No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

[stan da ork]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I think what Hyper-Man means is that currently most "Single Power" multipowers go something like this:

 

Multipower, 60 Point Reserve

1) Big Blast: EB 12d6

2) Special Blast 1: EB 10d6, +1/4 advantage

3) Special Blast 2: EB 8d6, +1/2 advantage

...

 

If you replace this with Variable Advantage, slot 1 goes away, since you can't decide to turn the points spent on Variable Advantage into extra DCs. So the question is, how do you account for the "Big Blast" in your proposed system?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I think what Hyper-Man means is that currently most "Single Power" multipowers go something like this:

 

Multipower, 60 Point Reserve

1) Big Blast: EB 12d6

2) Special Blast 1: EB 10d6, +1/4 advantage

3) Special Blast 2: EB 8d6, +1/2 advantage

...

 

If you replace this with Variable Advantage, slot 1 goes away, since you can't decide to turn the points spent on Variable Advantage into extra DCs. So the question is, how do you account for the "Big Blast" in your proposed system?

 

Could buy an extra EB adder of +Xd6, with the limit "cannot be used if advantage used on main blast"

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I think what Hyper-Man means is that currently most "Single Power" multipowers go something like this:

 

Multipower, 60 Point Reserve

1) Big Blast: EB 12d6

2) Special Blast 1: EB 10d6, +1/4 advantage

3) Special Blast 2: EB 8d6, +1/2 advantage

...

 

If you replace this with Variable Advantage, slot 1 goes away, since you can't decide to turn the points spent on Variable Advantage into extra DCs. So the question is, how do you account for the "Big Blast" in your proposed system?

 

Ah, I see. It could be a drawback. For some characters, as Supreme Serpent suggested, +Xd6 blast would do it, though you wouldn't get a limitation. For others, levels with spreading or rapid fire, possibly even a full range martial art, could substitute for Variable Advantage. Still other characters might just buy each special blast individually, taking the AOAA and Lockout limits.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

This kind of setup would require much more GM oversight than even the existing Frameworks. For example...

 

Current Way:

Multipower (100 point reserve)

10u PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast (100 points).

1u Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB

1u Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB

1u Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB

1u Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB

(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)

Total Cost: 125 points

 

New Way:

PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (25 points)

Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)

Total Cost: 40 points.

 

I think it needs work.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

This kind of setup would require much more GM oversight than even the existing Frameworks. For example...

 

Current Way:

Multipower (100 point reserve)

10u PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast (100 points).

1u Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB

1u Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB

1u Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB

1u Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB

(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)

Total Cost: 125 points

 

New Way:

PrismaticHyperMegaBlast: 20d6 Energy Blast, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (25 points)

Lil Red Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

Lil Blue Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

Lil Yellow Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

Lil Green Blast: 1d6 EB, Affect One Affect All (-1), Lockout (-2). (1 point)

(plus 11 more Lil Blasts)

Total Cost: 40 points.

 

I think it needs work.

 

"It's not a bug, it's a feature."

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

"It's not a bug' date=' it's a feature." [/quote']

 

Okay, well, here's a less-extreme example...

 

Fire Guy wants a 12d6 EB. That's all he wants. Doesn't care about having a Killing Attack.

 

Current Way:

Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, (60 points)

 

But with the New Way, he can save points by buying even just one small power, and pretending he really wants it...

 

New Way:

Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (34 points)

Pinkie Laser: 1 pip HKA vs ED, No STR Add (-1/2), Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (2 points)

 

All told, he saves 24 points by taking a Power he doesn't want...

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

 

Okay, well, here's a less-extreme example...

 

Fire Guy wants a 12d6 EB. That's all he wants. Doesn't care about having a Killing Attack.

 

Current Way:

Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, (60 points)

 

But with the New Way, he can save points by buying even just one small power, and pretending he really wants it...

 

New Way:

Fire Blast: 12d6 EB, Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (34 points)

Pinkie Laser: 1 pip HKA vs ED, No STR Add (-1/2), Affects One Affects All (-1/4), Lockout (-1/2). (2 points)

 

All told, he saves 24 points by taking a Power he doesn't want...

 

I guess I just see this as a case where the GM should say "No". Hero is full of them.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Maybe count the largest cost power as one of the powers for the 2/4/8/etc breakpoints, but the largest power itself doesn't benefit from the limitations.

[OddHat]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

Maybe count the largest cost power as one of the powers for the 2/4/8/etc breakpoints' date=' but the largest power itself doesn't benefit from the limitations.[/quote']

 

Good possibility, and one that even more closely resembles the current framework model.

[Gary]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

You would have to combine this change with a repricing of Str and Dex. The one thing that keeps many other characters competive with a brick are frameworks.

[zornwil]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

While Gary could be correct, it's noteworthy as Derek begs that the -3 feature for Lockout/Drain One Drain All makes small multipowers much more cost effective (no control cost, you have 3 powers, say, at 1/4 price). So there's a variety of effects. Like OddHat says, this could be a feature, but it definitely skews the system in a new direction, I believe a somewhat dramatically new one, too. Hence to me, while I like how Hyper-man phrased this as a "supers system" similar to what's done for fantasy, I think it would take a lot of playtesting among different groups to see how it really works out. But it sounds worthy of exploring. The first thing I'd recommend is rebuilding the various major Champions characters with this and see how it lands and how off that is. That's also where I left off with the Unified Framework idea Doc Democracy and I worked on. That's the hard part, though, and ended up not working on it as other projects took off. Hope to revisit it sometime.

 

Anyway, very interesting idea, OddHat, it could work but I think it would really restructure the characters in many cases. As you said, that could be a feature, I just can't tell.

[Mentor]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I essentialy agree with Gary on the issue of frameworks. The versatility and point savings of the Multipower and Elemental Control are necessary counterbalances to the simple efficiency of raw Strength and Dexterity in doing the same damage with different advatages.

 

Oddhat is right, however, in pointing out that bizarre builds and power effects need to be vetoed by the GM. The game is the thing.

[zornwil]

Re: No Framework Proposal: Thoughts?

 

I essentialy agree with Gary on the issue of frameworks. The versatility and point savings of the Multipower and Elemental Control are necessary counterbalances to the simple efficiency of raw Strength and Dexterity in doing the same damage with different advatages.

 

Oddhat is right, however, in pointing out that bizarre builds and power effects need to be vetoed by the GM. The game is the thing.

I dunno. That (the first paragraph) implies that if we simply recosted DEX and STR (and perhaps a few related things, as well as probably divorcing figured from basic chars) then the frameworks would be unnecessary. This makes some of the more flexible power constructs still quite difficult, though. Although perhaps Multiforms and Gary's various limitations proposals would work, but I think there's a lot of playtesting required to prove.

 

The other, and more important, issue is whether this is a good or bad thing. Again, not an easy question. Frameworks (along with the basic+figured chars, really another form of framework) work well, I think, in terms of representing power collections and streamlining things. I was discussing the roots of the system with a couple people who were around for the earliest days of its development, and only Multipower originally existed. EC was brought in as a direct result of playtesting, and directly in the discovery of the over-effectiveness of bricks versus EB types. It's an interesting choice and one made very early on. It was made in the light of a superhero-only system, without regard to notions of universality (although IIRC the idea of applying the system to other genres happened extremely early, too), but was made at a time that things could have been recosted, they weren't set in stone. But consider what that recosting means...STR becomes more expensive than Energy Blasts, which in turn means derived figures have to be rescaled one way or another, and the 1 per 5 standard now has an exception with STR. Perhaps EC was an "easy" solution instead of a well-thought one, in regard to supers, but while remaining controversial it serves a good purpose in ordering many a character and forcing players to think more in conceptually cohesive characters.

 

Now, outside of supers...maybe these frameworks just aren't that good an idea. Maybe for heroic/non-super-powered games (I would suspect you'd keep them for High Fantasy and "big" Sci-Fi) STR and possibly a few other things can get recosted and it can get left alone.

 

But I do think, as I consider it more, that frameworks really are a useful tool in defining play experience in games with super powers, and we ought not abandon them for this reason. I fully grant that's not a pure HERO reason, i.e., one could change HERO in this regard and it would still be HERO, so I am not suggesting my position is important from an orthodoxy perspective, but I think it certainly violates no orthodoxy and it highlights an important aspect of the system and one we are, I feel, taking for granted when we look for solutions to "simply" eliminate frameworks for a perceived gain in the system elsewhere.