually any more meaningful than the text given for Classes of Mind. I'm particularly distressed by the fact that there are places where the examples and the text are not in perfect agreement.

 

"...not meant to be all inclusive..." is granted - but what is the basis for inclusion? Animals' date=' Aliens, and Humans are of a balanced ubiquity and utility? That is a highly debatable statement from the get-go. It is not at all clear as to the basis, and, besides, my point was, what IS the rule for something that is "not quite Class of Minds"? Is that a Limitation? On which...? Are Plants a subset of Animals?[/quote']

 

The basis for inclusion is that is whatever happened to come into Steve's mind. Seriously, what was the basis for including the Mental Sense Group or the Radio Sense Group, but not Mystic Sense Group or the Chi Sense Group or the Temporal Sense Group? How much meaningful text is actually dedicated to how to creating them?

 

If the construct is to be useful' date=' it ought to be useful enough that at least the confluence of CoM with Limitations should be clear and the approach to values for partial adders and such stated (is it a Lim on an Adder? Or is it an Advantage on the Power?)[/quote']

 

We are both in agreement that CoM could have used more meaningful text, but that is true of a lot of things. Shape Shift certainly needed more meaningful text than it got in 5E, but you seem to have no trouble accepting it as neither abhorrent or aberrant.

 

In point of fact' date=' the rules are staring us in the face and saying "it is suggested it is wrong to lump your aliens, animals, and humans together," and now we must justify something that required absolutely no justification before, and rested rather nicely on individual campaign world SFX. I don't know why...quite literally I have zero clue as to why this was an issue, whereas as DR pointed out earlier, I can understand why Machines with 0 EGO presented a problem. But he rules simply throw down that while solving this problem we also "desire" in HERO a further division among organic beings, with no explanation as to how this ties into the Machines Class or why this is desirable. But it certainly begs to any intelligent person who has no history in HERO that "if you let you rmentalists affect aliens, animals, and humans, it is unbalancing!" Yet I recall very few balance issues with mentalists that referred to these related issues, usually other issues are at the fore.[/quote']

 

I personally, don't understand why we have to divide the ability to percieve the electronic spectrum into two groups, but the rules do and they don't give a whole lot of explanation about it either. I simply accept that they do, and get on with my gaming.

 

I do not see the list telling me that I will be unbalancing my game by combining CoMs or leaving out CoMs, than the rules are telling me it is unbalancing to make Rabies more common/a greater threat than Tetanus, Malaria, or Ophidotoxins. Heck, the rules don't even really tell me that I should probably reprice LS: Immunity (Rabies), but let me either learn it for myself, or assume that I can figgure it out for myself.

 

Curiousity' date=' what do you mean?[/quote']

 

I'm not fond of the way Hero System models Martial Arts. I personally, think they are unbalancing, particularly in lower pointed games and/or games that do not allow power frame works. I also think that they incorporate SFX in a way that is at best equivalent to CoM, and really I think that it is worse. A lot of my arguements sound exactly the same to the ones that you and Hough have been throwing around. It has just been my experience that I am the only person, who happens to feel strongly about them in that way. It doesn't mean I'm wrong and the rest of the universe is right. It does mean that I rarely spend a significant amount of time talking about it, and I don't expect them to be taken out of the core rules either.

 

Shape Shift is based on senses. I don't entirely like it' date=' but I see the logic and in point of fact it is easy to replicate that logic, and the entire Senses construct serves as a holistic mechanic that works across the entire system. And the grouping of senses is hardly arbitrary, aside from a few esoteric ones, and even then we have good explanation as to what and why that is. Life Support is based on real-world analogues and is entirely explicable in this context as well, and, besides, has no abstraction in its grouping that quarrels with SFX, instead its SFX bindings are reasonable.[/quote']

 

See above for senses.

 

I've never really saw the logic of basing Shape Shift on sense, but still listing it as a body affecting power. Basing it on sense creates the impression that Shape Shift is just a form of images, and the original 5e write up left out some stuff about the touch sense group that was vital to making it work the way Steve invisioned it as working. Even so, I'm still confused does Plastic Man have SS: touch and sight with a whole bunch of limitations, or does he have SS: touch only? Wait a second, didn't you say if the construct wasn't sufficiently explained out that you can't intuit the relationship between it and Limitations that it shouldn't be in the rules? (No, I have not "manufactured" my Plastic Man confusion. I just don't assume that a poorly written explanation makes the mechanic inappropriate for the rules.)

 

Yet, with Life Support it is unclear if you can add additional categories to it. I've had posters tell me I was insane for even proposing the possiblity. Staring me in the face right in the rules is that is a statement that every campaign I run should cover enough time to make aging a noticable element of my game, or at least some power to age characters that does not work against Longevity should be there. Low and behold, if I don't make Diseases and Poisons equally common/dangerous/threat than I am unbalancing my game.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm really not buying your claim that some how, these other things are acceptable and non-confusing, but Classes of Mind as a concept (not as a write up, we agree the write up is less than desirable) is anathem to the Hero System.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Caris, zornil, guys: what do you want the system to do?

 

If there's any chance of getting a less than 500 word answer, I'd be grateful

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Caris, zornil, guys: what do you want the system to do?

 

If there's any chance of getting a less than 500 word answer, I'd be grateful

 

Sean, please, we are officially at the point where all we are doing is helping each other strengthen our arguements on the subject.

 

Personally, what I want the system to do is enable me to play games that I enjoy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Sean, please, we are officially at the point where all we are doing is helping each other strengthen our arguements on the subject.

 

Personally, what I want the system to do is enable me to play games that I enjoy.

 

Somewhat more general that I'd hoped for: perhaps I should have requested a minimum length disposition too

 

Believe me I'm not trying to 'resolve' anything, I'm just interested to know what makes mental powers good to eat in your world.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I’m afraid that you are misunderstanding my use of the word “concept†in the context of my post. I’m saying that I like what I see as the base idea of the construct' date=' not necessarily the specific implementation that is this particular construct. I like the ability to take a group of powers, whether defined by mechanic as here with Mental Powers or by SFX as is the case with poisons and diseases. [/quote']

 

"The concept", as I would define it, is that the efficacy of mental powers, by default, is contingent on defined groups which are deemed to havce sufficiently similar thought patterns that mental powers will be fully effective on any member of the same group, and ineffective (in the absence of an adder) against the members of any other group, To me, that is the concept of Classes of Mind.

 

I do not see this concept as inherently superior to a concept that mental powers are effective against anyone and anything with an Ego score, and any reduction to that pool constitutes either a limitation on the mental power itself (taken by the possessor of the mental power - "not vs animals", for example) or a power purchased by the character enviusioned as especially resistant to those mental powers (Beastial Mind - +20 Mental Defense, not vs mental powers which are restricted to affecvting animals - btw, I would interpret this character being immune to the powers of the "not vs animals" character due to sfx).

 

Yeah' date=' well, I thought that infrared vision was pretty clear cut, too, until I had player hand me a character sheet with “Lifesight†on it, and said he just renamed and redid the SFX on infrared vision. On the other hand can we agree on what a “fair†amount of a restriction on a character who is built with water breathing as their default environment, when all the other characters were built with air as their default? I actually without asking my GM do not know how much more common active sonar is or is not than radar in any campaign where both powers are a reasonable build for the setting, because it is a matter of GM preference. Of course, there is also the GM may be trying to screw you factor, too. Ever have a GM when you built a darkness vs. the sight and hearing group never gave anyone active sonar, but radar abounded? I have.[/quote']

 

Changing from "infrared" (the effects of which are documented and can be researched) to "lifesight" demands the player and GM define the effects of the power. Water vs Air - better discuss with the player how often he will be able to use those powers, ensure the limitation has been appropriately defined and that he is OK with the (in)frequency with which he will find these abilities useful. Radar and Sonar? GM needs to discuss the issue of frequency and ensure the payer and GM are on the same page.

 

GM is trying to screw you? You cannot win, so either get out or prepare for frustration.

 

First of all' date=' you have already made the “very rare†“alien†common, by making them a PC. While Data, may have been a very rare being in the Star Trek universe. In the campaign that was the ST:NG campaign Data was a common character. You are assuming that what I meant is that the characters being brought in who defaulted to that class of mind must also be aliens themselves. No, I was stating that they simply when buying their Mental Powers chose to default to “alien†rather than to human. They didn’t buy the adder, so all the rest of the PCs get to be immune to them.[/quote']

 

As do 95% of the NPC's. Is this reasonable? If 12d6 Mind Control - Humans only, 12d6 Mind Control - animals only, and 12d6 Mind Control - Aliens only are each worth 60 points in isolation, why is 12d6 Mind Control - Humans, Aliens and Animals worth 80 points?

 

Someone else already asked the question of how far one takes "animals". Is a mosquito an animal? What about an amoeba? If they are not, what are they? If they are, the system classifies chimps and amoebas as having more simialr minds than chimps and humans. What if I want a character who can only affect primates (human and animal)?

 

As an example' date=' let’s say I allow you to play a robot in my Champions campaign, and I tell you that you are the Machine Class of Mind, even though you have an Ego. Now, you may be going “sweet, I’m going to be immune to most of the mentalists in the world†in your head, but I’m going “Well, Cybermind (CKC) is going to be a major reoccurring opponent in this game. I could run a story where the robot is framed for a crime and the FBI would of course send Teknique (MU) to aprehend it.†Yeah, you may be immune to a lot of the mentalists, but that means most of the ones you are immune to you are going to avoid you, and the ones that your aren’t are probably only able to affect machines, which makes you more desirable to target. Cybermind, would normally avoid situations where he is likely going to have to fight a team of super heros, but any team with a robot on it, becomes a less daunting challenge, because now there is a team member that he can Mind Control.[/quote']

 

After five years of this campaign, when all the other players are sick sick sick of the two or three mentalists with "affects machines", what happens? If you're just going to ensure all or substantially all mentalists have the ability to affect the obscure class of mind one character happens to belong to, there's not much point having classes of minds, in my opinion. Of course, they're still useful for "screwing over" the mentalist PC, aren't they?

 

BTW, in my games, the players are very co-operative and work together (they're super heroes, remember?). The minute Cybermind shows up, the other four PC's will snap to, knowing RobotRobot is highly vulnerable to Cybermind, and focus all attacks on prevention. The Flash and Darkness attacks will come out ("mental powers are on line of sight"), at least until we learn Cybermind has nother targetting option. Cybermind can look forward to concerted attacks by PC's who know RobotRobot's shut down codes so he can't be a threat to them.

 

“Hey' date=' if I knew you were going to be doing a ‘Connecticut Yankee’ story line with someone with power armor, I might have considered putting a radar Flash in my multi-power.†If the GM doesn’t tell you something they should have, or worse yet lies or deliberately misleads you, which is really the impression I’m getting from your example. The rules will not save anyone from GM malfeasance.[/quote']

 

I don't even see this happening from GM malfeasance as often as from the simple fact that the GM didn't envision every storyline in a long-term campaign from the startup phase. A change of pace that would not have been considered in King Arthur Game 1 may be just the thing in Game 75, when we need something different to brighten up the campaign. I generally ask someone else to brainstorm on PC writeups when I gm, simply so I can neither exercise, nor be accused of exercising, bias based on what I know will be happening in the early stages of the campaign.

 

Forgive me' date=' but the point is that the “putting limitations on the Mental Powers†tactic isn’t any “easier†because it is the exact same tact as the Classes of Mind model. If I am putting the limitation “only against animals†or “only against crab monsters from the Kit Tune Nebula†than I am defining mental classes. If I am the GM requiring that mental powers be bought this way, I’m using a minor variation from what is in the book. Either way I have to define the mental groups in such a way that I and my players find the results fun and fair.[/quote']

 

If I am putting that limitation on my mental powers, I am not defining how other characters' powers must work. If we use the standard classes set out in the books, you still need to assess the cost of “only against crab monsters from the Kit Tune Nebula†and "only against mammals". That means you need to define both classes of minds and limitations.

 

Uh' date=' and what exactly is wrong with Player 4 getting no advantage at all? The stated purpose of this is that the character wants to be immune to most mental attacks, not I want to be a character with an alien mind. So the solution being provided is inappropriate to the situation involved. I’m sorry, but I do not accept “the rules must protect me from GM and player stupidity†as an acceptable argument.[/quote']

 

While I agree with yor last comment, I don't believe they should facilitate it either, but that's neither here nor there to Classes of Mind.

 

The problem is that Player 4 wants his mind to be so alien he is basically im,mune to mental powers. In my game, the answer is "white out the Classes of Mind paragraph in your book. If you want to be immune to mental powers, pay for mental defense, ECV levels, etc. which will provide you with the level of resistance you are looking for." This comes down to whether one likes the conceot of "desolidiciation to mental powers based on background" which is implicit in the CoM structure (with adders replacing and advantage for affecting the "desolid").

 

I’m afraid that you missed my point. My point is that in most of the genres Mental Powers do not have a universal application. There are always some groups and/or individuals that are functionally immune to the powers.

 

I'm still waiting for the genre examples of insular groups which are equally vgulnerable to some mental powers and immune to others. Most, in my opinion, are as, or more, readily explained by "Species X or Character Y has defensive powers protecting them against mental powers" than "There are these strict classes of mind, see, and Ferengi are immune to most telepaths, but some can affect them with no resistance at all because they can affect the FerengiClass mind."

 

It seems far more common to me that these individuals/groups are either fully immune to mental powers of all stripe (ie their defenses are sufficient that campaign maximums can't affect them) or they can be affected by extremely powerful mentalists who can, with difficulty, penetrate their defenses. This seems to me to be mental defense more than classes of mind.

 

But, of course, we don't get the character sheets, so it's open to interpretation. While I've yet to see an example of a genre staple which clearly requires classes of minds, I can certainly envision a setting wherer customized classes of minds could be useful. Your "clear segregation between animals and humans" example is one. However, I prefer your approach of a campaign-specific -0 limitation on the powers as an optional rule, rather than a default structure for the mechanical construction of the powers themselves. In fact, I would prefer the -0 limnitation approach as the optional rule. This is superior to CoM, in my opinion, as it can be expanded beyond mental powers to cover immunity to fire, electricity, etc.

 

Is Classes of Mind required to make it work? No' date=' but automatons (I really do not consider the ways that Sentinels have been used since about Giant Sized X-Men number one to justify using Autonomon builds for them, too much free will), ridiculous amounts of Mental Defense, etc. is not required to make it work either.[/quote']

 

I can see them as automotons. They follow orders (albeit pre-programmed orders) and cannot outgrow their programming. But I can see the other interpretation as well.

 

I’m just happy that they used something that fit in with my game design philosophy that I can point to as a justification and a way to help me integrate some of my house rules more seemlessly with the rest of the existing mechanics.

 

That is precisely why I believe this should be an optional rule, not a core mechanical rule. Optional rules should be about using the toolkit better to fit with certain visions of the game, usable for house rules and/or specific settings. The core rules should avoid shutting out any vision or specific setting. Classes of mind will work for some settings, and work against others. As such, it does not belong as a core mechanic, but as an option for customization of specific game worlds. And it belongs in a discussion of the many other options presented in this thread.

 

 

I don’t think this one is getting any special amount of attention' date=' really. [/quote']

 

The "special attention" I refer to here is this rule being singled out as "Steve Long's house rule" because he invented it in Ultimate Mentalist and it ended up in 5e core rules. It's at best a side issue, since regardless of source, that's the rule as written. However, I suspect classes of mind would be less viewed as "Steve's house rule" if someone else had penned it originally, or it had been added to the core rules by someone else.

 

In any case, I'd bet a lot of rules in 5e (whether added or continued from earlier editions) started life as someone's house rules. The whole system started as the original authors' house rules for supers role playing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Caris, zornil, guys: what do you want the system to do?

 

If there's any chance of getting a less than 500 word answer, I'd be grateful

 

Caris hits the nail on the head, but I'll look for a greater specific.

 

I want asystem which can be used in any genre, setting or game. Classes of Mind presupposes a specific structure for mental powers, and I don't believe that presupposed strutcure belongs as a core rule in the toolbox, as it shuits out those games/genres/settings which do not presuppose mental powers whose efficacy varies with classes of mind.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Zornwil' date=' it may be that I have had more experiences that included contentious players or simply am a more contentious player, but I have had more trouble with conflicting expectations over real world stuff and stuff with a lot of basis in heroic fiction than I have ever had over a purely original construct, because too often it is assumed that I'm on the exact same page as them and they don't ask, or don't tell me (depending on if I am a player or a GM).[/quote']

 

To separate this out, on a level of detail, I don't disagree, but the concept of "radar" versus "sonar" versus "infrared vision" and such at least have a tangible and singular basis. I really don't think that mental abilities do have a tangible one, and they certainly don't have a singular one.

 

The rules can not be expected to serve as a substitute for communication between GM and players. Nor can the rules be expected to cover for the faults of the people using those rules, which are what some of the arguements come down to.

 

You say you do not want to get to this level of detail, but fairly frequently you and Hugh are getting to that level of detail on the Class of Minds. Very often, like with the plants below you claim that the mechanic itself is flawed because the write up does not tell you exactly what you want it to tell you.

 

I don't want the book to declare a level of detail that is setting-specific. And because it has now been begged by the book, we now get into where one's setting-specific details clash with the approach.

 

It may be well-valid for you to discuss that the current ES rules are adrift from actual game-play too much, the only reason I haven't gotten into that level of detail is that we're discussing these concepts at a high level and we're discussing this particular concept (CoM) in detail, so naturally the conversation turns to "how do we use CoM".

 

Yes, there is certainly a lot of text there, I agree. I disagree with you on how much of that text is actually any more meaningful than the text given for Classes of Mind. I'm particularly distressed by the fact that there are places where the examples and the text are not in perfect agreement.

 

Out of curiousity, what are you referring to in that last sentence?

 

The basis for inclusion is that is whatever happened to come into Steve's mind. Seriously, what was the basis for including the Mental Sense Group or the Radio Sense Group, but not Mystic Sense Group or the Chi Sense Group or the Temporal Sense Group? How much meaningful text is actually dedicated to how to creating them?

 

To me, the rationale is simple. We have mental powers and thus a related Sense as we have well-developed Sense Rules, all of which relate to real- and any non-real game mechanics. There are no Mystic or Chi or Temporal mechanics in the game. If they exists, we would need related Senses.

 

We are both in agreement that CoM could have used more meaningful text, but that is true of a lot of things. Shape Shift certainly needed more meaningful text than it got in 5E, but you seem to have no trouble accepting it as neither abhorrent or aberrant.

 

Because SS is consistent, at least, with existing mechanics and introduces nothing new and divergent.

 

I personally, don't understand why we have to divide the ability to percieve the electronic spectrum into two groups, but the rules do and they don't give a whole lot of explanation about it either. I simply accept that they do, and get on with my gaming.

 

No EGO. That's a simple mechanical issue. The lack of EGO reflects the lack of willpower of non-sentient machines.

 

I do not see the list telling me that I will be unbalancing my game by combining CoMs or leaving out CoMs, than the rules are telling me it is unbalancing to make Rabies more common/a greater threat than Tetanus, Malaria, or Ophidotoxins. Heck, the rules don't even really tell me that I should probably reprice LS: Immunity (Rabies), but let me either learn it for myself, or assume that I can figgure it out for myself.

 

A rule with costing implications is a declaration of balance concern de facto. Otherwise there would be no costs involved. Hence you are now, as a good GM, "encouraged" at the least to consider that somehow there "must" be an issue. In fact the Design Considerations state that balance is something to be concerned with when recosting/changing things - and that is entirely a reasonable statement.

 

I'm not fond of the way Hero System models Martial Arts. I personally, think they are unbalancing, particularly in lower pointed games and/or games that do not allow power frame works. I also think that they incorporate SFX in a way that is at best equivalent to CoM, and really I think that it is worse. A lot of my arguements sound exactly the same to the ones that you and Hough have been throwing around. It has just been my experience that I am the only person, who happens to feel strongly about them in that way. It doesn't mean I'm wrong and the rest of the universe is right. It does mean that I rarely spend a significant amount of time talking about it, and I don't expect them to be taken out of the core rules either.

 

I agree as to the way SFX are implemented in Martial Arts. The consideration/reason given for embedding them is their real-world basis; no such consideration/reason exists for CoM. But I don't disagree that there should be a more elegant way to handle the various consequences and SFX of martial arts maneuvers. There's some good material in UMA but not in the core book. But there is a real-world problem in this regard - maneuvers (martial arts or not) have a variety of real-world consequences which need to be reflected. So however we do it, we do have to address those.

 

See above for senses.

 

I've never really saw the logic of basing Shape Shift on sense, but still listing it as a body affecting power. Basing it on sense creates the impression that Shape Shift is just a form of images, and the original 5e write up left out some stuff about the touch sense group that was vital to making it work the way Steve invisioned it as working. Even so, I'm still confused does Plastic Man have SS: touch and sight with a whole bunch of limitations, or does he have SS: touch only? Wait a second, didn't you say if the construct wasn't sufficiently explained out that you can't intuit the relationship between it and Limitations that it shouldn't be in the rules? (No, I have not "manufactured" my Plastic Man confusion. I just don't assume that a poorly written explanation makes the mechanic inappropriate for the rules.)

 

I think Shape Shift needs to be changed, and I don't disagree with the series of issues here. But at least the fundamental build involves no system changes, so it passes through a different type of scrutiny. Rather than divert this thread into being about Shape Shift, suffice to say if there's the same issues with SS, then it would need to be fixed as well, but I think there are different issues.

 

Yet, with Life Support it is unclear if you can add additional categories to it. I've had posters tell me I was insane for even proposing the possiblity. Staring me in the face right in the rules is that is a statement that every campaign I run should cover enough time to make aging a noticable element of my game, or at least some power to age characters that does not work against Longevity should be there. Low and behold, if I don't make Diseases and Poisons equally common/dangerous/threat than I am unbalancing my game.

 

I agree, but, again, at least with LS we have (setting aside the fantasy elements) real world modeling requirements.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm really not buying your claim that some how, these other things are acceptable and non-confusing, but Classes of Mind as a concept (not as a write up, we agree the write up is less than desirable) is anathem to the Hero System.

 

Your argument seems to boil down to "2 wrongs make a right" - just because other parts of the system are problematic doesn't excuse creating yet another problematic mechanic.

 

What a lot of your comments beg and I fully agree with is that where HERO has been required to enshrine real-world requirements it has defaulted to simple mandates and strayed from existing mechanics. Point granted. What we would hope to find (and may or may not) is that in actuality things like LS are built on other existing mechanics, but I doubt it.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Caris, zornil, guys: what do you want the system to do?

 

If there's any chance of getting a less than 500 word answer, I'd be grateful

Specifically, re mental powers, I think the only requirement was/is to fix how mental powers can affect automotons and the like when they affect EGO. Otherwise I think there was no cause to do anything.

 

Generally, I expect the system to use as few subsystems and mechanics "as possible", and what does exist should be conformed as much as possible, so as to assure learnability and reuse.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

So what is your take on it? I understand Hugh's' date=' and I presume by your answer I don't understand yours. Hugh's is mechanical and imbues SFX only to the degree we realistically know that machines and brain-organisms are different. There's no other presumption - I think - to how mental abilities work, aside from the system-instructed "mental powers work against EGO" and the added rule over time re machines and INT (IIRC, this was suggested/in place before but not the core rules).[/quote']

I've tried to explain my POV on this several times (as have you and Hugh... wait... say that aloud... nevermind). I'm not sure if I can properly explain it at this point. No fault of yours, so I should try again.

 

Basically, I think there is absolutely no basis for assumption, one way or another, as to how Mental Powers or minds work, SFX-wise. The only assumption I can make, it that everyone will have a different idea as to how do they work, could work, and should work. Some people might think the concept of how they work would be universal, others do not.

 

I am working under the presumption (and it is a presumption, based on incomplete and possibly incorrect data, just like your and Hugh's presumptions), that their are different ways for an intelligent mind to think, and those ways are mostly determined by a point of view and colored by instinct. This almost always seperates humans from animals, and could possibly seperate humans from other sentient species as well. It most definately would seperate humans from any species or creature of god-like scope and power.

 

Then comes in Mental Powers. We don't know how those work either. I'm under the presumption that Mental Powers are "keyed" to a type of thinking, a type of thought and intellect. Contact may be established from other types of minds, but nothing meaningful can be gained from such a contact. A human telepath who knows the human mind won't necessarily understand an animal mind, or the mind of dragon.

 

Hugh has gone on about game balance issues and whatnot, but at this point those do not apply. This is how I think mind and mental powers work, and should work.

 

Of course, the question I ask myself is not "is this balanced?" but "how will this balance?" I'm willing to make certain steps in the play of the game to insure my players I'm playing fair, and that no one player has an unfair advantage over another. As to how to maintain balance in a game with the presumptions I've made above... I require all PCs to have the same type of mind. That's it. Easy enough. Job done. Game balanced.

 

There is still the work of defining what each class of mind is, what falls into it and so on, but that's left up to each individual campaign. They may be different in each case. Some may have just a single type of mind available (in which case there is no point is labling it), in others, it may be subdivided into many (animal, sentient, protoplasmic, pure energy, etc. or animal, humanoid, draconic, divine, etc.).

 

The point would be to make sure that only things that the PCs can never have a class of mind different than the one allowed for the PCs. In a fantasy game, all PCs must have a humanoid mind (a human, elf, dwarf, hobbit, gnome, goblin, giant, centaur, etc.) and can't play anything else (a dragon, god, tiger, etc.).

As a side note, are single-cell and other undifferentiated non-brain life-forms "Animals" by Class of Mind? I'd think they're more Alien or in a Plant group. I wonder. What is a "Limited Class of Mind", +5? Is Plant a Limited CLass of Mind? Or a Limitation to a power with Class of Mind applied as "Animal"? I still don't see any reduced complexity to the structure except for dealing with the mechanics of lacking EGO.

 

Default answer based on above statement: It depends and varies greatly upon the campaign's tone and setting.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Classes of Mind presupposes a specific structure for mental powers' date=' and I don't believe that presupposed strutcure belongs as a core rule in the toolbox, as it shuits out those games/genres/settings which do not presuppose mental powers whose efficacy varies with classes of mind.[/quote']

 

I disagree. Classes of Mind do not presuppose a specific structure for mental powers. At best, it encourages an undefined maliable structure. It does not shut out anything, as there is nothing to stop anyone from simply saying "okay, EVERYTHING is considered human class in this game". I think it rather silly of you to think that it somehow prevents you from saying that.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Somewhat more general that I'd hoped for: perhaps I should have requested a minimum length disposition too

 

Believe me I'm not trying to 'resolve' anything, I'm just interested to know what makes mental powers good to eat in your world.

 

Depends on the world that I'm running. What I'm primarily after is an explicit statement within the rules that Mental Powers do not have to default to universality of application beyond automatons assumed immunity.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

"The concept"' date=' as I would define it, is that the efficacy of mental powers, by default, is contingent on defined groups which are deemed to havce sufficiently similar thought patterns that mental powers will be fully effective on any member of the same group, and ineffective (in the absence of an adder) against the members of any other group, To me, that is the concept of Classes of Mind.[/quote']

 

I think that you are putting too much emphasis on the “why†of the groupings. The rule as written does not give a reason why they are group only that the list of possible base classes that a GM could use include them.

 

I do not see this concept as inherently superior to a concept that mental powers are effective against anyone and anything with an Ego score' date=' and any reduction to that pool constitutes either a limitation on the mental power itself (taken by the possessor of the mental power - "not vs animals", for example) or a power purchased by the character enviusioned as especially resistant to those mental powers (Beastial Mind - +20 Mental Defense, not vs mental powers which are restricted to affecvting animals - btw, I would interpret this character being immune to the powers of the "not vs animals" character due to sfx). [/quote']

 

It is not superior, but it is not inferior either, or at least neither you nor Zornwil have set forth an argument to convince me that your preferred method is superior. (Please, wait until you have read the response I am planning to Zornwil’s post before you tell me that I haven’t set forth an argument to convince you, either.)

 

As do 95% of the NPC's. Is this reasonable? If 12d6 Mind Control - Humans only' date=' 12d6 Mind Control - animals only, and 12d6 Mind Control - Aliens only are each worth 60 points in isolation, why is 12d6 Mind Control - Humans, Aliens and Animals worth 80 points? [/quote']

 

Which at best only serves to question the wisdom of using an Adder. I’m not fond of Adders in general.

 

Someone else already asked the question of how far one takes "animals". Is a mosquito an animal? What about an amoeba? If they are not' date=' what are they? If they are, the system classifies chimps and amoebas as having more simialr minds than chimps and humans. [/quote']

 

The rules are not there so that the GM does not have to make decisions. Though, this is really a pretty specious argument. Any system that makes certain classes of minds more difficult to affect is going to have to define those groups, and why the groupings work that way. Even if only one character takes the Limitation “not vs. Women†you have to define for your campaign what constitutes a woman. Does Aylee from Sluggy Freelance ( http://www.sluggy.com) count as a “woman� How about Jocasta from the Avengers? How about a female Chimpanzee?

 

What if I want a character who can only affect primates (human and animal)?

 

I want my character to be able to “see†radio waves. I want it vulnerable to sense affecting powers that affect either the Radio Group or the Sight Group, how do I build it? Should I build it as part of the Radio Group and take the Sight Group as the Limitation, since Sight Group Sense Affecting powers are generally more common, I’d get a bigger reduction in cost than if I did it the other way.

 

After five years of this campaign, when all the other players are sick sick sick of the two or three mentalists with "affects machines", what happens? If you're just going to ensure all or substantially all mentalists have the ability to affect the obscure class of mind one character happens to belong to, there's not much point having classes of minds, in my opinion. Of course, they're still useful for "screwing over" the mentalist PC, aren't they?

 

BTW, in my games, the players are very co-operative and work together (they're super heroes, remember?). The minute Cybermind shows up, the other four PC's will snap to, knowing RobotRobot is highly vulnerable to Cybermind, and focus all attacks on prevention. The Flash and Darkness attacks will come out ("mental powers are on line of sight"), at least until we learn Cybermind has nother targetting option. Cybermind can look forward to concerted attacks by PC's who know RobotRobot's shut down codes so he can't be a threat to them.

 

Gee, what do I do when after five years of the campaign, they are sick of Foxbat, who you took as a hunted and refuse to buy off? So I should disallow all Hunteds, Vulnerabilities, and “not vs. Attack of this type†Limitations on Defenses, because the other PCs will jump up to protect the PC from their Hunted, or from any character with the type of Attack that the character is vulnerable to?

 

I repeat, the rules are not there to protect you from your faults as a GM.

 

I don't even see this happening from GM malfeasance as often as from the simple fact that the GM didn't envision every storyline in a long-term campaign from the startup phase. A change of pace that would not have been considered in King Arthur Game 1 may be just the thing in Game 75' date=' when we need something different to brighten up the campaign. I generally ask someone else to brainstorm on PC writeups when I gm, simply so I can neither exercise, nor be accused of exercising, bias based on what I know will be happening in the early stages of the campaign. [/quote']

 

I think you are either over exaggerating the inability of GMs and Players from coming to an understanding of what the CoM mean in a specific game, or want the rules to substitute for what I consider to be an unreasonable amount of communication between the players and the GM. In particular, my experience when I have relied on the rules, “real world†and genre expectation to handle as much of the communication as you indicate the CoM rule should, it has been a failure.

 

If I am putting that limitation on my mental powers' date=' I am not defining how other characters' powers must work. [/quote']

 

What if the GM wants to put a limitation on all the Mental Powers in their game defining how they work? The rules do not talk about this, and I’ve had a horrible time getting players to accept the concept of GM imposed anything. “But my elf isn’t immortal so I don’t have to buy LS: Longevity.†“Why do all mutants have to take DF: Mutant?†Since that option isn’t “enshrined†in the rules, most players I’ve encountered assume that it can not exist.

 

If we use the standard classes set out in the books' date=' you still need to assess the cost of “only against crab monsters from the Kit Tune Nebula†and "only against mammals". That means you need to define both classes of minds and limitations. [/quote']

 

You and I have not really gotten into this, but I refer you to my reply to Zornwil earlier where I quote the passage that mentions the Human, Alien, Animal, and Machine classes of minds. Now I ask what standard? Please, explain to me how they are not examples/samples and are instead a defining requirement.

 

You are quite right, but so what? Even if I’m using the Limitation method, than I have to assign one level to “animals†if someone wants their powers as only working on animals, and another person wants only to affect “cats†I have to assign a level for them. I still have to explain and define why for the Animal person chimpanzees and ants are viable, but humans aren’t.

 

While I agree with yor last comment, I don't believe they should facilitate it either, but that's neither here nor there to Classes of Mind.

 

The problem is that Player 4 wants his mind to be so alien he is basically im,mune to mental powers. In my game, the answer is "white out the Classes of Mind paragraph in your book. If you want to be immune to mental powers, pay for mental defense, ECV levels, etc. which will provide you with the level of resistance you are looking for." This comes down to whether one likes the conceot of "desolidiciation to mental powers based on background" which is implicit in the CoM structure (with adders replacing and advantage for affecting the "desolid").

 

We are back to, the rules are not there to protect you from power gamers. In my game the answer is: “Player 4, being an ‘alien’ means that the same Mental Powers that affect Player 3’s human character, but by choosing to be the ‘alien’ class of mind, you are guaranteeing that you will be affected about as much by ‘alien’ class mental powers as Player 3 is by human class. It will probably happen about the same number of times, since Player 4 has taken the Machine Class mind for his Mental Powers and can’t help either of you with your Break Out Rolls.â€

 

I'm still waiting for the genre examples of insular groups which are equally vgulnerable to some mental powers and immune to others. Most, in my opinion, are as, or more, readily explained by "Species X or Character Y has defensive powers protecting them against mental powers" than "There are these strict classes of mind, see, and Ferengi are immune to most telepaths, but some can affect them with no resistance at all because they can affect the FerengiClass mind."

 

It seems far more common to me that these individuals/groups are either fully immune to mental powers of all stripe (ie their defenses are sufficient that campaign maximums can't affect them) or they can be affected by extremely powerful mentalists who can, with difficulty, penetrate their defenses. This seems to me to be mental defense more than classes of mind.

 

But, of course, we don't get the character sheets, so it's open to interpretation. While I've yet to see an example of a genre staple which clearly requires classes of minds, I can certainly envision a setting wherer customized classes of minds could be useful. Your "clear segregation between animals and humans" example is one. However, I prefer your approach of a campaign-specific -0 limitation on the powers as an optional rule, rather than a default structure for the mechanical construction of the powers themselves. In fact, I would prefer the -0 limnitation approach as the optional rule. This is superior to CoM, in my opinion, as it can be expanded beyond mental powers to cover immunity to fire, electricity, etc.

 

You will forgive me, but you have made it very clear you will interpret any genre example as being Limitations combined with high levels of Mental Defense. So the Ferengi package deal is have +100 Ego not vs. Mental Powers, and Invisibility (Mental Sense Group) as part of their package. Charles Xavier, Emma Frost, Jean Grey, Karma, Psyche, etc. all bought their power with the Limitation “not vs robots and androids.â€

[schir1964]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I want my character to be able to “see†radio waves. I want it vulnerable to sense affecting powers that affect either the Radio Group or the Sight Group' date=' how do I build it? Should I build it as part of the Radio Group and take the Sight Group as the Limitation, since Sight Group Sense Affecting powers are generally more common, I’d get a bigger reduction in cost than if I did it the other way.[/quote']

Clarifcation:

 

Actually there's a specific rule in the section (Before Combat: 5th Edition page 227: Simulated Senses) for doing this. It might be something you overlooked.

 

Again, Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I've tried to explain my POV on this several times (as have you and Hugh... wait... say that aloud... nevermind). I'm not sure if I can properly explain it at this point. No fault of yours, so I should try again.

 

Basically, I think there is absolutely no basis for assumption, one way or another, as to how Mental Powers or minds work, SFX-wise. The only assumption I can make, it that everyone will have a different idea as to how do they work, could work, and should work. Some people might think the concept of how they work would be universal, others do not.

 

(snipped merely for post length in my reply)

 

Similarly, I'm just trying to explain so at least we agree to disagree on the correct foundation, so bear with me equally...

 

First, I do understand your point, I think, in that one can still quite readily declare SFX and then, essentially, matrix that against the CoM and/or adjust the CoM accordingly... (right?)

 

Second, what I am trying to say, is that it is in fact a degree of SFX by indicating that CoM exists...it presupposes a bit as to how mental powers work generally in that they "should" "more or less" (explanation on chosen quotes in a moment) work. I say "should" because, after all, it is a rule now as to CoM, and this indicates that like types of mind work along the lines (adjustable, granted) of Human, Animal, Alien as a dichotomy (I'm leaving out Machine only because we all seem to universally agree as to this being a useful part of the CoM construct). Where they do not, it is aberrant from the standard definition (not saying aberrant is bad, just that it is). So, literally, I believe the system is indicating a "should" as to the fundamental workings of mental powers, which is an SFX under-pinning, just as ED/PD is an SFX under-pinning to all physical attack manifestations. I put "more or less" in quotes because, again, this is a rather literal view of the rules, as they suggest that the GM may change these classes, but in the absence of much more information or rationale, there leaves a strong suggestion that change really is something to be thought about carefully and therefore the existing classes are somehow sound.

 

Given that I don't see whatsoever a rationale to presuppose that in an overwhelming number of settings across all genra or as critical to even the most basic gameplay in significant genra (which is where I would place the bar for inclusion in the core rules) that the SFX of mental powers manifest along these lines, I see this as an unfair intrusion of SFX.

 

I.E., SFX = any information on how a power or talent or such manifests in actual game-play for the character, and this construct does presuppose something about that manifestation, and, notably, something deeper merely than organic vs inorganic targets.

 

This is not an attempt to change your mind, but merely to be clear what I mean by this bearing on SFX (whether or not that is appropriate, but I tried to explain a bit further as to why I do not see it as appropriate in this case).

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I disagree. Classes of Mind do not presuppose a specific structure for mental powers. At best' date=' it encourages an undefined maliable structure. It does not shut out anything, as there is nothing to stop anyone from simply saying "okay, [i']EVERYTHING[/i] is considered human class in this game". I think it rather silly of you to think that it somehow prevents you from saying that.

It discourages one from saying that, and that to me is enough of a cause for immediate criticism.

 

Page 567: "However, changing the rules can be dangerous. One of the key concepts underlying the HERO System is that of game balance. The HERO System has been designed so that the cost of things, and the rules applicable to them, are reasonable balanced. ... One [game element of same cost] may be better than another in a given situation, but overall the usefulness should balance out."

 

Emphases NOT mine, they are from the book.

 

While naturally there is encouragement to adapt and modify as needed, all rules changes, particularly those affecting cost, need to bear this (reasonable) comment in mind. Given that the codification is made of Alien/Animal/Human, the strong suggestion is that there is a related game balance issue that this resolves "overall".

 

For those unfamiliar with prior editions of HERO, this becomes a more gripping concern from lack of prior system familiarity. As stated CoM is therefore a disservice to future generations.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

To separate this out' date=' on a level of detail, I don't disagree, but the concept of "radar" versus "sonar" versus "infrared vision" and such at least have a tangible and singular basis. I really don't think that mental abilities do have a tangible one, and they certainly don't have a singular one.[/quote']

 

I see, what is the singular and tangible basis of “sonar� Is it the mechanical device used by the military in WWII? Is it an ultrasound monitor used in a medical lab? Is it a bat or dolphin’s echolocation ability? Does having Discriminatory on your Sonar enable you to tell the difference between a copper and steel plate like it does for a dolphin?

 

Infrared perception: Gila monster, or infrared cammera? Can Infrared perception bought with targeting enable you to target through wall of typical home, the way some infrared cammeras do or do you have to buy N-ray vision to do that?

 

Out of curiousity' date=' what are you referring to in that last sentence? [/quote']

 

Specifically, on page 194 of 5E, not 5Er, “Power Only Works In Intense Magnetic Fields†is given a set value of –2 in the table “Limited Powers Example.†In the text of the paragraph that spans the two columns indicates that the value for that specific example can range from –1/4 to –2 depending on campaign. In reality all the example limitations should have made some sort attempt to put the example into some sort of context. “Power only works in Daylight†obviously means that there is a “night†and a “dayâ€, but it isn’t clear if you have to be in direct daylight, or if overcast is OK.

 

Because SS is consistent' date=' at least, with existing mechanics and introduces nothing new and divergent. [/quote']

 

It is consistent with existing mechanics?

 

Which ones?

 

Body Affecting Powers? So I have to pay points to look like I’ve gotten taller, and more points if I want to sound taller, and points if I want to be people to actually feel my head at 4†high instead of 2†high?

 

So you’ve allowed the touch group to cause physical effects/changes when using a Sense Affecting Power? A touch Images can bend bars enough to let you pass through? I can use a Darkness vs. the Touch Group automatically blocks Radar?

 

No EGO. That's a simple mechanical issue. The lack of EGO reflects the lack of willpower of non-sentient machines.

 

What does that have to do with what I was saying in the quote above it?

 

Your argument seems to boil down to "2 wrongs make a right" - just because other parts of the system are problematic doesn't excuse creating yet another problematic mechanic.

 

If I was attempting to convince you that the Class of Mind structure should be in the rules, you are correct. I’m not attempting to convince you of that. Go back to my first post. I’m pointing out how and why your arguments are failing to convince me.

 

Your argument is that it this mechanic is fundamentally against the basic premise of the Hero System is flawed, because we have multiple examples of exceptions to what you claim is the basic premise. You have to provide a better argument than “I think the mechanic is flawed†or “I don’t like the mechanic†for to convince me that the fact it is an exception rule means that it should be removed.

 

If the mechanic is flawed, than it should be removed, because it is flawed, and all other mechanics that are flawed in the same ways should be removed. If something you claim is a flaw in a mechanic exists in other mechanics than you have to explain why it is a flaw for this mechanic and is not a flaw in another mechanic, so far I’m not swayed by “real world requirements.â€

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Clarifcation:

 

Actually there's a specific rule in the section (Before Combat: 5th Edition page 227: Simulated Senses) for doing this. It might be something you overlooked.

 

Again, Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I was referencing that rule specifically. In 5E (I do not have 5Er), only using it to simulate one sense group is discussed. There is no discussion of how to handle the situation where a sense is to be treated as two different sense groups at the same time.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Hope you don't mind me chiming in yours and Hugh's exchange...just a couple points, heavily snipped original post:

 

It is not superior' date=' but it is not [b']inferior[/b] either, or at least neither you nor Zornwil have set forth an argument to convince me that your preferred method is superior.

 

Until the problem statement is clear - and beyond Machines it is not - that is not an issue. All that needs to be identified is that the existing methodologies are adequate and that this subsystem lends little to that. There is no burden to prove a better way, only a burden, for those supporting the rule, to prove that it solves some particular problem and a burden on those opposed to prove that it has no special, compelling advantage over existing methods. If it has only a marginal advantage, I would say back to the drawing board as it introduces a whole new system paradigm.

 

Even if only one character takes the Limitation “not vs. Women†you have to define for your campaign what constitutes a woman. Does Aylee from Sluggy Freelance ( http://www.sluggy.com) count as a “woman� How about Jocasta from the Avengers? How about a female Chimpanzee?

 

Yes, but this is handled in a straight-forward manner by simply ensuring the SFX are understood. Is it based on the character's belief of whether the target is female, or the target's belief, or biological factors? That is simply the normal part of the character definition process, and as others have stated is still necessary with CoM, so what is CoM really buying aside from resolving the situation with machines with no EGO?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Basically' date=' I think there is absolutely no basis for assumption, one way or another, as to how Mental Powers or minds work, SFX-wise. The only assumption I [i']can[/i] make, it that everyone will have a different idea as to how do they work, could work, and should work. Some people might think the concept of how they work would be universal, others do not.

 

I think this highlights a key point. Classes of mind seeks to define how mental powers work in a conceptual, rather than a mechanical, fashion. Defining "Classes of Mind" as the "official" default concept for mental powers is, to me, akin to defining "Memorize, fire and forget" as the "official" default concept for magic.

 

Hero system does not need, and should not have "official default" conceptual frameworks. It should provide the mechanics for the user to construct any conceptual framework they desire, with the minimum possible orientation to any specific framework.

[atlascott]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Hero system does not need' date=' and should not have "official default" conceptual frameworks. It should provide the mechanics for the user to construct any conceptual framework they desire, with the minimum possible orientation to any specific framework.[/quote']

 

 

I disagree. An 'official' approach with published variants make the system easier to use for beginners, and gives more experienced HERO users more options and examples. If the stock approach doesn't approximate the feel you are shooting for, then change it, and your changes can be quickly explained by reference to its similarities and differences with the 'official' approach.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I see, what is the singular and tangible basis of “sonar� Is it the mechanical device used by the military in WWII? Is it an ultrasound monitor used in a medical lab? Is it a bat or dolphin’s echolocation ability? Does having Discriminatory on your Sonar enable you to tell the difference between a copper and steel plate like it does for a dolphin?

 

Infrared perception: Gila monster, or infrared cammera? Can Infrared perception bought with targeting enable you to target through wall of typical home, the way some infrared cammeras do or do you have to buy N-ray vision to do that??

 

Depends on SFX. These are exactly the questions one asks the player. Thankfully, the rules do not go into this level of detail, for which I am grateful as I wouldn't want it dictated.

 

Specifically, on page 194 of 5E, not 5Er, “Power Only Works In Intense Magnetic Fields†is given a set value of –2 in the table “Limited Powers Example.†In the text of the paragraph that spans the two columns indicates that the value for that specific example can range from –1/4 to –2 depending on campaign. In reality all the example limitations should have made some sort attempt to put the example into some sort of context. “Power only works in Daylight†obviously means that there is a “night†and a “dayâ€, but it isn’t clear if you have to be in direct daylight, or if overcast is OK.

 

Okay, thx.

 

It is consistent with existing mechanics?

 

Which ones?

 

Body Affecting Powers? So I have to pay points to look like I’ve gotten taller, and more points if I want to sound taller, and points if I want to be people to actually feel my head at 4†high instead of 2†high?

 

So you’ve allowed the touch group to cause physical effects/changes when using a Sense Affecting Power? A touch Images can bend bars enough to let you pass through? I can use a Darkness vs. the Touch Group automatically blocks Radar?

 

It is consistent with the ES rules, for right or wrong. I suggest it is at least partially wrong, and as to your latter paragraph I therefore naturally don't deal with these issues.

 

What does that have to do with what I was saying in the quote above it?

 

Nothing, I misread your point...

 

If I was attempting to convince you that the Class of Mind structure should be in the rules, you are correct. I’m not attempting to convince you of that. Go back to my first post. I’m pointing out how and why your arguments are failing to convince me.

 

I'm unclear...I was pointing out that your examples cited where in other places of the system they may have broken things cited as broken with CoM. If that is true, it simply condemns those parts of the system and is irrelevant to whether CoM is good or bad (except as to where those parts of the system establish a specific preexisting mechanic that CoM is relating to).

 

Your argument is that it this mechanic is fundamentally against the basic premise of the Hero System is flawed, because we have multiple examples of exceptions to what you claim is the basic premise. You have to provide a better argument than “I think the mechanic is flawed†or “I don’t like the mechanic†for to convince me that the fact it is an exception rule means that it should be removed.

 

If the mechanic is flawed, than it should be removed, because it is flawed, and all other mechanics that are flawed in the same ways should be removed. If something you claim is a flaw in a mechanic exists in other mechanics than you have to explain why it is a flaw for this mechanic and is not a flaw in another mechanic, so far I’m not swayed by “real world requirements.â€

 

Well, you don't have to be swayed by it, this may be an issue where we have a core difference. First and foremost, I think you might be ignoring that I have agreed that there is often an improper handling of these real-world requirements as manifested in the system. But there is another difference here, and I am saying it is an important consideration and I sene you are saying that it is not, and that difference is that these attempts to model real world situations are necessary and as such these system inadequacies are necessary evils; if they are flawed due to various constrictions/restraints in HERO, these may be truly necessary evils and not fixable. If they roughly approximate the desired effect or at least allow people to do so, then it may "have" to be acceptable and if not one has to find another system. But CoM does not fall into the class of something that has been required, at least to my way of thinking. You may not be swayed because you consider that there is no systemic necessity to reflect real-world situations as you've indicated so you see a direct parallel to CoM; I do see a systemic necessity so I see cause for divergence.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I disagree. An 'official' approach with published variants make the system easier to use for beginners' date=' and gives more experienced HERO users more options and examples. If the stock approach doesn't approximate the feel you are shooting for, then change it, and your changes can be quickly explained by reference to its similarities and differences with the 'official' approach.[/quote']

There's a fair and real axiomatic difference. To me, while it's good to encourage new gamers, that is an unfair system compromise and dilutes the toolkit. It's fine for a "based on HERO" game, but not the core rules. Of course, you vary and for a fair and good reason. But, and with all due respect, I say this lessens HERO's role as a toolkit, because it becomes harder to distinguish what is truly core and what is simply "convenience".