Mental Powers

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

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

 

The alternative, a cost of 180 points to have a 60 AP mental power which affects animals, humans and fuzzy blue things from Alpha Centauri, is no more appealing to me when other powers affect all three without such modifiers.

 

Any system that makes certain classes of minds more difficult to affect is going to have to define those groups' date=' 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? [/quote']

 

And I need only make this determination with the player and the GM, which I will do from the very well-defined special effects this one player has written out for WHY his mental power affects only women. And there may well be a second character out there whose power does not affect women, and whose special effects will mean that the decision for that character is different than for the first.

 

When the default is set by the game system, the definition needs to be provided up front, in suficient detail to allow players (and GM) to know exactly what the ground rules are. The player has no choice but to define what classes he can and cannot affect, and cannot simply decide his mental power is "universal".

 

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']

 

Fortunately, there is no game-defined decision in this regard, so you and your GM can sit down and tailor-make this unusual power so it gets the results you envision the power having, not an arbitrary default unnecessarily set by the game system.

 

Gee' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

In my little world, Hunted does not mean "every time I make the roll, your Hunted shows up, in game time, and engages you in combat". If it does in yours, the same problem exists - people will get sick of the hunter. This is also a good reason to avoid 14- Hunteds.

 

Similarly, Vulnerability is quite effective when it does show up, and affects the character's tactical choices. "Common" sfx will generally show up frequently enough without looking forced, at least in my games.

 

However, there are not a lot of mentalists who affect unusual mind classes, so it will look forced if I make them show up as often as mentalists who affect the Human class of minds. The default system enshrines the "limitation" for only affecting alien-class minds as -0. I define the limitation for "not versus fire" or "only versus electricity", so the game has not (and should not) attempted to define the frequency of such SFX in my specific game. Nor should it seek to define how common alien minds will be.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I think you are overexaggerating the need to have classes of mind in the first place. Without them, the need to define them vanishes quite nicely. I'm also curious why, if my players cannot agree on definitions of classes of mind, that's not the game system's problem, but the inability of your players to comprehend the meaning of "toolkit" is the game system's problem. Perhaps the answer is that your players would be more comfortable playing a game which provides setting-specific rules, and not that my group should accept the imposition of setting-specific rules overriding the generic toolkit.

 

You and I have not really gotten into this' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

In exactly the same way that powers which cost no END do not go in an elemental control is a defining requirement. It is the default rule included in the mechanics, and applies unless the GM consciously changes it (overall or for any specific instance).

 

If your players cannot understand imposing a requirement not contained in the core rules, how can they understand changing the parameters set out in the core rules?

 

You are quite right' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The player's sfx should define this. And the player may very well define animals in such a fashion that ants are excluded. If not, it is up to the player to explain, to your satisfaction, the SFX (rubber science) of his powers. The player should not be constrained by SFX pre-set for the game system as a whole (ie "classes of mind").

 

You will forgive me' date=' 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€[/quote']

 

I'm specifically asking for a genre example where ALL aliens are immune to mental powers of humans, and vice versa (with rare exceptions explicable as "purchasing the adder"). I've yet to see one.

 

For my money, the Ferengi immunity is just as effectively explained as a campaign ground rule ("all mental powers have the -0 limitation not vs Ferengi"). However, a large point cost for the immunity would explain the relative lack of other game-useful skills and abilities Ferengi seem to possess

 

And Sentinels are easily explained as either mental defense or (more likely) automaton status.

 

To justify inclusion of "classes of mind" as a core rule, however, I would expect classes of mind to be near-universal in all the source material. It isn't even close. Hence it should be an optional rule for generating certain specific settings.

 

Similarly, I would not accept a Hero system default that magic spells must be memorized daily, and are forgotten when cast. It's not universal in the source material. Hero should be able to duplicate such a magic system, but it should not be a default of the Hero system.

[Hugh Neilson]

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']

 

To me, the "official" approach belongs in "official" settings. If there were an "official" hero approach to magic, would Hero pull the Turakian Age setting, or the Valdrian Age setting? Their magic systems are, I understand, quite different.

 

To me, the core rules should be about mechanics. Genre books should be about options. Setting books should apply the options in a specific game setting context.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

If your players cannot understand imposing a requirement not contained in the core rules' date=' how can they understand changing the parameters set out in the core rules?[/quote']

 

This is a key point, and to expand on it, one could argue that this rule actually exacerbates the problem with such players - "hey, right here in the rulebook, it says aliens are different than humans, what the heck makes you so bright you can just change it?"

 

Of course, the key solution is not to play with such folk, but of course that's easier said than done if they are friends or one is desperate to game and they are the only group around. I have had one player give me a hard time around something related to genre and "setting mechanics", relating to when they shot a cable in an elevator shaft, expecting it to just stop (which apparently is a real-world thing) but I was confused and had it plummet (which is a more common comic book/movie thing). I agreed to his interpretation only because his character would have known the impact and was trying to do something specific, but I explained in the future to be clear on intent because of how I was basing things. Anyway, that's the only real argument I've had on this front, it was over 10 years ago.

 

For my money, the Ferengi immunity is just as effectively explained as a campaign ground rule ("all mental powers have the -0 limitation not vs Ferengi"). However, a large point cost for the immunity would explain the relative lack of other game-useful skills and abilities Ferengi seem to possess

 

Hey, lay off the Ferengi, they're cool!

 

[schir1964]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I was referencing that rule specifically. In 5E (I do not have 5Er)' date=' 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.[/quote']

Just read it again to be sure. Yes it does show how a sense is treated as two sense groups. The example of N-Ray vision specifically.

 

Quote: "It would be affected by a Flash versus the Sight Group, or by a Flash versus N-Ray Perception."

 

Powers that affect the Sight Group and Unusual Group: N-Ray Perception affect the specific power N-Ray perception. This treatment carries over any other two groups that might be combined, such as Seeing Sound, a Flash versus Sight Group or a Flash versus the Hearing Group would blind this sense.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask Steve Long to confirm or check the Rules FAQ.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Just read it again to be sure. Yes it does show how a sense is treated as two sense groups. The example of N-Ray vision specifically.

 

Quote: "It would be affected by a Flash versus the Sight Group, or by a Flash versus N-Ray Perception."

 

Powers that affect the Sight Group and Unusual Group: N-Ray Perception affect the specific power N-Ray perception. This treatment carries over any other two groups that might be combined, such as Seeing Sound, a Flash versus Sight Group or a Flash versus the Hearing Group would blind this sense.

 

If you don't believe me, just ask Steve Long to confirm or check the Rules FAQ.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

If it is that is a change from 5E to to 5Er, page 227 5E under Simulated Sense Group, it states that the Unusual Sense Group can not be targeted as a whole, only as individual powers. So the N-Ray perception in this case is affected by powers that target it specifically or by things that target the sense group it is "simulating," but it still doesn't talk about a sense that is two sense groups that can both be affected as a group, which is what I was getting at.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

This is a key point' date=' and to expand on it, one could argue that this rule actually exacerbates the problem with such players - "hey, right here in the rulebook, it says aliens are different than humans, what the heck makes you so bright you can just change it?" [/quote']

 

The Basic Classes include Human, Animal, Machine and Alien; the GM can add other classes or alter these as he sees fit.

 

“I can read, lizard boy. Now, do you want your reptilian Mental Illusionist to have both the Mammalian and Reptilian classes of mind or not?â€

 

I’m sorry, but you guys are not convincing me that this is going to create for me any more problems or that some how those those problems will be worse than theese:

 

“Hey, caris, I want to play a Ferengi in your Star Trek game.â€

“OK, Sean, here is the write up for the package deal.â€

“Uh, caris, why do I have to spend 33 points for +100 Ego (-2 not vs. “telepathic†special effect)? Are you planning on bring telepaths in to the game?â€

“I’m not planning on it, but just in case I’ll have it there.â€

“OK, no thanks, I’d rather not play a Ferengi.â€

 

Or

 

“I’m going to Mind Control the leader of the Sentinels.â€

“You can’t Sally, its an automaton.â€

“Caris, isn’t ‘automaton leader†an oxymoron?â€

“Common, you know what I mean.â€

“Caris, he was programmed to destroy all mutants, and protect humanity. It is now threatening to blow up the planet. I think he has evolved from his core programming.â€

“You said that you wanted to be a telepath like Xavier, and Xavier never just MC’d the Sentinels.â€

“Well, Xavier most have bought a Limitation than.’

“OK, fine we’ll just say your character had the Limitation, and work out the points later.â€

“Oh, no I don’t want that Limitation, now. I want to be able to MC the Sentinels.â€

(Caris screams and bangs head against the table.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I’m sorry' date=' but you guys are not convincing me that this is going to create for me any more problems or that some how those those problems will be worse than theese:[/quote']

 

You are clearly looking for something I (and I suspect Zornwil) is not. I am not looking for evidence that Classes of Mind is "no worse than other approaches".

 

From a conceptual perspective, I am looking for evidence that classes of mind is so entrenched in these abilities, throughout the source material, that the absence of classes of mind would clearly depart from the manner in which these abilities function in the source material. From a conceptual perspective, I would be equally against a sructure which PREVENTED adoption of a class of mind structure as an optional setting-specific rule, as I believe it to be a valid SFX based mechanic appropriately imposed on such powers in a setting where this is appropriate.

 

“Hey, caris, I want to play a Ferengi in your Star Trek game.â€

“OK, Sean, here is the write up for the package deal.â€

“Uh, caris, why do I have to spend 33 points for +100 Ego (-2 not vs. “telepathic†special effect)? Are you planning on bring telepaths in to the game?â€

“I’m not planning on it, but just in case I’ll have it there.â€

“OK, no thanks, I’d rather not play a Ferengi.â€

 

I'm interested that you think you require +50 Ego or +100 mental defense (+100 would cost 67 under your parameters) to achieve the desired result, but that's just mathing it out. For myself, I would consider imposing a -1/4 (or -0) limitation on the Mind Control powers of betazeds that their powers "do not work on Ferengi". Add any other species where you consider this appropriate, based on your vision of the ST universe, and add the same limitation to any other telepathic races, and away we go.

 

If classes of mind were so key to the ST universe, why is it that every time we hear a Vulcan say "No mind meld has ever been performed with one of your species", he goes on to successfully perform one successfully? Generally, the Vulcan in question has extremely limited mental powers, so it's not like we picked the Telepath Laureate of Vulcan to attempt this previously unheard of feat.

 

“Hey, caris, I want to play a Klingon in your Star Trek game.â€

“OK, Ted, here is the write up for the package deal.â€

 

Weeks later

 

“Uh, caris, why how did the renegades know we were coming this wayâ€

“They had a telepath who read your thoughts.â€

“What? I'm an ALIEN - the rules say Humans nornally can't read ALIEN thoughts. What gives?â€

 

OR

 

"Sean, your Ferengi is under the control of the mysterious alien."

"No way, Caris - Ferengi aren't affected by mental powers."

"Sean, they aren't affected by mental powers for which human-class minds are the default. This alien has an alien-class mind (maybe he's a rare Ferengi telepath), and his powers default to alien-class minds like yours. That's why he didn't control the vulcans, humans, andorians, Klingons or betazeds on your crew."

 

 

I don't consider a "solution" which simply creates different problems to be a solution at all.

 

Or

 

“I’m going to Mind Control the leader of the Sentinels.â€

“You can’t Sally, its an automaton.â€

“Caris, isn’t ‘automaton leader†an oxymoron?â€

“Common, you know what I mean.â€

“Caris, he was programmed to destroy all mutants, and protect humanity. It is now threatening to blow up the planet. I think he has evolved from his core programming.â€

“You said that you wanted to be a telepath like Xavier, and Xavier never just MC’d the Sentinels.â€

“Well, Xavier most have bought a Limitation than.’

“OK, fine we’ll just say your character had the Limitation, and work out the points later.â€

“Oh, no I don’t want that Limitation, now. I want to be able to MC the Sentinels.â€

(Caris screams and bangs head against the table.)

 

Perhaps Caris might simply have said "as they have been demonstrated to be in the comics, Sentinels are immune to mental powers." Whether this results from a -0 limitation on all mental' powers imposed by the setting, a "machine class" mind (with an ego score), automaton status,ego DCV levels, invisibility to mental powers or mental defense is irrelevanjt. Your character finds he or she is completely unable to mind control the Senitnels.

 

Really, if your players are going to argue all your calls, I suspect you'll find the mechanics of whatever system you play, whether imposed in the rule books or by house rule, aren't going to improve matters.

 

The crux of the matter is that, to me, the "classes of mind" framework is not supported as a core rule, conceptually, by the source material. There are numerous other mneans of achieving the same effect. Whether an analysis of these means results in the conclusion that classes of mind is the best approach, an equivalent approach por detrimental to the desired feel will depend on the setting and feel being replicated. And, because this leaves Classes of Mind anywhere other than clearly the best choice for virtually every genre and setting, and because it does not provide for any mechanic not otherwise duplicated under the existing rules (for which reason, I would retain the "electronic devices without Ego" rule, which I do not necessarily agree is the same as "machine class minds"), it does not belong in the core rules.

 

There is no reason, however, that it should not appear as an optional rule (preferably one of several) for a setting where certain types of beings are partially or wholly immune to mental powers.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

“I can read, lizard boy. Now, do you want your reptilian Mental Illusionist to have both the Mammalian and Reptilian classes of mind or not?â€

 

I’m sorry, but you guys are not convincing me that this is going to create for me any more problems or that some how those those problems will be worse than theese:

 

“Hey, caris, I want to play a Ferengi in your Star Trek game.â€

“OK, Sean, here is the write up for the package deal.â€

“Uh, caris, why do I have to spend 33 points for +100 Ego (-2 not vs. “telepathic†special effect)? Are you planning on bring telepaths in to the game?â€

“I’m not planning on it, but just in case I’ll have it there.â€

“OK, no thanks, I’d rather not play a Ferengi.â€

 

Or

 

“I’m going to Mind Control the leader of the Sentinels.â€

“You can’t Sally, its an automaton.â€

“Caris, isn’t ‘automaton leader†an oxymoron?â€

“Common, you know what I mean.â€

“Caris, he was programmed to destroy all mutants, and protect humanity. It is now threatening to blow up the planet. I think he has evolved from his core programming.â€

“You said that you wanted to be a telepath like Xavier, and Xavier never just MC’d the Sentinels.â€

“Well, Xavier most have bought a Limitation than.’

“OK, fine we’ll just say your character had the Limitation, and work out the points later.â€

“Oh, no I don’t want that Limitation, now. I want to be able to MC the Sentinels.â€

(Caris screams and bangs head against the table.)

I'm not denying the clause. But if people don't accept additions to something that isn't already there I don't know why they wouldn't challenge it if, for example, like me, one "shrunk" the groups to Human+Animal+Alien+other versus Machine. That's all I'm saying. Well, that's not all, that plus it seems to me if you revise the mechanic altogether, now you have a bigger problem with such players - after all you outright "broke" the (for the situation, inadequate) "rules".

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

You are clearly looking for something I (and I suspect Zornwil) is not. I am not looking for evidence that Classes of Mind is "no worse than other approaches".

 

From a conceptual perspective, I am looking for evidence that classes of mind is so entrenched in these abilities, throughout the source material, that the absence of classes of mind would clearly depart from the manner in which these abilities function in the source material. From a conceptual perspective, I would be equally against a sructure which PREVENTED adoption of a class of mind structure as an optional setting-specific rule, as I believe it to be a valid SFX based mechanic appropriately imposed on such powers in a setting where this is appropriate.

 

(snip)

 

Yes, as I noted earlier, just because a wholly new construct is "no worse" than the existing alternatives is no justification at all; that's actually a reason specifically to jettison it - a new construct must be justified, because it is yet another rule to learn (or at least to study and set aside). Just to reemphasize the point, a new construct requires (to me) a better justification, even, than "a bit better" or "somewhat better, but with other complications". It has to be clearly superior.

 

I am not 100% with an implication of Hugh's comments here (limited as they are, he may expand on them as they're simply one set of comments out of many), in that I'm willing to go beyond the simulation point of view and embrace a mechanic that greatly streamlines the system or at least common, all-genre situations even if it has a trade-off to simulation, so long as of course it isn't "unduly" (subjective, of course) intrusive. Martial arts, to me personally, are a good example. I agree with caris that the mix of SFX in them creates a number of potential issues, but given that they address a number of things players want and they are not (again, obviously in my opinion) terribly counter to any given genre and that they function rather well, I can accept their shortcomings in ability to be replicated into new martial arts maneuvers (UMA does have a good guide on this but it is optional, it's a bit complicated, and I believe (?) that subsequent study indicates that the model isn't well-replicated to the existing maneuvers, hence it is a bit out of whack) as well as the SFX embedding. However, it is an area that would be well-revised if/as possible, I simply don't have a good alternative and haven't seen an acceptable one yet.

[schir1964]

Re: Mental Powers

 

If it is that is a change from 5E to to 5Er' date=' page 227 5E under Simulated Sense Group, it states that the Unusual Sense Group can not be targeted as a whole, only as individual powers. So the N-Ray perception in this case is affected by powers that target it specifically or by things that target the sense group it is "simulating," but it still doesn't talk about a sense that is two sense groups that can both be affected as a group, which is what I was getting at.[/quote']

First, I only have 5th Edition at this time, although I've been read through the Revised Edition also. Read up more about the Unusual Sense Groups and how they work. It's a subtle thing and easily overlooked.

 

1) Yes, the Unusual Sense Group, the whole thing, infininity, etc... can not be targeted as whole.

2) However, a Unusual Sense Grouip subdivision, such as Unusual Sense Group: All X-Ray Type visions inclusive, can be targeted as a whole.

 

So you have two groups that include multiple senses,

1) Sight Group, and

2) Unusual Sense Group: X-Ray,

 

A sense that uses both groups can now be affected by a Flash that affects either group. And this rule carries over into any sense the uses two group, so don't let the Unusual Group complexity confuse you on that part. End of story.

 

Again, check the FAQ or Steve Long directly. This is how it works, per the rules.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Yes' date=' as I noted earlier, just because a wholly new construct is "no worse" than the existing alternatives is no justification at all; that's actually a reason specifically to jettison it - a new construct must be justified, because it is yet another rule to learn (or at least to study and set aside). Just to reemphasize the point, a new construct requires (to me) a better justification, even, than "a bit better" or "somewhat better, but with other complications". It has to be clearly superior. [/quote']

 

I would agree. It's not enough there be some benefit to the change. The benefit has to be sufficient that, even after considering all downsides of the change, inckuding any added complexity, and the simple fact that change in itself is more complex than staying the same, the end result is clearly preferable.

 

As an example of this, I would be reluctant to change game systems unless the new system is clearly head and shoulders superior to the existing one. Learning a new system is a big "cost of change", so the benefits would have to be substantial to justify it.

 

As to your other comments, I don't think we disagree. I can live with the martial arts, for example, simply because they exist in every genre and setting I can think of and some mechanic is needed to replicate them. I've yet to see a mechanic which works more effectively, and I've yet to encounter source material that cannot be simulated with the martial arts structure under the system. Finally, the mechanic can be applied consistently (there's no debate to how much "10 points of maneuvers" are, nor to what +1 OCV, +2 DCV, +2 DC" means).

 

Contrast to classes of mind, where:

 

- this mechanic is not in evidence in many settings of any genre

 

- imposition of '-0' limitations in house rules can simulate the same effect where it is needed for a setting

 

- the mechanic is not effective or consistent (look at the number of posters using a different one, and the discrepancy between definitions even by those who consider themselves playing under the default)

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I would agree. It's not enough there be some benefit to the change. The benefit has to be sufficient that, even after considering all downsides of the change, inckuding any added complexity, and the simple fact that change in itself is more complex than staying the same, the end result is clearly preferable.

 

As an example of this, I would be reluctant to change game systems unless the new system is clearly head and shoulders superior to the existing one. Learning a new system is a big "cost of change", so the benefits would have to be substantial to justify it.

 

As to your other comments, I don't think we disagree. I can live with the martial arts, for example, simply because they exist in every genre and setting I can think of and some mechanic is needed to replicate them. I've yet to see a mechanic which works more effectively, and I've yet to encounter source material that cannot be simulated with the martial arts structure under the system. Finally, the mechanic can be applied consistently (there's no debate to how much "10 points of maneuvers" are, nor to what +1 OCV, +2 DCV, +2 DC" means).

 

Contrast to classes of mind, where:

 

- this mechanic is not in evidence in many settings of any genre

 

- imposition of '-0' limitations in house rules can simulate the same effect where it is needed for a setting

 

- the mechanic is not effective or consistent (look at the number of posters using a different one, and the discrepancy between definitions even by those who consider themselves playing under the default)

I was just thinking we might disagree specifically as to the criteria re rules inclusion on this regard, but apparently not.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

It discourages one from saying that' date=' and that to me is enough of a cause for immediate criticism.[/quote'] Not it doesn't. It deliberately leaves the classes undefinded (you have to look in the FAQ just to find a "default", which is not in the rules at all). I have no idea why you feel discouraged from something like this, or if you don't why you feel others might.

 

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.

This does not apply. Nothing in the rules are being changed, simply used. Defining how classes of minds work is no different than defining how many starting points player characters get. It's not a change of the rules.

 

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.

 

Oddly, the only people I've seen even comment on it are the old timers. My guess is that the newbies don't have a problem with it. In any case, there is no element of new players not knowing better. A new player is still a player and is likely to be able to think and analyse... this is evidenced by the numerous posts about various rules, constructs and so on we see on these boards. New players aren't stupid, and the fact we don't see thread after thread of some newbie asking about the f---ed up classes of mind rule should indecate the rule isn't broken.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

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.

 

I agree, and Steve should not have answered that question in the FAQ. But that's the FAQ, not the rules. The rules are fine, and presents a system that allows for the way you think, and the say I think. You system only allows for the way you think. As such, the current rule is superior as it allows for more options. If you don't like those options, don't use them.

[Fox1]

Re: Mental Powers

 

If you don't like those options' date=' don't use them.[/quote']

 

People seem to hate that concept. They want a ruleset that always agrees with them.

 

Myself, I don't see the point. If you want something to work different than the published version- make it a house rule, let your players know about it, and call it good.

 

After all, I'm smarter than the current crop of game designers- they couldn't possibly keep up with me.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I am looking for evidence that classes of mind is so entrenched in these abilities' date=' throughout the source material, that the absence of classes of mind would clearly depart from the manner in which these abilities function in the source material.[/quote']

Did you do this for EVERYTHING in the rules, or just classes of mind because you didn't like it? Why must it be "so entrenched"? How can it (or anything) be "so entrenched" when the source material has existed for over a centure and we haven't even had the rule for half a decade yet?

 

 

“Hey, caris, I want to play a Klingon in your Star Trek game.â€

“OK, Ted, here is the write up for the package deal.â€

 

Weeks later

 

“Uh, caris, why how did the renegades know we were coming this wayâ€

“They had a telepath who read your thoughts.â€

“What? I'm an ALIEN - the rules say Humans nornally can't read ALIEN thoughts. What gives?â€

 

OR

 

"Sean, your Ferengi is under the control of the mysterious alien."

"No way, Caris - Ferengi aren't affected by mental powers."

"Sean, they aren't affected by mental powers for which human-class minds are the default. This alien has an alien-class mind (maybe he's a rare Ferengi telepath), and his powers default to alien-class minds like yours. That's why he didn't control the vulcans, humans, andorians, Klingons or betazeds on your crew."

 

 

I don't consider a "solution" which simply creates different problems to be a solution at all.

I don't see any different problems? In all of these examples I see the same problem. Players or GMs that don't understand the rules, or are trying to pull something on the other. What's wrong with the GM telling the player "no, you're klingon, they are human... you are quite familiar with each other and not alien at all." or "hey, did I say this was a betazed? No I said myserious alien... like the creatures from the wormhole that are proven to be able to affect the minds of ferengi."

 

The rules are creating these problems, the players/GM are. You say so yourself:

 

Really, if your players are going to argue all your calls, I suspect you'll find the mechanics of whatever system you play, whether imposed in the rule books or by house rule, aren't going to improve matters.

 

Perhaps Caris might simply have said "as they have been demonstrated to be in the comics, Sentinels are immune to mental powers." Whether this results from a -0 limitation on all mental' powers imposed by the setting, a "machine class" mind (with an ego score), automaton status,ego DCV levels, invisibility to mental powers or mental defense is irrelevanjt. Your character finds he or she is completely unable to mind control the Senitnels.

 

This is funny. Absolutely hillarious. You are against using an established rule to define a class of mind (and allowing for the option of an adder to affect that class) on the grounds that it gives certain character free immunity to mental powers, yet you walk around handing out required -0 Limitations to make certain concepts immune (and preventing players from having a concept that can affect such things). What happens when you get a player that wants to play one of these?

 

The crux of the matter is that, to me, the "classes of mind" framework is not supported as a core rule, conceptually, by the source material.

Sure it it, it's just not supported by you.

There are numerous other mneans of achieving the same effect. Whether an analysis of these means results in the conclusion that classes of mind is the best approach, an equivalent approach por detrimental to the desired feel will depend on the setting and feel being replicated.

There, even you say it could be the best approach.

And, because this leaves Classes of Mind anywhere other than clearly the best choice for virtually every genre and setting, and because it does not provide for any mechanic not otherwise duplicated under the existing rules (for which reason, I would retain the "electronic devices without Ego" rule, which I do not necessarily agree is the same as "machine class minds"), it does not belong in the core rules.

I would then counter this by using your own arguement that the 4th edition and prior versions which lacked a class of minds therefore also be invalid. A lack of using class of minds, by your own arguement, it not clearly the best choice for vertually every genre and setting and therefore invalid and something else must be thought of. What what we can come up with that is not classes of mind, but also not classes of mind...

 

One more thing... provide evidence that the use of Limitations on Mental Powers do differentiate between powers that cannot affect certain types of targets and the use of the Classes of Mind rules for the same purpose is equal. Not same effect, but equal. As in the same. Same cost, same effect, same across the board, same everything. You can't. They are not the same, and each have different ramifications upon the game. One makes certain concepts "immune" to mental powers for "free" and the other grants mentalists "free" points because their concept is mentalist. This is not equal. Both are a valid method, but only the classes of mind rule allows for both under the standard rules.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

First, I only have 5th Edition at this time, although I've been read through the Revised Edition also. Read up more about the Unusual Sense Groups and how they work. It's a subtle thing and easily overlooked.

 

1) Yes, the Unusual Sense Group, the whole thing, infininity, etc... can not be targeted as whole.

2) However, a Unusual Sense Grouip subdivision, such as Unusual Sense Group: All X-Ray Type visions inclusive, can be targeted as a whole.

 

So you have two groups that include multiple senses,

1) Sight Group, and

2) Unusual Sense Group: X-Ray,

 

A sense that uses both groups can now be affected by a Flash that affects either group. And this rule carries over into any sense the uses two group, so don't let the Unusual Group complexity confuse you on that part. End of story.

 

Again, check the FAQ or Steve Long directly. This is how it works, per the rules.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I'm afraid that have still have to disagree with you. N-Ray Perception according to the book is a sense. In the write up for Enhanced Senses on pages 105-109, N-Ray Perception is listed as a sense, not as a sense group.

 

The Simulated Sense Rule is: a Sense which is based or "mimics" one of the standard Senses is avvected by Sense-Affecting Powers which affect the mimicked Sense's Sense Group and by any Sesne-Affectin Powers that specifically target that Sense.

 

I see no support in this statement that the Simulated Sense Rule covers or is meant to cover more than one Sense Group.

 

I don't need to ask Steve, because from outside the core rule book I have seen write up this situation. Usually it is for equipment, but the same logic would apply. He applies a limitation that reads "Affected as X Group as Well as Y Group."

 

Asking Steve also isn't useful, because the basis of this discussion is on the rules as written in the book. That Steve can fix a flaw, or clairify confusion isn't relavant to the discussion.

[schir1964]

Re: Mental Powers

 

But that's the FAQ' date=' [i']not[/i] the rules

Actually, this is where you disagree with Steve Long.

 

The FAQ are considered "Official" clarications and extensions of the rules. Steve considers anything that he answers there "Official Rules". He's changed his mind on couple of his own rulings in them, but he still considers them "Official". If you doubt that just ask him.

 

Now whether you, I, or anyone else accepts that fact is not relevant. He wrote the rules and he wrote the Offical FAQ to clarify those rules.

 

Now on the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't matter what's written the rules or in the FAQ, the GM is the final arbiter of how things work in his campaign. Regardless of what Steve Long may think or even the players in the game.

 

All that's being argued here, as far as I can tell, is what ruling would best fit to handle the needs of everyone who might need them.

 

For those who don't care what the rules say or the FAQ, changing the rules doesn't matter since they'll do what they want anyway.

 

For those who care about keeping things generic, consistent, flexible, or however you want to express it, changing the rules would benefit everyone, in their opnion.

 

The real question is to ask yourself which side you fall on.

 

Just My Observation Of The Debate

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Did you do this for EVERYTHING in the rules' date=' or just classes of mind because you didn't like it? Why must it be "so entrenched"? How [i']can[/i] it (or anything) be "so entrenched" when the source material has existed for over a centure and we haven't even had the rule for half a decade yet?

 

You don't seem to get my point. The source material should not be expected to bend to the Hero Sytem rules. The rules should be capale of emulating the source material. They should not dovetail with one type of source material, but should be capable of emulating a broad array of source material. Unless Classes of Mind is near-universal, across all genres, in the course material, I consider it an ainappropriate inclusion to the base rules. And I do not see classes of mind in sufficient source material to make it an appropriate inclusion in the core rules.

 

When I read the rules, I don't see anything jump out at me like Classes of Mind does as specifically imposing a setting rule on what should be a toolkit of mechanics.

 

As to the standard applied, I don't see anything in the fore rules which violates the principal of "toolkit", the principal of separating mechanics from special effects, to the same extent Classes of Mind does. And I see very few problems in the core rules which are so readily fixed. Open "Core Rules". Highlight "Classes of Mind". Strike "Control X". Open Ultimate Mentalist. Start chapter on optional rules. Strike "Control V". In other words, the core rules would not suffer, in my opinion, from removsal of classes of mind. Inclusion as an optional rule, used where appropriate to the game? I could support that 100%, even if I never use the rule in my games.

 

I don't see any different problems? In all of these examples I see the same problem. Players or GMs that don't understand the rules' date=' or are trying to pull something on the other. What's wrong with the GM telling the player "no, you're klingon, they are human... you are quite familiar with each other and not alien at all." or "hey, did I say this was a betazed? No I said myserious alien... like the creatures from the wormhole that are proven to be able to affect the minds of ferengi."[/quote']

 

What is classes of mind SOLVING? Should we add a "classes of body" rule so that extradimensional wierdlings are immune to physical damage? After all, Star Trek seems to abound with creatures that phasers have no effect on. The rule is not needed. Extraneous rules should not be part of the core system.

 

This is funny. Absolutely hillarious. You are against using an established rule to define a class of mind (and allowing for the option of an adder to affect that class) on the grounds that it gives certain character free immunity to mental powers' date=' yet you walk around handing out required -0 Limitations to make certain concepts immune (and preventing players from having a concept that [i']can[/i] affect such things). What happens when you get a player that wants to play one of these?

 

 

I am against including Classes of Mind or required -0 limitations as concepts included as standard core rules. I am for their inclusion as optional rules to be applied where the genre/game setting madates this. Do you have an inability top perceive the difference between the tools in the toolkit, and the application of those tools to a specific task?

 

I have no problem with a GM saying "In this game setting, certain creatures are, by default, immune to mental (or physical, or whatever subset of) powers. This is reflected as a mandatory -0 limitation on all such powers purchased." I do have a problem with the core rules themselves imposing this structure on all game settings. And, contrary to your constant statements above, the core rules provide for four specific classes of mind - Alien, Human, Machine and Animal. The FAQ does not have a question "what are the default classes of mind". The Mental Powers section begins with "What qualifies for the “Alien†class of minds?"

 

Sure it it, it's just not supported by you.

There, even you say it could be the best approach.

 

I say it could be the best approach in some cases. I also say it is not the best approach in every case, and is not a viable approach in all cases. As suich, I consider its inclusion as a core rule inappropriate. Just as I would consider "Magic is always simulated by memorizing spells which are forgotten upon casting" to be an inappropriate core rule, but certainly an option the system should be capable of permitting.

 

If I want to simulate the D&Dism of "magic resistance", I can do so by saying "some creatures are inherently resistant to magic, and all spells cast upon them will have a chance of failure. This is a -0 limitation which applies to all magical spells in this game setting". This does not mean I support the inclusion of a "classes of creature" core rule which renders some creatures invulnerable to magic.

 

I would then counter this by using your own arguement that the 4th edition and prior versions which lacked a class of minds therefore also be invalid. A lack of using class of minds' date=' by your own arguement, it not clearly the best choice for vertually every genre and setting and therefore invalid and something else must be thought of. What what we can come up with that is not classes of mind, but also not classes of mind...[/quote']

 

Are you saying the addition of an optional rule in 4e (3e, 2e, 1e) was impossible? I do not believe Clases of Mind belong in the core rules. They do, as several people have already pointed out, serve precisely the same purpose as simply imposing a -0 limitation on all mental powers that they do not affect certain types of targets, with an adder structure to permit affecting such targets at a cost. A -0 limitation seems quite adequate ton accomplish this. Making different classes more resistant, rather than immune, is also a viable approach. Broad classes of mind or very narrow classes of mind would work. Creatures immune to power types other than mental powers would also be quite adequate.

 

Presentation of the concept as "classes of mind" as an option in a book on mental powers, or a setting book where classes of mind form part of the setting, would be great. "Here is another option for GM's to use in customizing their game worlds" is desirable.

 

However, enshrining them as a core rule generally applicable to mental powers across all genres and settings unnecessarily and unduly limits the possibilities. "Here is the Hero Standard for mental powers" should not exist. There is no reason not to have a CU, a Turakian Age, a Terran Empire, or a "Hero Universe" standard for mental powers. However, cush standards should not be imposed as a core mechanical rule. This unduly limits the toolbox.

 

Such optional rules should exist to be added to the core mechanic as needed or desired. They should not be presented as "the way things normally work" for GM's to strip away.

 

One more thing... provide evidence that the use of Limitations on Mental Powers to differentiate between powers that cannot affect certain types of targets and the use of the Classes of Mind rules for the same purpose is equal. Not same effect' date=' but equal. As in the same. Same cost, same effect, same across the board, same everything. You can't. They are not the same, and each have different ramifications upon the game. One makes certain concepts "immune" to mental powers for "free" and the other grants mentalists "free" points because their concept is mentalist. This is not equal. Both are a valid method, but only the classes of mind rule allows for both under the standard rules.[/quote']

 

I do not agree the absence of "classes of mind" grants mentalists free points because they are mentalists. Would you also say the system grants free points to energy projectors, who may place a limitation on their energy blast because it "Does not affect animals"? Do you feel that BioFeedback Man, whose adjustment powers are "Halved effectiveness against targets with an unusal metaboliosm and no effect against targets lacking an organic metabolism" receives free points? No - they receive point breaks because their powers are restricted in effect. Only mental powers are singled out, by the core "classes of mind" rules, to be unable to affect a broad category of character builds solely due to those builds' special effects and back stories, while being mechanically identical.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

One issue not mentioned above, as far as I can see. It is a "Hero-ism" that every attack has a defense, and the defense is cheaper than the attack.

 

Under the Classes of Mind rule, according to the FAQ, it is possible to change your class of mind using Multiform to change to an identical being with a different class of mind. The cost of such a Multiform is 1/5 of the character points of the second form.

 

The cost of affecting a separate class of mind is 10 points. The "defense" is not being of that class of mind. That costs less than the adder only if the character is build on (and, after all experience, stays built on) less than 50 points in aggregate.

 

As such, Classes of Mind can be perceived to violate a core principal of Hero - "for every attack, a defense, and the defense costs less than the attack".

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I don't need to ask Steve' date=' because from outside the core rule book I have seen write up this situation. Usually it is for equipment, but the same logic would apply. He applies a limitation that reads "Affected as X Group as Well as Y Group."[/quote']

 

Chris, I owe you an appology. This is covered in the main rules, just not where either of expected it to be. It is on page 85 of the Hero System 5th Edition under Sensory powers. The exact limitation is discussed there. I withdraw that example as being irrelevant to the discussion.

[schir1964]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Missed this post.

 

I'm afraid that have still have to disagree with you. N-Ray Perception according to the book is a sense. In the write up for Enhanced Senses on pages 105-109' date=' N-Ray Perception is listed as a sense, not as a sense group.[/quote']

Correct, and what group does it belong to? Unusual Sense Group: N-Ray

 

Now personally, I don't write down on my character sheet: N-Ray Vision. I write down something like X-Ray Vision, Cosimic Vision, Thermalitic Visiion, or something like that based on the Special Effects and Limitation of the sense itself.

 

Each sense you define becomes a Sense Group in an of itself. It's possible to have two defined senses that are in the Unusual Sense Group, but use nearly identical mechanism SFXwise, and therefore fall into the same category of Unusual Sense Group for purposes of Flash, etc...

 

Sorry if you didn't get all this from the all the different places in the book, you'll have to take that up with Steve Long. Check FAQs or simply email him directly or post in the Rules section.

 

Can't help when it comes to how Steve Long presents his ideas.

 

It's possible he's changed his mind on the matter and I could be totally wrong, but I'll leave that up to you figure out. You're disagreement is with him, not me.

 

I don't need to ask Steve' date=' because from outside the core rule book I have seen write up this situation. Usually it is for equipment, but the same logic would apply. He applies a limitation that reads "Affected as X Group as Well as Y Group." [/quote']

So it doesn't matter to you if Steve Long said this is the way it works when someone asked him. Right?

 

Good for you. Have fun with your games.

 

BTW: Another Clarification: It's been shown time and time again where the Supplement books violate the Hero 5th Edition rules and such. And Steve Long told me personally when I asked him about this that he would not enforce any sort of consistency in character builds and examples in the supplements.

 

Asking Steve also isn't useful' date=' because the basis of this discussion is on the rules as written in the book. That Steve can fix a flaw, or clairify confusion isn't relavant to the discussion.[/quote']

Obviously it is, since he's clarified how Simulated Senses work and you deny that it works that way. Not my problem. Again, you are in disagreement with Steve Long, not me.

 

Have fun.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Chris' date=' I owe you an appology. This is covered in the main rules, just not where either of expected it to be. It is on page 85 of the Hero System 5th Edition under Sensory powers. The exact limitation is discussed there. I withdraw that example as being irrelevant to the discussion.[/quote']

Caris, no apology needed. I've been through this time and time again.

 

That's why I said to read up on things. The only reason I know some of this silly little niblets of stuff is because I had to go over the rules with fine tooth comb for the Hero 5th Edition Template for Metacreator. I addition I had to go over the FAQ with a fine tooth comb to catch additions and changes to those rules.

 

Someone who hasn't had to spend six months of thier life going over this stuff, I wouldn't expect to pick up on every little niblet. That's why I started out saying "Clarfication".

 

No harm, no foul. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Yes' date=' as I noted earlier, just because a wholly new construct is "no worse" than the existing alternatives is no justification at all; that's actually a reason specifically to jettison it - a new construct must be justified, because it is yet another rule to learn (or at least to study and set aside). Just to reemphasize the point, a new construct requires (to me) a better justification, even, than "a bit better" or "somewhat better, but with other complications". It has to be clearly superior. [/quote']

 

Uh, zornwil, I think there is a very important difference of opinion here that you haven’t considered. Three years after its introduction, you are no longer arguing against the inclusion of a new mechanic, you already lost that debate three years ago. You are now arguing for the replacement of an existing rule. Now the burden is on you to prove that the mechanic that you want to replace the existing one is the better mechanic.

 

Which comes back to me not really caring if I convince you to accepting the Class of Mind construct. The most important part of the concept that I like, both you and Hough are more than happy to accept and that is the idea that the rules should codify that a GM can/should enforce a Limitation across power builds to enforce balance, genre, world integrety, etc. I’m really just pointing out, that if you really want to change the mechanic, you need to improve your arguments, or find some way to replace the current decision makers in terms of the book with some one more amiable to your position.

 

I agree with caris that the mix of SFX in them creates a number of potential issues' date=' but given that they address a number of things players want and they are not (again, obviously in my opinion) terribly counter to any given genre and that they function rather well, I can accept their shortcomings in ability to be replicated into new martial arts maneuvers (UMA does have a good guide on this but it is optional, it's a bit complicated, and I believe (?) that subsequent study indicates that the model isn't well-replicated to the existing maneuvers, hence it is a bit out of whack) as well as the SFX embedding. However, it is an area that would be well-revised if/as possible, I simply don't have a good alternative and haven't seen an acceptable one yet.[/quote']

 

I’m sorry, but you are fairly off the mark on what my objections to Martial Arts are. I do not particularly have a problem them introducing SFX, the way they do. I do think it is somewhat unnecessary, but I don’t really care. It is that I find them unbalancingly cost effective when combined with a low number of points, and players not having access to other cost saving methods like power frameworks. This is typified for me by the “Call of Cthullu in Hero System†game a friend ran, where all 5 of the pcs had one form of Martial Art or another, and the time where I tried to run a character based around Combat Skill Levels in a game where everyone else had Martial Arts. My character was the least Combat Effective and only marginally more versatile in combat than all the other characters, and given the very hard and fast nature of the way both these mechanics are defined, the only part of the problem that I could lay at the GM’s feet was with the way he managed effectiveness caps.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Actually' date=' this is where you disagree with Steve Long.[/quote']

 

True. I rarely disagree with Steve Long, but when I do I really, really disagree with him. One thing I disagree with is his consideration that the FAQ are official rules. If they are official, they should not include opinionated data based on how the rules might work from his point of view. Unfortunately they do.