Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

[RDU Neil]

Ok... I'm thinking as I write, so bear with me. Really want some of the big brains on these boards to give me some opinions on this.

 

Background: I'm coming at this issue from two main points. One is my traditional stance (captured in my sig line) about the levels of RPG... where I would normally differentiate Mechanics from Game Rules and put SFX in game rules. Two is from the current argument (quite civilized, mind you) between Odd Hat and Hugh Neilson in the Taming Absolutes thread. Their discussion of how to build a version of "invulnerability" really touches on some critical issues of interpretation of "what is SFX?" vs. "what is the mechanic?"

 

I want to lay out a couple examples and give my opinion, but really looking for folks like Hugh and Odd Hat and Zornwil and Treb and others to weigh in here. There may not be a "right answer" to this... but maybe there is a consensus.

 

So... Where is the line between Mechanic and SFX?

 

I think this question is best addressed through examples so...

 

Example 1: Missile Deflection

Ignoring what I think is a CLEAR conflation of mechanic and SFX... that being the application of "thrown object, bullets, arrows, etc." to the defined effect per cost... What about the following.

 

Is Missile Deflection as a mechanic purely "Roll your OCV vs. the OCV used by the attack. Success stops the attack from striking you."

 

or

 

Is the Missile Deflection mechanic more than that. Is it more into the depth of play... in other words "If attacked by another character (so we are involving characters interacting in a shared imaginary environment RIGHT IN THE MECHANIC LEVEL) and that attack is a ranged attack, Missile Deflection allows you to divert the attack from striking you with an OCV roll vs. the OCV of the attacker. This does not eliminate the attack from happening. It does not absorb the damage of the attack. It deflects/diverts the attack which still strikes something else... just not your character."

 

In other words... is the mechanic simply the "equation" in the first part... or is the mechanic inextricably linked with it's defined interpretation (which assumes a certain universal aspect to the shared imaginary play space thus a level of SFX built in).

 

Ack... this can seem so abstract when writing it, but it really isn't so bad... it is just that the two interpretations can be quite incompatible.

 

Still another way of putting it... Is it ok to claim Missile Deflection as a mechanic can simulate "so tough I don't even notice as it bounces off of me" (which is somewhat of a "canonical" build)

 

or

 

Does use of Missile Deflection require that however it plays out, using this mechanic means the attack never hits the character but does still strike something else? (The logic of this coming from the actual plain English definition of "deflection" as well as the game mechanic extrapolation to Missile Reflection, where the character can target what is hit instead of itself.)

 

I'm not saying either is wrong... but in some ways, to be internally consistent within the game itself... you have to interpret one or the other... but you can't have both. Either it is a pure mathematical equation... divorced of all SFX... or it has inherent shared imaginary game world descriptors "built in."\

 

 

In the end, the reason I'm asking this is that so many inconsistencies in using and interpreting Hero seem to happen because not only does the game design not point to one or other of the above interpretations as the standard... but after 25 years of Hero, switching back and forth depending on the whim of the current need/interpretation seems to be the norm... no matter how much confusion it causes.

 

Other examples of this are things like Desolidification... is this a mechanic that says "The character don't interact with the normal level of accepted existence in the shared imaginary space" or is it a movement power or is it "Character doesn't take damage" power? What?

 

Some powers are clearly one or the other. Damage Reduction is clearly a pure mathematical mechanic. "X multiplier to any physical, energy or mental damage that gets past defenses" There is no subscribed SFX to this at all... so it is relatively pure.

 

Life Support, OTOH, is the exact opposite. Almost pure SFX defined in it's mechanical effect... because it assumes atmospheres and environments of a certain kind exist within the shared imaginary play space.

 

Basically... much of the confusion and conflict and such that comes up on these boards and in game play can come back to a conflaction of these two interpretations of "What is the base mechanic"... so I'm wondering, is there a way to build a consensus on what should be the Hero standard for defining a mechanic? Doesn't mean you can't interpret differently, just that there is a clear starting point so that different interpretations know how much they've diverged?

 

I, for one, think this is essential... and is what is missing when some of us ask for the "design philosophy" behind the system. That there is too much of a "Well it could be X or Y or Z... whatever!" and such is chaos... when what could help is "It could be X or Y or Z... but the design is intended to support X more than Y and Y more than Z." The latter doesn't limit the use of Hero... it just gives more of a framework to make judgment calls when deciding what to do.

 

Anyway... hope this remotely makes sense... and interested in what others have to say about "What makes a mechanic?" in Hero.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Well, you see, the line is...

Really want some of the big brains on these boards to give me some opinions on this.

 

Oh. Nevermind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More seriously, I really doubt you're going to see any kind of consensus about this. My personal initial thought is "the line is wherever the GM and players say it is at the moment given any particular situation", which I think is a little too broad for what you're looking for.

 

 

And I think SFX would generally win out. The whole point of the mechanics are to attempt to simulate the SFX in a playable, generally consistent form. If you start designing from mechanics, then try to rationalize SFX to go with those mechanics, IMO you're making the character wrong. "What SFX can get my character this NND does body RKA?" makes for a much less interesting character than "Now that I've got the basics of Hellman conceived, how can I build this 'Soul Burn' power?"

 

(Not that I think you personally would go about it that way Neil, but I think you might be looking for something deeper in the mechanics than is really there)

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Ok... I'm thinking as I write' date=' so bear with me. Really want some of the big brains on these boards to give me some opinions on this.[/quote']

Well, that let's me out. Just kidding.

 

[Rats - too slow again!]

 

 

bigdamnhero

“Just once I'd like to fight an alien menace that wasn't invulnerable to our weapons.”

[Gary]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

A quick dirty answer:

 

Special Effects is anything that consistently falls into the range of < 1/4 Advantage/Limitation. It may give you minor Advantages/Limitations at times, and maybe even consistently, but not to the level of +1/4.

 

When something consistently gives you a game advantage or limitation equivalent of +-1/4 or more and it's not listed on your character sheet, that's a good sign that the Power isn't built or costed correctly.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

More seriously' date=' I really doubt you're going to see any kind of consensus about this. My personal initial thought is "the line is wherever the GM and players say it is at the moment given any particular situation", which I think is a little too broad for what you're looking for. [/quote']

 

Exactly... this "Whatever you feel is right at the moment" is really anethema to me, and I'd propse... anethema to a effective, consistent, and coherent gaming experience.

 

And I think SFX would generally win out. The whole point of the mechanics are to attempt to simulate the SFX in a playable, generally consistent form. If you start designing from mechanics, then try to rationalize SFX to go with those mechanics, IMO you're making the character wrong. "What SFX can get my character this NND does body RKA?" makes for a much less interesting character than "Now that I've got the basics of Hellman conceived, how can I build this 'Soul Burn' power?"

 

(Not that I think you personally would go about it that way Neil, but I think you might be looking for something deeper in the mechanics than is really there)

 

Again, I think I tend to agree with you... but for many editions now, Hero has indicated that building a character can take many forms... ALL OF THEM EQUALLY VALID. i.e. Both your above examples are supposed to "legitimate" thought processes for building characters... which may be true, but serves to further the disfunction of actual play because different character construction decision processes create very different expectations of play, etc. Also... design examples that fit one or the other of these may be inherently contradictory in game play, yet there is no basis for judging which is the standard... which takes priority... or yet... no guidance in the books as to having this discussion within the play group and grasping these rather large, abstract concepts... when what people really want is to blast some badguys.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Then I think the larger question might be for you, "Is it right to divorce sfx from mechanics?"

[RDU Neil]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

A quick dirty answer:

 

Special Effects is anything that consistently falls into the range of < 1/4 Advantage/Limitation. It may give you minor Advantages/Limitations at times, and maybe even consistently, but not to the level of +1/4.

 

When something consistently gives you a game advantage or limitation equivalent of +-1/4 or more and it's not listed on your character sheet, that's a good sign that the Power isn't built or costed correctly.

 

Interesting way to look at judging game play SFX as "does this give me more value than points indicate" I do like that.

 

The other side of what I was asking was mroe on the "Are mechanics designed with INHERENT SPECIAL EFFECTS" that are NOT up to interpretation. Or at least... if you decide to interpret differently, understand the consequences of diverging on that point.

 

Missile Deflection again... was it designed with intent of a built in SFX of "The attack does not strike the character but does strike something else in the imaginary play space." Therefore, using Missile Deflection's mathematical mechanic of "Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = stops attack" to simulate an "invulnerability trick" going against design.

 

There are multiple ways to interpret MD's mechanic

 

Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = 0 Damage if successful

 

or

 

Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = Damage dealt to something else if successful

 

or

 

Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = Attack stopped

 

etc.

 

 

Each interpretation can have significant effects on game play, interpretation, player/charcter decision making, etc. We are just missing a "desing intent" statement that says the of the above, anyone could be legitimate, but one of them is the intended use.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Then I think the larger question might be for you' date=' "Is it [i']right[/i] to divorce sfx from mechanics?"

 

 

"Right" tends to imply a subjective "wrong" as well. I'd like to avoid that as much as possible and say... What are the benefits of divorcing SFX from mechanics... what are the negatives? And vice versa, what are the benefits of combining a standard level of SFX into a mechanic... and what are the negatives?

 

Those questions lead to "What is the design intent of the system?"

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

The other side of what I was asking was mroe on the "Are mechanics designed with INHERENT SPECIAL EFFECTS" that are NOT up to interpretation. Or at least... if you decide to interpret differently' date=' understand the consequences of diverging on that point.[/quote']

 

Hmm. Well, I think that when you get to the point of loading on limitations to remove many of the parts of the power, you might be using the wrong power. But, maybe not. Is "Desolid, not through solids, can still be affected by area effect attacks and appropriate force walls/entangles" really "desolid" anymore?

 

Missile Deflection again... was it designed with intent of a built in SFX of "The attack does not strike the character but does strike something else in the imaginary play space." Therefore, using Missile Deflection's mathematical mechanic of "Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = stops attack" to simulate an "invulnerability trick" going against design.

 

There are multiple ways to interpret MD's mechanic

 

Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = 0 Damage if successful

 

or

 

Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = Damage dealt to something else if successful

 

or

 

Target OCV vs. Attacker OCV = Attack stopped

 

etc.

 

 

Each interpretation can have significant effects on game play, interpretation, player/charcter decision making, etc. We are just missing a "desing intent" statement that says the of the above, anyone could be legitimate, but one of them is the intended use.

 

I think the main thing is "character with MD doesn't take the direct hit". Circumstances and SFX may create varied results, and I don't have a problem with that.

 

Shield-using guy shot with attacks:

 

-Bullet - can MD

-Arrow that delivers electric shock - can MD

-Lightning bolt - can MD

-Single stream of ice that hardens around target as entangle - can MD

-Cloud of vapor that turns to ice around target as entangle - probably not able to MD with his shield. But "flaming aura" MD guy would have no problem with that one.

 

(edit - example not really what I was going for, but too run-down at the moment to correct)

 

Back to Gary's point, are there special effects that are inherently limiting enough to warrant a Limitation, or advantageous enough to warrant an Advantage?

[schir1964]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Well you probably know how I am going to come down on this issue.

 

I prefer consistency with few exceptions, so I think think the mechanics should be isolated completely from the SFX in question. But in order for that to work smoothly there would have to be a section on how to build certain SFX with different mechanics in order to get a specific feel from a power.

 

I might go into more detail later.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[RDU Neil]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Well you probably know how I am going to come down on this issue.

 

I prefer consistency with few exceptions, so I think think the mechanics should isolated completely from the SFX in question. But in order for that to work smoothly there would have to be a section on how to build certain SFX with different mechanics in order to get a specific feel from a power.

 

I might go into more detail later.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Not surprised... and it is a legitimate choice. Either way, it is critical that the mechanic equation and description be templeted with EXACTING language, to establish an unambiguous baseline standard... and then from there, variation can be explored.

 

If Hero is truly to be a toolkit/generic system... then mechanical ambiguity is bad, bad, bad. In a "game" like Champions used to be ambiguity isn't so bad, because the guiding factor is not mechanical functionality but game play expectation. Design expectations resolve around expected game play... but for a toolkit they need to be more like "A 3/4" wrench is designed and intended to tighten or loosen a 3/4" hexagonal bolt" with caveats like "Using the wrench to crimp sheet metal or open a paint can is possible, but not what it was designed to do, so you may have unintended consequences if used that way."

 

Mechanical isolation from SFX (focus on mechanic to mechanic interaction) requires rigorous editing and pristine use of language. SFX inherent mechanics also need clear language, but it tends to be more assumptive of defining game play... rather than mechanical interaction.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Here are my thoughts (whether or not they may have been asked for ):

 

Where did we start to diverge so far from: build the character/power you want, sit down at the gaming table, and roll some dice! I know we often get caught up in the specifics of the rules, but I seriously don't think we need to delve so far into the mentality of a game developer that we might as well be writing doctoral theses. Step back and look where these questions are going. The system is just a cool little toolkit for an imagination game.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Here are my thoughts (whether or not they may have been asked for ):

 

Where did we start to diverge so far from: build the character/power you want, sit down at the gaming table, and roll some dice! I know we often get caught up in the specifics of the rules, but I seriously don't think we need to delve so far into the mentality of a game developer that we might as well be writing doctoral theses. Step back and look where these questions are going. The system is just a cool little toolkit for an imagination game.

 

We diverge, because the play experience is not the isolationist activity that is classic Hero character construction. Since the beginning, there has been a dichotomy between "what I want as I build my character" and "what I actually get when I play my character." This is the inherent contradiction of Hero... anything goes in character construction... but all kinds of interpretation clauses come into the picture if you actually want to PLAY that character. To actually "sit down at the gaming table, and roll some dice!" requires interpreting "What do these dice mean? What effect do they have? How does this fit my expectations?" etc. Hero does not provide clear guidance on how to make these judgment calls so that play actually works out. There are constantly assumptions and expectations going on... and eventually one person's assumption of "how that works" clashes with another... and the game breaks down.

 

By understanding the design intent... there is a common ground/basis for consensus on making interpretations when things break down. That is lacking from the system at this point.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Sorry Neil, but I just don't think you're ever going to get where you want to be on this. The game is an attempt to simulate something within a framework of rules that, by their very nature as a simulation, cannot be completely accurate or consistent for every eventuality. See someone's quote in my sig for a thought on that.

 

To be completely accurate and consistent, the game would boil down to:

"Everybody plays themselves in the real world and we're acting everything out, including combat, so be careful with those guns."

 

To be completely SFX and "how it should work" driven, the game would be a completely rules-less cooperative storytelling session where dice, character sheets, rules etc. are irrelevant.

 

Every game is going to fall somewhere in between those two extremes. There's no way around it. And every campaign using the same system is going to vary slightly from every other campaign, due to the different participants. Trying to come up with a set "this is how everything works" is ultimately doomed to failure. Even a half-serious attempt would make 5ER look like a pamphlet.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Sorry Neil, but I just don't think you're ever going to get where you want to be on this. The game is an attempt to simulate something within a framework of rules that, by their very nature as a simulation, cannot be completely accurate or consistent for every eventuality. See someone's quote in my sig for a thought on that.

 

To be completely accurate and consistent, the game would boil down to:

"Everybody plays themselves in the real world and we're acting everything out, including combat, so be careful with those guns."

 

To be completely SFX and "how it should work" driven, the game would be a completely rules-less cooperative storytelling session where dice, character sheets, rules etc. are irrelevant.

 

Every game is going to fall somewhere in between those two extremes. There's no way around it. And every campaign using the same system is going to vary slightly from every other campaign, due to the different participants. Trying to come up with a set "this is how everything works" is ultimately doomed to failure. Even a half-serious attempt would make 5ER look like a pamphlet.

 

 

Actually, I stand by my quote... in two ways. One, I said that in context of the futility of trying to simulate a genre... instead, be inspired by a genre but the game itself is formed more by the rules you use than the often incoherent and medium dependent genre conventions.

 

Two, I'm actually in the opposite camp of Christopher... I don't want or expect to have rigorous, divorced from SFX mechanics. I think that attempt would create a thin sheet of equations... and a thousand volumes of exceptions to those equations.

 

I feel that a few pages on design intent... specific SFX description in concise language as part of the "mechanic" would actually slim down Hero considerably. So much of it is already "but in this case..." type of exceptions and variables that stem from incomplete/incoherent design... trying to marry the toolkit expectations while also making "canonical" interpretations of how a mechanic should function.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Here's one place to seperate Mechanics from SFX. We'll take Missile Deflection since you mentioned it first and I just happened to have been reading up on it for a character recently.

 

Seperate the Mechanics at "What happens to activate and use" from SFX at "What happens after that"

 

The Mechanics of MD are "Character rolls OCV vs OCV to avoid Ranged Attacks" very simple concept so far.

 

Well, what happens when they fail? Nothing, continue as normal the attack may or may not hit you.

 

And if they succeed? The attacker attacks, the defender defends and the "How" is resovled by the SFX of the missile deflection.

 

All the mechanics state is that the Ranged Attack was avoided, but not How it was avoided. Thus leaving that open ended for SFX to step up to the plate and bring the Power to life inside the game.

 

Shield? Perhaps it bounced off and hit something else.

Super Absorption? Perhaps the Ranged Attack hit at a glance and fell to the ground

Dodged? The Ranged Attack may continue in a strait path until another object intervenes.

 

That's where'd I'd start the division of Mechanics from SFX. Does it hold true for every Power in the book? I dunno, there's a lot of powers to go through - maybe we should do that.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

So...something like a section on "here's how we envision the various SFX working in play"? With common SFX listed out, with various minor effects listed that wouldn't have to be statted out (in contrast to the direction HERO seems to have gone)?

 

Like:

 

SFX-FIRE

*Full effect on limitations, advantages, disadvantages that reference "Fire"

 

*Half effect (or one step down as appropriate) on limitations, advantages, disadvantages that reference "Heat" (ie target has 2xSTUN Vulnerability to "Heat", will take 1.5XSTUN from a "Fire" attack)

 

*Might set things on fire, either purposefully or accidentally. Note: if want this ability to be a consistent effect, consider buying a continuous, sticky attack linked to the "Fire" power in question, with a limitation "only vs flammable".

 

*Must have a -1/2 limitation "not useable underwater or in other situations where combustion impossible (vacuum, etc)" except with GM permission.

 

etc.

 

Something like that for the various SFX, explaining how the designers intend for different SFX to behave under the rules?

[schir1964]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

Two, I'm actually in the opposite camp of Christopher... I don't want or expect to have rigorous, divorced from SFX mechanics. I think that attempt would create a thin sheet of equations... and a thousand volumes of exceptions to those equations.

 

I feel that a few pages on design intent... specific SFX description in concise language as part of the "mechanic" would actually slim down Hero considerably. So much of it is already "but in this case..." type of exceptions and variables that stem from incomplete/incoherent design... trying to marry the toolkit expectations while also making "canonical" interpretations of how a mechanic should function.

Since you invoked my name... (8^D) you should know better. (8^D)

 

Actually, my view is that if the mechanics were defined as straight mechanics, it would actually eliminate exceptions, since that is exactly what the GM job is all about, defining what his campaign is about and limiting what he wants in the game. Plus, and you probably didn't know this, this idea requires that all mechanics be given a balance rating of some sort to give the GM a guideline of what rules might prove more unbalancing than others for different type games.

 

A perfect example of this is Succor. I'd slap a Stop Sign on that power in heartbeat, but as it stands with 5th Edition Hero, it doesn't even have a Caution Sign. Although this mechanic may be unbalancing, it shouldn't be removed and shouldn't have additional limitations slapped onto its definition just to try to make it balanced (as canon that is).

 

Now to keep things as clear as possible. I think that the mechanics should be kept as simple as possible in order to keep various expectation of use from influencing builds. An example of this with the current system is the Fade Rate restriction that is included as part of the definition of some of the Adjustment Powers. I think by coupling these two mechanics, it influences what they can be used for as far as building SFX. I would separate them. But that's just me, what do I know? (8^D)

 

Finally, I think making the actual mechanics consistent in application would benefit the system as a whole. An example of an improvement would be making Adjustment Powers consistent with other powers by defaulting them to affecting a single SFX instead of mechanic would go a long way.

 

Note: Defenses are a mechanic that needs to be re-evaluated whole scale, and due to constraints of space and time I won't even attempt to touch upon it here.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[OddHat]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

As a GM, concept and associated SFX are more important to me than mechanics.

 

I don’t think of the game as a number crunching exercise, and when the math fails to model the world I’m trying to describe, I consider the math to be at fault.

 

I like and agree with Steve Long’s oft-repeated admonition that common and dramatic sense must be applied to rule interpretations.

 

I appreciate that there are other play styles, and good on them.

 

All of that said, I don’t like having mechanics tied inextricably to SFX, as is the case with Life Support. Killer Shrike once commented that it was unfair for a Missile Deflector to have to pay more to deflect a 1d6 RKA defined as a “laser†than a 1d6 RKA defined as a “Throwing Knifeâ€. I thought it was a good point.

 

In the end, I try to keep SFX and Mechanics separate when possible. However, there is a middle ground where they must interact. When that happens, I tend to give more weight to the SFX than the mechanics, within the bounds of common and dramatic sense.

[Kristopher]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

I'm conflicted on this.

 

I don't know how to get mechanics that work better than Power Defense and Flash Defense. But I'd like something that reflects (hah!) the fact that a pair of nice sunglasses isn't going to do anything much to protect you from a Flash-Sight that is the mechanical representation of a darkness manipulator slapping some clinging shadowstuff across your face.

 

And it's hard to just argue SFX with a lot of players who will say "Hey, I paid for Flash Defense on this PC, no fair just saying it doesn't work against some attacks!"

[Zephrosyne]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

I am just starting to gm Hero System. I did it once about fourteen years or so ago and did a mediocre job at it (at best). I am in the process of converting my Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition game to Hero System. So I am coming at this from a relatively newbie angle.

 

I like Gary's approach to special effects versus mechanics. I default to mechanics for the most part, but I do believe that sometimes special effects have to carry the day. For example, if a character creates a Force Wall (non-Opaque), well say based on solidified psychokinetic energy, and had 10 PD and 10 ED and no Flash Defense, I would rule that character is vulnerable to a Flash based on bright light because Force Walls by default are transparent to light. However, I wouldn't let the same character be affected by a Flash based on a sandstorm no more than someone behind a regular wall would be, let alone someone poking his fingers in the character's eye even if he where at the edge of the Force Wall and technically within hand to hand range.

 

I think some of the places where mechanics and special effects conflict are because of the powers being used to simulate the special effect. A good example is the current thread based on Entangle. I have also seen examples of Paralysis being a bio-manipulation special effect built using Entangle. To be frank, I am not a fan of using Entangle to create restraints that do not simulate matter or solidified energy. How does physical strength stop paralysis? Even with the Takes No Damage From Attacks Advantage, it doesn't make sense. How do you attack the paralysis, which according to the letter of the rules you should be able to do with a -3 OCV penalty? Are you going to use Aid? Personally, I feel Drain, Suppress, or Transform (for long term effects) are a better choice. Just my two cents. Thanks

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

How about a little (but hardly used) brain?

 

I think sfx are already tangled in with mechanics. PD and ED, missile deflection (as you pointed out), life support, to name but a few.

 

I also think we as a community are a bit confused over the place of sfx in the game (I know I am). On the one hand they are just a final touch- they come at the end and add colour without changing the way the power works. On the other hand sfx are almost a set of mechanics (with only the vaguest defining principles) that overlay the mechanics and can have substantial effects on gameplay.

 

On the gripping hand I'd like to see a more in-depth exploration of sfx, their interaction with other sfx and mechanics. I'd like to see sfx RULES.

 

I think the first step is to admit that we don't quite know where we stand with regard to sfx, or maybe that we all stand in different places, and so are seeing them fom different perspectives.

 

I think we should bring sfx directly into the system a great deal more (defining the defences for adjustment powers is a good example - a simple overall power defence makes almost no sense to me)

 

I think it is time we talked about all this.

[schir1964]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

As a GM' date=' concept and associated SFX are more important to me than mechanics.[/quote']

Precisely, which is why I think my solution would actually benefit the GM in this regard.

 

I don’t think of the game as a number crunching exercise' date=' and when the math fails to model the world I’m trying to describe, I consider the math to be at fault.[/quote']

Which is why I would break the mechanics down so it doesn't become a number crunching exercise. It gets even easier to say, "The SFX is this, and these specific mechanics will effectively give me the same thing in the game", instead of having to figure out what fits the best and then tearing it down or changing it in a convoluted way. That's my preference.

 

All of that said' date=' I don’t like having mechanics tied inextricably to SFX, as is the case with Life Support. Killer Shrike once commented that it was unfair for a Missile Deflector to have to pay more to deflect a 1d6 RKA defined as a “laser†than a 1d6 RKA defined as a “Throwing Knifeâ€. I thought it was a good point.[/quote']

Agreed, and thus the solution I offer would address this.

 

In the end' date=' I try to keep SFX and Mechanics separate when possible. However, there is a middle ground where they must interact. When that happens, I tend to give more weight to the SFX than the mechanics, within the bounds of common and dramatic sense.[/quote']

And again, if the mechanics are done properly, then SFX will be the main thing anyone ever need to worry about. (8^D)

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[OddHat]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

I think it is time we talked about all this.

 

I think it's time we all had a pool party with cute cos-players. Maybe follow up with a light barbecue, some beer, gaming areas of several kinds.

 

Not that I disagree with your comments; It's just been a while since I've been to a pool party.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Mechanics vs. SFX... Where is the line?

 

I think it's time we all had a pool party with cute cos-players. Maybe follow up with a light barbecue, some beer, gaming areas of several kinds.

 

Not that I disagree with your comments; It's just been a while since I've been to a pool party.

 

 

BOMB!

 

SPLASH