No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

[OddHat]

So, what would be the effect on character design if all power frameworks were eliminated, to be replaced with the following four rules?

 

1) Alter One Alter All (-1/4, -1/2, -3/4, -1). All powers in this list are Altered simultaneously by any Alteration Power that negatively Alters any one of them (Drain, Suppress, Transfer). This does not apply to Alteration powers with positive effects unless that power is purchased with the appropriate advantage. If there are up to 2 powers in the set the limit is worth -1/4, 4 = -1/2, 8 = -3/4, 16 or more = -1.

 

2) Lockout (-1/2 to -2). All powers in this list may only be used one at a time. If there are up to 2 powers in the set the limit is worth -1/2, 4 = -1, 8 = -1 1/2, 16 or more = -2.

 

3) Variable advantages and limitations remain legal.

 

4) The Power Skill remains legal, and the roll is made at -1 per 5 active points in the effect being used. Max active points = 1/2 the active points in the highest active point power the character has in that special effect.

 

Thoughts?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

It's a different way.

 

Would work out more expensive for some characters, less expensive for others.

 

Character A with four 60 AP powers (say, four different eye-blasts). With MP and ultra slots pays (60+6+6+6+6) = 84pts. With "Alter One Alter All" and "Lockout" values for 4 powers, pays 30 (-1 in lims total) x4 = 120pts.

 

Character B with 60 AP power, three 5 AP powers (like laser eyes plus some enhanced visions). With MP pays (60+6+1+1+1) = 69pts. With "Alter One Alter All" and "Lockout" values for 4 powers, pays 36pts.

 

Existing frameworks favors similar AP costs. Proposed system would favor getting lots of small powers and linking them together.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Well, without the "divide by 5" for multi slots and the "divide by 10" for ultra slots, it's going to make some character concepts outrageously expensive and/or not do-able. It also effectively eliminates the "pull anything out of a hat" types like Green Lantern, Zatanna, and even Batman (gadgeteers, in the latter case).

 

Sorry, OddHat, but I don't see any reason to desire it as a replacement for frameworks.

 

Or am I missing something?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I can't do enough of the math on the fly yet to wholly follow what you're doing, so I'll ask my normal question:

 

Why? How would this improve the game? Can you give it to me in an example based format, similar to what Supreme Serpent did so that I can get a better idea of where you're going and what you plan on doing when you get there?

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Well, without the "divide by 5" for multi slots and the "divide by 10" for ultra slots, it's going to make some character concepts outrageously expensive and/or not do-able. It also effectively eliminates the "pull anything out of a hat" types like Green Lantern, Zatanna, and even Batman (gadgeteers, in the latter case).

 

Sorry, OddHat, but I don't see any reason to desire it as a replacement for frameworks.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Mostly I'm just fiddling around, but I think I priced Lockout too low. I'll edit the initial post; it should be -1/2, -1, -1 1/2, -2.

 

Zatanna type would relly on the new (more useful and well defined) Power Skill and Varible Advantage to achieve their effects.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

So' date=' what would be the effect on character design if all power frameworks were eliminated, to be replaced with the following four rules?[/quote']

Switch to a new game system.

 

I can see getting rid of Multipower or EC for something different, but VPP is very much needed for game balance in some systems (e.g. Magic Systems for Fantasy games).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Mostly I'm just fiddling around, but I think I priced Lockout too low. I'll edit the initial post; it should be -1/2, -1, -1 1/2, -2.

 

Zatanna type would relly on the new (more useful and well defined) Power Skill and Varible Advantage to achieve their effects.

So, for example, a Zatanna type should have one 'slot' of each type of power, with a fairly large Variable Advantage and Variable Limitation on each one, so they can accurately simulate anything that can be done now using a VPP? Still sounds insanely expensive.

 

Guess I'll have to echo Thia Halmades -- could you provide an example? Actually, an example character might help. Could you whip up a Zatanna type character version A (VPP) and version B (your new way) so we could compare, contrast, and discuss?

 

The VPP should be about, oh, 50 points in size.

[hancock.tom]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I don't see anything wrong with it, as pointed out by supreme serpent it causes some of the point breakdowns to come out a little differently, but if the only change it would cause is encouraging stringing little powers with bigger ones rather than encouraging powers-of-the-same-cost I don't see a problem with it. If thats what you want to encourage in your game, this is probably a good solution for you. It also simplifies some things, but really frameworks aren't that complicated anyway.

[hancock.tom]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I don't see anything wrong with it, as pointed out by supreme serpent it causes some of the point breakdowns to come out a little differently, but if the only change it would cause is encouraging stringing little powers with bigger ones rather than encouraging powers-of-the-same-cost I don't see a problem with it. If thats what you want to encourage in your game, this is probably a good solution for you. It also simplifies some things, but really frameworks aren't that complicated anyway.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Maybe instead of relying on power skill and variable advantage, have a half-way point to VPP - "Variable Construct" as an advantage.

 

"Variable Construct" - Allows character to have a defined power (ex: "Light blast") that can be constructed in a number of ways consistent with the special effect. Say the player buys 60AP of "Light blast" with the Variable Construct Advantage added on. Can then toss out a 12d6 Light EB, a sight flash, a combo EB/Flash attack, change environment (light), and perhaps even missile deflection (blasting object out of way). Would probably not be able to use the light blast to make a force field, to teleport, etc. and should buy those powers seperately.

 

No idea on what value should be, but +1/2 sounds about right to me, if it's a common thing for the campaign.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I can't do enough of the math on the fly yet to wholly follow what you're doing, so I'll ask my normal question:

 

Why? How would this improve the game? Can you give it to me in an example based format, similar to what Supreme Serpent did so that I can get a better idea of where you're going and what you plan on doing when you get there?

 

To illustrate the idea:

 

Fire John has a typical four power Fire Control EC with 60 active point powers. He pays 30 (EC cost), +120 (slot costs) = 150 points.

 

Under the Alter One Alter All system, those same four 60 point powers would cost John 40 points each (AWAA at -1/2), for a total of 160 points.

 

However, John could have some of his slots at 75 active points, and some at 30, or whatever other combination he liked, without the drawbacks of trying to do this with a standard EC.

 

If Fire John had 16 fire powers in the standard EC, he’d pay 30 points (EC cost) + 780 (slot costs) = 810 points.

 

If he went up to 16 slots in his EC (AOAA -1), he’d pay 30 points per slot, for a total cost of 780 points, a bit less than the current system. However, he would again be free to stick powers of any active point cost in his EC.

 

 

Jack Wizard has a typical MP with a 60 point reserve and 16 powers, all Ultras. He pays 60 points for the reserve and 6 points per slot, for a total of 60 + 48 = 108 points.

 

Under the Alter One Alter All system plus Lockout, Jack would pay 240 points if he wanted all 16 slots, which would be much more expensive. He’d need to go down to about 8 slots (18 points per slot, 72 total points) with some having variable advantages, plus a Power Skill at CHA + 6 (15 points), thus spending 87 total points, to have a similar level of flexibility.

 

The main advantage would be no longer needing to worry about the maximum active point in any given slot. Also, the performance gap between each type of framework (EC, MP, VPP) would no longer be an issue, and the character design learning curve might be somewhat reduced.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I am curious how you would deal with elimination of VPP with this system.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I am curious how you would deal with elimination of VPP with this system.

 

As I said above, variable advantages plus a more useful Power Skill takes the place of the VPP. However, Cosmic VPP users would be losing some power.

 

Right now, say Zatanna has a 60 point Cosmic VPP for 150 points.

 

Under the propossed system, she might buy 4 60 point powers with AOAA and Lockout for 24 points each, or 96 points total, plus a Power Skill at CHA + 6 at 15 points, for a total of 111 points. Now she could use any of her four basic powers one at a time, and could use the Power Skill to achieve any 30 point effect in her SFX group. She'd probably need to buy her EB with Variable Advantages, but since there's no active point limit other than the campaign limits she can get close to her power levels under the old system, and that high active point Variable Advantaged EB means that the powers created with Power SKill become that much more potentially useful.

[Zed-F]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I would say that this system would mean you would see a lot fewer characters with significant limitations on their powers. Most of the value of taking a lim on your powers is derived from the first -1/2 to -1. If you're getting that from a power framework anyway, additional limitations are substantially devalued relative to what they are currently.

 

So Batman and Ironman get a double whammy. Not only do they have large multipowers that become substantially more expensive, but they also derive less benefit from being focus-oriented characters.

 

Certainly it would change things around... but I don't really see what the benefit is intended to be.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I would say that this system would mean you would see a lot fewer characters with significant limitations on their powers. Most of the value of taking a lim on your powers is derived from the first -1/2 to -1. If you're getting that from a power framework anyway, additional limitations are substantially devalued relative to what they are currently.

 

So Batman and Ironman get a double whammy. Not only do they have large multipowers that become substantially more expensive, but they also derive less benefit from being focus-oriented characters.

 

Certainly it would change things around... but I don't really see what the benefit is intended to be.

 

Mostly this comes out of the constant "Framework X is broken" debates. It's asking the question "If you wanted to eliminate frameworks, what would the new no framework sytem look like, and how would it compare?"

 

Just saying "Buy everything at a flat cost" is valid, but it means eliminating a huge range of character types. So, this is another possible approach.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

So Batman and Ironman get a double whammy. Not only do they have large multipowers that become substantially more expensive, but they also derive less benefit from being focus-oriented characters.

 

Addendum: Batman types would buy a few main gadgets, then rely on Power Skill with a -1/2 limitation (only change in lab) for the minor items.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I'm not getting something here about your system idea.

 

Are you saying that a Power Skill can mimic effects?

 

Fenrir is a Fire Mage. Under my current system, you can use your Fire Magic Power Skill to change your spells after an hour of study. You can gain any spell that would be in your spellbook.

 

Fenrir has, say, 16 spells. Fireball (RKA Explosive), Fire Dart (RKA Increased Stun Multiplier), Flame Whip (HKA), Fire Shield (EB, Damage Shield), Control Fire Elemental (Mind Control), Create Fire (Transform), Extinguish Fire (Dispel), etc...

 

Fenrir comes across a spellbook with Fire Wall (Force Wall) in it. How does Fenrir get to use that spell under your system?

[ghost-angel]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I'd have to run through a couple characters (or couple dozen) at creation to see if it can properly model any weird ideas people might have.

 

It doesn't look like a bad system but I think it might be difficult to model various concepts. Maybe. Like I said I'd have to try it out...

[Zed-F]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Mostly this comes out of the constant "Framework X is broken" debates. It's asking the question "If you wanted to eliminate frameworks' date=' what would the new no framework sytem look like, and how would it compare?"[/quote']

I don't think the existing system is sufficiently 'broken' to warrant switching completely over to something like this. Some might... but I find it easier to just ignore them.

 

You'd likely see more people using the STR framework, since its cost won't have changed and thus people will be more comfortable with it. Unless of course you also decided to recost STR to 2 CP per point.

 

Really, I'd expect this sort of fundamental change would make for more arguments about what is broken relative to what, not fewer, at least until we'd all had time to get as used to it as we are used to the existing rules.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

This is back to my original question, really - how is the current system broken? I'm asking because it was the first question that was asked of me in my first days on the boards. "I'll do it the crazy way!" And everyone said "What's wrong with the current way that it warrants a new & crazy way?" Yes, I see that you clearly have a reason for wanting to make the switch, but with three variations to choose from, why dump all of them to build a whole new version that may not offer the same flex as its predecessors?

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I'm not getting something here about your system idea.

 

Are you saying that a Power Skill can mimic effects?

 

Yes. It can already mimic very low point total effects under the current system, as per the rules on 5thER p.67 (the example given being a brick carving his name in a wall with his finger using Power Skill). This proposed change to the system takes the brakes off of the current power skill, sets a specific active point total limit, and turns it into a much more versatile ability. This is intended to make up for the loss of the VPP as a separate framework.

 

Fenrir comes across a spellbook with Fire Wall (Force Wall) in it. How does Fenrir get to use that spell under your system?

 

He can use Power Skill to cast the Fire Wall (Force Wall) at up to 1/2 the active points of his highest active point Fire Spell, or, if the GM chooses, his highest active point spell of any kind. It's up to the GM to deide whether the Fire Magic SFX or the Magic SFX applies.

 

If Fenrir wants to keep casting this spell, he should eventually, at the GM's discretion, pay points for it.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Really, I'd expect this sort of fundamental change would make for more arguments about what is broken relative to what, not fewer, at least until we'd all had time to get as used to it as we are used to the existing rules.

 

Yes. Humans kvetch. It's very annoying.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

This is back to my original question' date=' really - how is the current system broken?[/quote']

 

It isn't. This is just one alternate approach.

 

Yes, I see that you clearly have a reason for wanting to make the switch, but with three variations to choose from, why dump all of them to build a whole new version that may not offer the same flex as its predecessors?

 

It does offer the same flexibility as the current method, with the drawback that some very flexible character will have their raw power even more reduced in comparison to specialists. This might appeal to those that want to see very narrow character concepts rewarded.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

It isn't. This is just one alternate approach.

 

 

 

It does offer the same flexibility as the current method, with the drawback that some very flexible character will have their raw power even more reduced in comparison to specialists. This might appeal to those that want to see very narrow character concepts rewarded.

 

I like the idea, it's almost like another 'supers-system' for Champions in the same way there are several 'magic-systems' for Fantasy Hero.

 

I am curious to see how a rather 'narrow character concept' like Cyclops from X-men would benefit from this since variable advantage doesn't include an off switch to allow for the equivalent to the un-advantaged multipower slot.

 

HM

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I like the idea, it's almost like another 'supers-system' for Champions in the same way there are several 'magic-systems' for Fantasy Hero.

 

I am curious to see how a rather 'narrow character concept' like Cyclops from X-men would benefit from this since variable advantage doesn't include an off switch to allow for the equivalent to the un-advantaged multipower slot.

 

HM

 

Cyclops might buy his eye beam with Variable Advantages, Limited Group of Advantages, Always On.

 

He could then buy off the Always On part of that through his OIF Visor.

 

He might benefit indirectly, because very flexible types might need to spend more points to match his power level in any one attack, but his build would otherwise be very similar to what it is now.