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

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

Or perhaps leave Block as it is, and remove Missile Deflection, and create a Talent that allows all levels of Block with Deflection/Reflection only at the higher levels.

 

- Christopher Mullins

It sounds like we're thinking much the same here

Tho to get it to mesh the way I'd like in system, actually I think I'd make Missile Deflection a Skill, following the same logic as making Two Weapon Fighting, Rapid Attack, or the various Autofire modifiers skills. Talents these days are built with powers, but a Skill can be bought as a power, whereas all these skills act as modifiers to exising Combat Maneuvers. Thus I'd support a loose set of skills that act as adders for Block to define the various element of Missile Deflection. This would also solve the "old as the Hero system" dilemma of "How do you reflect a HTH attack?"

[schir1964]

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

 

It sounds like we're thinking much the same here

Tho to get it to mesh the way I'd like in system, actually I think I'd make Missile Deflection a Skill, following the same logic as making Two Weapon Fighting, Rapid Attack, or the various Autofire modifiers skills. Talents these days are built with powers, but a Skill can be bought as a power, whereas all these skills act as modifiers to exising Combat Maneuvers. Thus I'd support a loose set of skills that act as adders for Block to define the various element of Missile Deflection. This would also solve the "old as the Hero system" dilemma of "How do you reflect a HTH attack?"

Actually, Talents are unique builds that can take elements from Skills, Powers, and even Disadvantages if necessary.

 

There are a few Talents that have Skill Like qualities to them.

 

Should I created a new Talent: Deflection and post it here?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[David Johnston]

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

 

The Missle Deflection Conundrum is a classic one.

Bob has a 1d6 Rka OAF throwing knife.

Frank has a 1d6 RKA OAF Pistol

Fritz has a 1d6 RKA OAF Laser

 

Each spent 7 points on what are, barring SFX, identical attacks in game terms.

 

Each require different levels of Missle deflection to deflect, at increasing costs.

 

Why?

 

Because each of those attacks is an descending level of commonality. The first includes every improvised throwing weapon and rocks are everywhere. The second is the level of the most commonplace mundane weapons in the modern world, guns. The third is superpowers and super-tech. (In a campaign where nobody used projectile weapons there would just be no point in getting the middle level and you'd drop it.). It is not fundamentally different in principle from "only versus physical projectiles" being less of a limitation than "only versus lasers". That it is written this way is a legacy from earlier editions to be sure.

 

Precisely as AmadaNaBriona says: sfx are built into the points cost of the power. In addition sfx comes into the question of whether the power works in game:

 

I have an AoE defined as a hand grenade: can it be deflected? Probably - it is a lump of metal you can bat off until the fuse runs through.

 

I have an AoE defined as a spray of napalm: can it be deflected? Probably not - if you hit one bit then you still get covered with the rest....but what if my MD is defined as a telekinietic shield? Well maybe you can deflect it then...

 

I figure if you bought your telekinetic shield as Missile Deflection then obviously it isn't wide enough to stop a broad cone of napalm and the napalm just flows around the shield. If you wanted a TK shield that acted like an entire invisible wall then you should have gone ahead and ponied up for the force wall or forcefield. The grenade's easy to screw with because it's an OAF and being vulnerable to missile deflection is just part of that limitation.

[schir1964]

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

 

Because each of those attacks is an descending level of commonality. The first includes every improvised throwing weapon and rocks are everywhere. The second is the level of the most commonplace mundane weapons in the modern world' date=' guns. The third is superpowers and super-tech. (In a campaign where nobody used projectile weapons there would just be no point in getting the middle level and you'd drop it.). It is not fundamentally different in principle from "only versus physical projectiles" being less of a limitation than "only versus lasers". That it is written this way is a legacy from earlier editions to be sure.[/quote']

What if you are running a Campaign where the commonality was completely different? You are forced to completely rewrite the costing of the base mechanic.

 

The principles "Only versus physical projectiles" and "only vs lasers" are both Limitations that should be applied to a consistent base mechanic.

 

If the base mechanic were made more consistent on how it is applied, as in applying to all attacks for example, then modifiers could be placed on it as necessary and values assigned in accordance to what the GM needs intead of having to rewrite the basic mechanic.

 

But I agree that Legacy is probably the best answer for this mechanic to exist as it is for the reason why it exists this way.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[David Johnston]

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

 

What if you are running a Campaign where the commonality was completely different? You are forced to completely rewrite the costing of the base mechanic.

 

 

Well, no. You just plug in lasers where bullets used to be and vice versa.

Hardly a complete rewrite. (I'm going to take a wild leap and assume that improvised throwing weapons are "always" going to be more common

than energy attacks unless you are roleplaying intelligent clouds of gas on Jupiter or in the Sun or something.

[schir1964]

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

 

Well, no. You just plug in lasers where bullets used to be and vice versa.

Hardly a complete rewrite. (I'm going to take a wild leap and assume that improvised throwing weapons are "always" going to be more common

than energy attacks unless you are roleplaying intelligent clouds of gas on Jupiter or in the Sun or something.

First, rewriting the mechanic is still rewriting the mechanic, even if you simply substitute them as you suggest, but this solution wouldn't make sense in most of the ideas I can think of that a rewrite would be necessary. But that is just me. The point is, the mechanic shouldn't require this kind of thing (except in extreme cases) if it is going to claim to be a toolkit for different types of games.

 

Science Fiction is rife with material where Thrown Objects are controlled or the environment results in thrown objects being rare or ineffective, so won't be used initially regardless.

 

What I am not saying: I am not saying that the GM can't make the current mechanic work for his games, it just requires more work for the GM than needed. Obviously, this is opinion based.

 

What I am saying: I think a better more consistent mechanic could achieve the same play experience desired, without the extra work for the GM.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Well, no. You just plug in lasers where bullets used to be and vice versa.

Hardly a complete rewrite. (I'm going to take a wild leap and assume that improvised throwing weapons are "always" going to be more common

than energy attacks unless you are roleplaying intelligent clouds of gas on Jupiter or in the Sun or something.

 

What if we're playing in an underwater game? We may have energy weapons (spells/lasers) and perhaps we will have projectile weapons (spearguns; underwater crossbows), but it's pretty useless to have a thrown weapon underwater.

[schir1964]

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

 

What if we're playing in an underwater game? We may have energy weapons (spells/lasers) and perhaps we will have projectile weapons (spearguns; underwater crossbows)' date=' but it's pretty useless to have a thrown weapon underwater.[/quote']

Perfect example of the Environment changing the commonality. Thanks. (8^D)

 

And what about combats in space. Not many objects just lying around waiting to be thrown, and if you do find one, it's going to have the same benefits of a Bullet or a Laser, as far as range is concerned.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[David Johnston]

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

 

What if we're playing in an underwater game? We may have energy weapons (spells/lasers) and perhaps we will have projectile weapons (spearguns; underwater crossbows)' date=' but it's pretty useless to have a thrown weapon underwater.[/quote']

 

That's true. And that being the case, I would strongly recommend to my players that they not bother getting the first level of Missile Deflection.

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

I agree that it is a legacy mechanic, and it is wildly out of place in the modern "reasoning from effect" era.

 

The whole commonality argument doesn't wash for me. Its a fine structure to have, possibly as campaign guidelines or requirements based on SFX, but not as a core mechanic.

 

Look at this, based on Davids argument...

Superpowers are rare and thus harder to deflect (on par with energy weapons), whereas thrown weapons are common, and infact avialable to anyone... so far, it makes total logical sence, SFX wise for one to be more difficult to deflect than the other.

 

One character has WF: Throwing knives and carries a bunch of free 1d6 RKA throwing knives. He spent a point. By the above argument, he should be easy to deflect.

Another is a telekinetic whoi buys 1d6 RKA, OIF Sharp objects of Opportunity, and carries a bunch of free throwing knives. He spend 10 points for it.By the "superpowers aren't free" argument, he has a harder to deflect attack. He spent more after all?

 

Sorry, I don't see that design as a system feature... I see it as a flaw if its built into the mechanics of the power. If I want to use such logic in a game that I run, than I will, and I'd build it with required campaign limits on Deflection.

Another example might be a Star Wars game. Theres almost no "in cannon" examples of chemically propelled projectile weapons. It jumps from muscle powered straight to energy weapons... and the energy bolts are slow enough to dodge... you can track them with the unaided eye. Sop why are the Energy attacks harder to deflect? Once again, its solved with campaign rules, not system rules.

[CBikle]

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

 

Missile deflection was a perfect example to bring up.

 

Were it to be rewritten to look like the rest of the system, it might look something like this:

 

10 pts. Deflects physical attacks

10 Pts. Deflects energy attacks

 

With the rest of the adders being their respective costs.

[Lucius]

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

 

I'm rather inclined to those who say Missile Deflection should be a skill, like Defense Manuever, allowing one to use a Block on a ranged attack.

 

Now, as to what that skill would look like exactly, I'm not so sure.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Riding Palindromedary Skill

[Egyptoid]

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

 

Here's one:

 

character has Flash defined as physical caustic goo.

 

target has precious little flash defense, and should be way blinded by the rules.

but target also has body covering force field.

 

How much flash gets through?

[John Desmarais]

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

 

Here's one:

 

character has Flash defined as physical caustic goo.

 

target has precious little flash defense, and should be way blinded by the rules.

but target also has body covering force field.

 

How much flash gets through?

 

All of it - it sticks to teh Force Field. Drop the Force Field and the goo constricts just a little bit to now stick to you. Yuck

[RDU Neil]

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

 

All of it - it sticks to teh Force Field. Drop the Force Field and the goo constricts just a little bit to now stick to you. Yuck

 

 

Hey... thread necro... fun!

 

The above demonstrates "SFX WINS!" decisions making. Not a problem

 

What I argue is that the system and mechanics are more closely tied to SFX, and should reflect that. Thus, while certain interpretations of they system say "Any power can be used to create any effect, no matter how obscure!" I disagree.

 

I think the system demands (or should demand) that specific game world effects are INTENDED to be reflected by specific powers. Thus, in the above example, the game system should argue that such a power is built as "Darkness, only to cover face, vs. All Sight, sticky, actual substance" or something close to that. In that case, it is not removing your ability to see (what Flash does) but instead covering your eyes so that all you can see is black goop.

 

Thus, the system indicates what is the INTENDED (not necessarily the right way, but the best way based on intended design) to build an SFX. Doesn't mean a GM can't approve "I used Flash attack for this" if they want... they just understand that they are deviating from the design intent and may run into weird play situations like, "If it sticks to my force field, I should be able to remove it by dropping the field" which would work with the intended build, but takes some head scratching with the Flash build.

[Zeropoint]

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

 

I've always viewed it as, "SFX determines how the power SHOULD work, so the mechanics should reflect that whenever possible," with the caveat that you probably shouldn't go nuts creating really complicated mechanics. In most cases, a power won't get really weird on a regular basis, and you can just wing it when it comes up.

 

If the weirdness happens a lot, then it might be time to take a closer look at how well the mechanics reflect the SFX.

 

Zeropoint

[ghost-angel]

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

 

I've always viewed it as, "SFX determines how the power SHOULD work, so the mechanics should reflect that whenever possible," with the caveat that you probably shouldn't go nuts creating really complicated mechanics. In most cases, a power won't get really weird on a regular basis, and you can just wing it when it comes up.

 

If the weirdness happens a lot, then it might be time to take a closer look at how well the mechanics reflect the SFX.

 

Zeropoint

YES

 

 

and You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zeropoint again (dammit)

[RDU Neil]

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

 

I've always viewed it as, "SFX determines how the power SHOULD work, so the mechanics should reflect that whenever possible,"

Zeropoint

 

 

I totally agree, but probably not the way you mean.

 

SFX describes how the power works in actual play. I think we agree on this.

 

That being said, I then think you pick the mechanic that best supports that SFX. I even think we agree up to this point.

 

I then say that mechanics UNAVOIDABLY have some level of SFX built into them (this is the elephant in the room that many Herophiles try to deny) so that certain mechanics, by design intent, are BETTER for certain SFX.

 

Sticky darkness is better for SFX of covering someone's eyes with goo than Flash attack.

 

(Not to say that you can't use Flash if you want... just that you are more likely to run into play problems if you do.)

 

What is missing is clearer description of the INTENT of powers, so you can choose more wisely.

 

What we have now is a confusing amalgam of approaches.

 

Choose the mechanic I want for it's game effect... slap any SFX on it that I want.

 

or

 

Choose an SFX, then select a power that most closely simulates that effect.

 

or

 

Choose an SFX, then select a mechanic with an effect I want and kludge them together.

 

The problem is that all approaches are seen as equal by the system. I would argue that this isn't true... and worse, the approaches often aren't compatible. One approach leans more toward the "play in concept" mindset. Another approach lends itself toward "minmaxing" mindset... etc.

 

The open-endedness of Hero can be formless, and this effects play. There is not a clear discussion of "How the design intended SFX to be used, plus variable methods" If I'm a player in your game, how do I know if you are an "SFX wins out" GM or a "Mechanic wins out, SFX is just fluff" GM. I've seen both, and both rarely realize that their interpretation could be different than someone else's.

 

Worse... if I'm a new, or even experienced player... how do I know to even ASK the question of "What kind of SFX GM are you?" That is incredibly advanced and abstract thinking to even ask the question, let alone can the GM answer it.

 

We can all sit around and pat ourselves on the back for being so smart and committed to have investigated all this depth and nuance of Hero in order to have good conversation about it. We can be all geek-macho on our Hero mastery.

 

That doesn't do the game itself any good. Something of such critical importance to a role playing game as SFX shouldn't be so vague and undefined and arbitrary. Giving it definition and clear design intent doesn't mean it can't be highly flexible and open... it just gives a framework to something that is formless and potentially self-conflicting at this point.

[Egyptoid]

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

 

UNAVOIDABLY have some level of SFX built into them (this is the elephant in the room that many Herophiles try to deny)[/QUoTE]

 

especially Flash and Entangle