[CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

[ghost-angel]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

Another point on ET vs the Threshold is that ET prevents you from doing anything else while powering up, Threshold does not.

[prestidigitator]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

Another point on ET vs the Threshold is that ET prevents you from doing anything else while powering up' date=' Threshold does not.[/quote']

Well, for Attack Powers basically, yes. Not really for other Powers, though I think you can increase the value of the Limitation for that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

I don't have the rulebook near me ... but my understanding of ET on all powers was that you spent that time Starting The Power and could do nothing else, power wise at the very least. Of course, w/o the book on me, I may completely wrong based on memory since I never use ET myself, or almost never.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

Hmm. Well' date=' that's why I used [i']Extra Time: Only for First Activation[/i], though come to think of it I think I forgot to reduce the value of the Limitation for that. Hmm. That means there could be an even bigger disparity between costs. I'm not sure the control issue is that big, since a character could certainly seek out the stimulus. I also used Limited Power when I compared, which probably covers that part pretty well. As far as not using time increments, I think that is a lot of where I am having some issue; my understanding is that every Phase the stimulus affects the character (or maybe even multiple times within a Phase?) the Threshold will increase, and that is a lot different from the exponential increase of Time Chart increments. In a sense Extra Time has diminishing returns, but Threshold doesn't seem to.

 

 

It is bought as a Limitation on each Power that is limited by the Threshold, right? While there is some overhead cost that is shared between all of the Powers involved, it has some major differences from existing Frameworks. The cost of the, "Framework," is not tied to the cost of the Powers. The Modifiers for stimulus frequency are only taken on the, "Control Cost," of the Framework, and not on a value that is proportional to the Active Points in the Powers. This is not such a concern if the conditions are rare enough to cause Limitations, but they don't seem to be costly enough when the conditions are common enough for it to be an Advantage.

 

 

True, and this may be one of the problems. Players can have a knack for turning something that is, "not under their control," into something that very much is, especially when they have a whole team to work with. It's true that a careful GM who stays on the ball and is willing to put his/her foot down may be able to mitigate that. It's just worth keeping in mind.

 

 

Well, if your concern is that a player would "farm" a stimuli as it were, then look at it from a couple of perspectives. The intent of Threshold is primarily passive; when the condition of the Scale is met, it accumulates points based upon the magnitude of the stimuli meeting the condition, without the character ever needing to take an action.

 

If a player is "farming" instead, then they are effectively wasting actions. There is some trade off involved there to mitigate the effects there of.

 

So take two characters:

 

Blastor has a 10d6 EB with ET: Full Phase for -1/2

Thresh has a 10d6 EB with Actualized (20) for -1/2

 

Every time Blastor uses his blast it takes a Full Phase.

 

Thresh starts at zero, but has cleverly found some stimuli to power his Threshold Scale and farms it. Depending on the nature and severity of the stimulus it may or may not take him some time to build up enough of a charge to use his Power. Further, in situations where there is no stimuli available he can't use his Power at all. He also paid for some amount of overhead on the Capacity. As a trade off, when he does accumulate his Threshold Scale to 20+ he can blast as often as he wants as a 1/2 Phase action as normal. Also, any other Powers that use the same Threshold Scale become primed as well.

 

 

This seems to be a fairly even distribution to me.

 

 

However, if a GM were particularly concerned about it, he could declare that each stimuli is only applied once. So if a character did the stick a fork in a lightsocket thing, they'd only get one "hit" off of it. To accumulate more of a charge they would have to find some other source. Similarly if the same character were exposed to and Electrical based Power they would accumulate their Threshold from that Power once; getting hit subsequent times with the same Power would not accumulate their Scale further.

 

Personally I think its unwarranted to go that route but it is there as an option.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

I was actually thinking more along the lines of "I can eat fire to make myself really powerful, but if I get rained on, I start going out" So it's part of the Threshold Capacity that water decreases threshold.

 

Or would you want a Susceptability that took away threshold?

Ive added coverage for this via a "Mitigated" Limitation.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/ThresholdFramework.htm

[Blue Jogger]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

The problem with Threshold is the character is (more than likely) going to be going up or down the scale. And if the Threshold is the main Framework of the character, it could cause problems. Oddly enough, they mimic the same sorts of problems with other frameworks.

 

Case 1: "Cap'n, I need more power" This character is designed to better suited in the upper (or lower?) end. Thus the character is going to seek out his trigger and keep trying to maintain full power. If there is no disadvantages to being pumped out, the character will work to stay there, and gameplay might suffer if the player feels "weaker" than expected. This is exactly the same problem with big powers with big limitations. It can become even worse, if the character becomes anti-social and powerful at the same time.

 

Case 2: "Give me a second to adjust" This character is optimized for different things in different ranges. The character will then spend lots of time, ramping up or coming down to be the right "flavor". Not bad, but again, can be annoying. But this is exactly the same problem with very flexible VPPs and Multipowers.

 

Case 3: "Oops, I'm no longer..." This character changes too rapidly due to Threshold and loses a critical power or gains a weakness at just the wrong time. While this could be good roleplaying, this could also be the character just gets hospitalized (or killed). Hulk becoming Banner in a warzone is just messy, if he can't shift back to Hulk fast enough. This mimics the problems of Multiform or VPPs where the powers change without conscious control.

 

This isn't problems with the construct, but the temptation to use the construct in min-max sorts of ways.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

Good to see you around BJ; been a while.

 

The problem with Threshold is the character is (more than likely) going to be going up or down the scale. And if the Threshold is the main Framework of the character, it could cause problems. Oddly enough, they mimic the same sorts of problems with other frameworks.

 

Case 1: "Cap'n, I need more power" This character is designed to better suited in the upper (or lower?) end. Thus the character is going to seek out his trigger and keep trying to maintain full power. If there is no disadvantages to being pumped out, the character will work to stay there, and gameplay might suffer if the player feels "weaker" than expected. This is exactly the same problem with big powers with big limitations. It can become even worse, if the character becomes anti-social and powerful at the same time.

 

This perceived problem is easily controlled by a GM being stern but fair in regards to stimuli and severity. Also, and perhaps this is just hubris talking, but I personally never have problems dealing with players with that sort of mentality. Prevention of such a state of affairs with any STOP sign power is easily acheived by not allowing muchkins to build characters using them (or play in the campaign at all at the outer extreme).

 

Case 2: "Give me a second to adjust" This character is optimized for different things in different ranges. The character will then spend lots of time, ramping up or coming down to be the right "flavor". Not bad, but again, can be annoying. But this is exactly the same problem with very flexible VPPs and Multipowers.

Some players like this sort of a challenge, and it can serve to engage them more closely with the story and action in play. Better a player that is involved and taking initiative to do something than a player that sits around passively just rolling with the flow in my opinion. While at the outer edges this can be disruptive (such as Cosmic VPPs in the hands of indecisive or less rules savvy players), for the most part I've never faulted a player making a complex character if they prove that they are up to the task.

 

Case 3: "Oops, I'm no longer..." This character changes too rapidly due to Threshold and loses a critical power or gains a weakness at just the wrong time. While this could be good roleplaying, this could also be the character just gets hospitalized (or killed). Hulk becoming Banner in a warzone is just messy, if he can't shift back to Hulk fast enough. This mimics the problems of Multiform or VPPs where the powers change without conscious control.

 

Well on the one hand I would say that this would be a symptom of character design verging between impractical and idiotic. Poorly designed characters are just poorly designed, regardless of the specifics. Garbage In Garbage Out so to speak.

 

On the other hand, in a very real way the magnitude of a hero is determined more by the weaknesses they overcome than by their strengths. Thus when done correctly, designing weakness into characters add the opportunity for heroism. In such cases, a carefully tailored Threshold set could form the core of a character that has more potential to be a real hero than a character with no flaws, and thus a far more interesting character to play.

 

Personally when I get to play I like to design critical weaknesses into my characters for that very reason. I always leave some chink in their coverage, on purpose. It keeps me on my toes when playing them, thus heigtening my engagement with the game, gives my the opportunity to overcome their flaws in play, and also give the GM hooks by which to tie my character further into the story.

 

So basically I dont see this as a real flaw of any construct; used poorly its just another example of bad character design, used correctly it offers massive potential for better roleplaying.

 

This isn't problems with the construct, but the temptation to use the construct in min-max sorts of ways.

 

I would say that acting on the temptation is the problem, not the offering of temptation. Abusing the rules is the same as any other sort of abuse -- a source of temptation might present itself, but if you act on it you are in the wrong, not them.

 

That aside, there is also a game philosophy question lurking in there: Is it fair or correct to neuter a potentially useful and fun aspect of the system because some players might abuse it?

 

The HERO System Answer is: NO.

 

As is often touted, the HERO System is not a body of rules to render a GM obsolete; rather it is a toolkit providing a set of tools to be used with the proper care and respect. Just like you wouldnt allow children to use a power drill, a GM shouldnt allow a munchkin to use a STOP sign Power or other ability that they are not responsible enough to use as intended. And just as you might allow more mature teenagers to use a power tool while supervised, a GM might allow more responsible players to use such abilities with supervision.

 

Fully mature and competant players on the other hand might be allowed free or nearly free reign because they are responsible enough to use the rules as intended -- to design game constructs that are conducive to entertaining sessions of cooperative storytelling.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

That whole rant was beautiful, but this bit...

 

Fully mature and competant players on the other hand might be allowed free or nearly free reign because they are responsible enough to use the rules as intended -- to design game constructs that are conducive to entertaining sessions of cooperative storytelling.

*Amen* brother!

[Killer Shrike]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

That whole rant was beautiful, but this bit...

 

*Amen* brother!

Thanx!

 

Wasnt intended as a rant though -- Blue Joggers one of the good guys and he raised good points. I was just trying to respond with equally intelligent counter arguments, and hope I succeeded

[Blue Jogger]

Re: [CUSTOM] Threshold Framework

 

I suppose I should have said "The problem with munchkins using Threshold..." Since I was letting my inner munchkin try to break Threshold.

 

And just as you might allow more mature teenagers to use a power tool while supervised, a GM might allow more responsible players to use such abilities with supervision.

 

Definately, those were supervision issues not broken construct issues.