Jump to content

VPP and Advantages


Eodin

Recommended Posts

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Ummm.... Thanks for checking on this for me.

 

I didn't have my book at the office, and had an idea during a coffee break. Didn't mean to start a controversy...

How dare you suggest that we have discussions without controversy!! String him up!! (8^D)

 

These discussions wouldn't be any fun if there wasn't controversy. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

 

...not to seem confrontational (well, a little) - I honestly don't mind it when people don't like something in the System or in their Games. What gets my hackles up is when people go on these defacto rants about how suddenly the system is trashed, incosistent or just plain broken when they find something distasteful.

 

Don't like it? Don't use it. Tell us you don't like it, but make sure you put it so that it's clear it's a personal preference and not a slander against the System. Really, it's purile to act that way.

 

I live by this - I've lived through enough system wars on superhero newsgroups and the HERO system mailing lists, and recently on RPGnet that I make a point of discussing things in that kind of tone. After reading Aberrant and having a fried who was into White Wolf games and seeing that the system didn't steal your soul, I realized what was the point. It's all about playstyle and what you like. I'd never play M&M, but people like it, why should I argue with them.

 

People have ways they use HERO, why should I argue. Part of the reason I don't get into many of the mecahnics discussions.... I know how I like to play, why should I just argue the point. I do always want to know what the strict rule is, so I know how I am not using it, to explain to new players in our group. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

How dare you suggest that we have discussions without controversy!! String him up!!

 

These discussions wouldn't be any fun if there wasn't controversy.

 

If the posts are:

 

#1 Question

 

#2 Answer

 

#3+ I agree

 

It's a short and boring thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

 

Making a 100 point Multipower 0 END would be a +1/2 advantage on the reserve, or a 50 point cost. If we double the cost of the advantage, a more appropriate (IMO) result is obtained, because the advantage is now effectively purchased on the VPP reserve.

 

Well, the Multipower example, to truly equate to the VPP advantage being applied to control cost, would have to include the limitations extra time needed to change a power, and skill roll required to change power as well.

 

50 point VPP

(No advantages or limitations)

0 End

50 +25 +12 87 points

 

50 MP, bought to 0 end. (Assuming 5 ultra slots)

Bought with the limitation of extra time to change powers, skill roll to change powers in combat, roughly a 1/2 limit, IMHO.

 

the pool winds up costing 50 points, while the 5 slots come out at 3 points each, for 65 points--or up to 11 slots at 83 points. say its 83, with some multi slots, some smaller slots less than 50 points.

 

If the cost is doubled for the VPP, it goes up to 100.

 

Of course, buying that advantage may come back to haunt you--it robs you of taking powers with increased end cost as a limitation, and you have paid for 0 end even when you don't need to worry about end, or for powers that don't use end.

 

I'm not sure if the doubling is needed or not. Since most VPP's aren't the very simple ones I've been using, maybe looking at the cost effects on common pools like Gadget or cosmic pools is in order. It seems that for a gadget pool, there would be no one specific advantage you would want to put on the pool--you would be better off putting the points into a bigger reerve to begin with than a fixed advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

:thumbdown This looks like another brain fart.

....

I guess now I'm in even less of a hurry to buy 5ER. I'll stick with FREd.

 

 

This bears repeating.

 

5th ER page 322:

With the GM permission,.......

 

Optional Rule. Like many others, it may work for a certain form of build or setting. It's not a standard rule. It does munchkins no good.

 

....and as for We all can see that it's wrong, can't we?

 

Depends. Do we all play the same style game, the same approach, share the same sentiments on how to match genre with mechanics and share the same sense of what point costs makes a fair game balance?

 

The answer for both the quote and my question should match. It's hard to reconcile saying yes to one and no to the other. Yes to both is obviously not viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Well' date=' the Multipower example, to truly equate to the VPP advantage being applied to control cost, would have to include the limitations extra time needed to change a power, and skill roll required to change power as well.[/quote']

 

The bottom line to me, and maybe this is just gut feel with no rationale, is that olacing an advantage on a Multipower to make all its powers, say, 0 END requires paying the cost of that advantage on the full reserve. Applying it to a VPP and applying the advantage to only 1/2 the cost of the reserve seems wrong from the outset. If I'm going to apply 0 END to all the powers of either a 100 point VPP or a 100 point Multipower, it seems inequitable to me that the former costs 25 points and the latter 50 points (note that this assumes we are applying the optional rule of buying the advantage for the pool, not for the individual powers, in both cases).

 

I'm not sure why there is any perceived need for this option in the first place, however. It's easy enough to put "0 END" on every slot of the multipower, or every power in the VPP, without the option of buying it on the reserve to apply it automatically to all underlying powers. No one would consider taking a limitation on just the reserve, and not the slots/VPP powers. Why should advantages be different? [ANSWER: because it's a point break and limitations would not be.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

:sick:

 

Active Points are Active Points! Come on! I don't even like the Advantage on Control rule as an optional one. It is ridiculous. The only benefit I can see is making so you don't have to write the Advantage on each Power. The major drawback is that it gives points away for free. :(

 

I'm going to create a 5 AP VPP with about +7 in Advantages on the Control. :ugly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Deep breath. Count to ten.

 

Here are two examples to show just how unbalanced this rule is (and just because it's an optional rule, doesn't make it any less unbalanced):

 

The Never Miss VPP

60 Pool

Control cost base 30, +1/2 One Hex Accurate, +1/2 No Range Modifier

Total Control cost: 60

Total VPP cost: 120

Now I can buy my DEX up to 17 and I have a 91% chance of hitting anything within 600 meters with ANY 60-point power. And for an extra 15 points, all those powers can be 0 END.

 

The Omnipotent Ghost VPP

60 Pool

Control base 30, +2 Affects Solid World

Total control cost: 90

Total VPP cost: 150

Now I can buy Desolid and use any 60-point power I want to attack with. (One such power would normally cost 180 points, this VPP gives me complete flexibility and saves 30 points! For half those points, I could tag on 0 END to the VPP.)

 

The more advantages you use with this rule, the more unbalanced it is. If you only use a low level of advantage, then you get a low lever of imbalance. If you steal a car, it's grand theft, but if you steal a package of beef jerky, it's still stealing, and it's still a crime. Any amount of unfairness is too much.

 

Now, if you use Lord Mhoram's modification of doubling the cost of the Advantages placed on the control cost, then you are in fact paying the full price of what you're getting, and it's quite fair, and I'd have no problem with it.

 

But as Hugh pointed out (perhaps more succinctly than I), if you buy the Advantage on the control cost, you're only paying half the cost of the advantage. You wouldn't allow someone to pay for 0 END on only half of a power and let them have it on the whole power, would you?

 

It is' date=' for all intents and purposes, and Optional Rule. Which add more options and flexability to the Game.[/quote']

Sure. It also adds unfairness to the game. If there was an Optional Rule that said you can have the first four slots of your Multipower for free, would you not acknowledge the imbalance? Would you simply say, "Hooray for options and flexibility!"?

 

Beyond the knee jerk reactions of how eeevil this is, or inconsistant I have only one question:

My reactions are not "knee jerk". They are carefully and soberly calculated, and based on the values of fairness and consistancy. If you don't share those values, that's fine for you, but don't assume that it makes my reactions are "knee jerk".

 

Lord Mhoram has it unbalanced your games to any significant degree to use the Rule this way?

 

If the answer is "no" the nay-sayers may now sit down and use it as they see fit in their Game, and not tell the rest of us how unbalanced and unfair we are being if we decide to implement this Option.

And if the answer is "well, it doesn't get used very much at all," which appears to be the case, then we learn nothing. Let's ask Lord Mhoram if either of the two examples I gave above would unbalance his game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

This bears repeating.

 

5th ER page 322:

"With the GM permission,......."

...you can cheat, you can get powers or advantages for free, you can do anything you want. If the GM is naive enough to let you get something you didn't pay for, it's his own fault if you take advantage of the situation. Well, not entirely; it's also the fault of the person who wrote the rule and implied that it didn't produce any imbalance issues.

 

Optional Rule. Like many others, it may work for a certain form of build or setting. It's not a standard rule. It does munchkins no good.

It does if you use it. If there's a plate of garbage on the buffet table, you don't have to eat the garbage, but that doesn't mean it's OK for it to be there. It has nothing to do with the build or the setting - it has to do with whether you want the characters to pay a fair price for what they get.

 

Depends. Do we all play the same style game, the same approach, share the same sentiments on how to match genre with mechanics and share the same sense of what point costs makes a fair game balance?

It has nothing to do with style or genre considerations. It's about cheating vs. fairness. Just because someone doesn't sense the unfairness doesn't mean it isn't there. I have tried to point out logically why this is unfair using examples and actual numbers. If you don't wish to follow my argument and take it seriously, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

The answer for both the quote and my question should match. It's hard to reconcile saying yes to one and no to the other. Yes to both is obviously not viable.

I don't find it hard at all. Let me qualify my answer to the first question:

 

Anyone who takes the time to examine this rule carefully (and it isn't that hard), will see that it is blatantly imbalanced and violates the core principle of the care that "You Get What You Pay For, And You Pay For What You Get."

 

My answer to you question is:

 

Not everyone cares about fairness and game balance, and not everyone values the principle of "YGWYPFAYPFWYG." Such people can use this rule or introduce any other unfair rules they like. There may be consequences for doing so, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

you can cheat, you can get powers or advantages for free, you can do anything you want. If the GM is naive enough to let you get something you didn't pay for, it's his own fault if you take advantage of the situation. Well, not entirely; it's also the fault of the person who wrote the rule and implied that it didn't produce any imbalance issues.

 

The fact a rule is optional implies there may be balance issues. Duh. It's provided as an option, of making certain builds for whatever unknown purpose some gM may want. It wasn't made by the Cult of Munchkin to drive a stake into the Heart of PhilFleischmann's game.

 

 

It does if you use it. If there's a plate of garbage on the buffet table, you don't have to eat the garbage, but that doesn't mean it's OK for it to be there.

 

What is garbage to you may be the preferred diet of someone else. Your free to pass buy the item.

 

It has nothing to do with the build or the setting - it has to do with whether you want the characters to pay a fair price for what they get.

 

The GM may have decided that initially, price doesn't matter. I've got a PBEM right now where every PC started with a form of VPP. The points to get the pools to do what I wanted didnt matter; I customed ruled mechanics about how VPP's work to suit what I wanted to do with the game. The end result is abalnced, all characters have equal capabilities. The cost it took to get there was just added to the base cost. Some GM's might not even worry about costs at all. Being a toolkit, the Hero system options cover a pretty wide area, and many go off the path of what would normally be balanced for an average game.

 

It has nothing to do with style or genre considerations. It's about cheating vs. fairness.

 

If the GM is conscious of what the effects do, and, like in every completely by the book game rejects legal, but abuive builds, it isn't cheating.

 

Just because someone doesn't sense the unfairness doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

What isn't fair in your view may not necessarily be unfair for some other person for what they intend to do, unless you claim to have imagined every possible variation of genrea and the application of mechanics to meet a GM's needs.

 

I have tried to point out logically why this is unfair using examples and actual numbers. If you don't wish to follow my argument and take it seriously, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

It doesn't mean there ever was a point to an argument over an optional rule. Weather its unfair or not depends entirely on all PC builds, NPC builds in the game. This is a topic muich easier to talk about for standard rules games--but this is an optional one. I'm not saying, by any means, this should be part of the standard rules at all. For normal game usage, I say if you want to be able to use a power+ advantage, you better have the reserve for it. The abusive build you suggested as the never missing VPP is actually a pretty silly waste of points if the VPP user ever wants to do something else. The idea of all VPP powers taking 0 end isn't that likely. whatever was applied would have to be really campaign specific..maybe like Personal immunity (and extending that immunity to all other VPP users--reflecting a class of powers that can only be used against lesser beings--and just figuring it in tot he control cost is more expedient than each power. I'd probably just make a note on sheets about those VPP and not worry about it, but another GM may want to do it differently--and thats not automatically bad thing, nor unfair, nor cheating.

 

 

 

Anyone who takes the time to examine this rule carefully (and it isn't that hard), will see that it is blatantly imbalanced and violates the core principle of the care that "You Get What You Pay For, And You Pay For What You Get."

 

Some people feel thatway about VPP's period as well. It certainly does change a basic precept of VPP's that the reserve should match the active points of any power created within it. Hence the optional part--any GM wanting to differently and takign that optional rule probably has a good reason why they want to, so don't lose any sleep over it.

 

 

Not everyone cares about fairness and game balance, and not everyone values the principle of "YGWYPFAYPFWYG."

 

and some people get really wound up too tight about optional rules that never would be part of their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Deep breath. Count to ten.

 

Here are two examples to show just how unbalanced this rule is (and just because it's an optional rule, doesn't make it any less unbalanced):

 

The Never Miss VPP

60 Pool

Control cost base 30, +1/2 One Hex Accurate, +1/2 No Range Modifier

Total Control cost: 60

Total VPP cost: 120

Now I can buy my DEX up to 17 and I have a 91% chance of hitting anything within 600 meters with ANY 60-point power. And for an extra 15 points, all those powers can be 0 END.

 

The Omnipotent Ghost VPP

60 Pool

Control base 30, +2 Affects Solid World

Total control cost: 90

Total VPP cost: 150

Now I can buy Desolid and use any 60-point power I want to attack with. (One such power would normally cost 180 points, this VPP gives me complete flexibility and saves 30 points! For half those points, I could tag on 0 END to the VPP.)

 

The more advantages you use with this rule, the more unbalanced it is. If you only use a low level of advantage, then you get a low lever of imbalance. If you steal a car, it's grand theft, but if you steal a package of beef jerky, it's still stealing, and it's still a crime. Any amount of unfairness is too much.

 

Now, if you use Lord Mhoram's modification of doubling the cost of the Advantages placed on the control cost, then you are in fact paying the full price of what you're getting, and it's quite fair, and I'd have no problem with it.

 

But as Hugh pointed out (perhaps more succinctly than I), if you buy the Advantage on the control cost, you're only paying half the cost of the advantage. You wouldn't allow someone to pay for 0 END on only half of a power and let them have it on the whole power, would you?

 

 

Sure. It also adds unfairness to the game. If there was an Optional Rule that said you can have the first four slots of your Multipower for free, would you not acknowledge the imbalance? Would you simply say, "Hooray for options and flexibility!"?

 

 

My reactions are not "knee jerk". They are carefully and soberly calculated, and based on the values of fairness and consistancy. If you don't share those values, that's fine for you, but don't assume that it makes my reactions are "knee jerk".

 

 

And if the answer is "well, it doesn't get used very much at all," which appears to be the case, then we learn nothing. Let's ask Lord Mhoram if either of the two examples I gave above would unbalance his game.

 

Day-yum Phil!

Mighty is your Munchkrin fu.

Good spot, and Woah is that flawed.

Doubled to apply an overall advantage to a VPP it is for me.

 

Tho I can see merit in the idea of Limiting the control of a VPP if all powers must take a common advantage, but not if the advantage is applied to the Control cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Day-yum Phil!

Mighty is your Munchkrin fu.

 

Nothign wrong at all with his Munch-Fu. :) Even Chuck Norris would acknowledge that.

 

It would be just as bad even if it was paid for under the normal rules in many games. The only reason to use that option is when ease of mechanics is more important than adhereance to points--or that the advantages you decide to allow to be used that way are so trivial as to not be much of a threat. I'm glad it was an optional rule. If it were a standard rule, I'd be shaking my head in amazement.

 

Maybe its just my perspective--when I see the word optional rule, balance is never implied to me as being an included trait, or that its intended use is in games where normal terms of balance just don't apply. Thats why you should look very carefully at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

The fact a rule is optional implies there may be balance issues. Duh. It's provided as an option' date=' of making certain builds for whatever unknown purpose some gM may want. It wasn't made by the Cult of Munchkin to drive a stake into the Heart of PhilFleischmann's game.[/quote']

This is a flawed rationale. Options generally allow more flexibility by allowing certain difficult SFX to be emulated or to help simulate certain genres/settings.

 

Example: Hit Locations are an option since they don't make sense for Four Color Superheroes, but are needed for Gritty type campaigns due to lethality levels and danger.

 

I agree with Hugh that there doesn't seem to be any reason for this option to exist.

 

How does it make the system more flexible?

 

What SFX does it help simulate the would be more difficult without it?

And points don't matter for this since you can allways add more points to allow for greater power builds.

 

What Genre/Setting does it help simulate that would be difficult without it?

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

...I'm glad it was an optional rule. If it were a standard rule' date=' I'd be shaking my head in amazement.[/quote']

It was the standard rule in 4th Edition and as far as I know, no one ever complained about its absence.

 

Hmmm... I wonder why... maybe because no one needed it for any of their games... ever... as far as I know.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

And if the answer is "well, it doesn't get used very much at all," which appears to be the case, then we learn nothing. Let's ask Lord Mhoram if either of the two examples I gave above would unbalance his game.

 

I'd let the second one in, as GM, but remember I houserule that any advantage on the control is twice normal. That balances it out in my experience. The other GMs in the group don't even do that much.

 

I look on the idea as a stop and yield sign power. Potentially unbalancing, and must be watched.

 

As for the "no much at all" - that is because the players didn't find that build to suit thier characters. The only one to use it has been me, in the games I play in, and I have only done it for one characters, and that only for 0 end. If you do use our games as an example to test the theory - no one has found these builds too powerful.... in fact they have been pretty much ignored... which would indicate that other builds are more to the liking/better for the game/more powerful. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

I'd let the second one in' date=' as GM, but remember I houserule that any advantage on the control is twice normal. That balances it out in my experience. [/quote']

 

That makes the cost commensurate with an advantage applied to the Multipower reserve, which I find considerably more reasonable.

 

Modifying Phil's Example #2 for your doubled advantage rule:

 

The Omnipotent Ghost VPP

60 Pool

Control base 30, +4 Affects Solid World

Total control cost: 150

Total VPP cost: 210

Now I can buy Desolid and use any 60-point power I want to attack with. One such power would normally cost 180 points, this VPP gives me complete flexibility at the cost of an extra 30 points!

 

Note that, to provide full flexibility, I need to shell out another 60 points to make it Cosmic, for a total of 270. That's the same price as a 60 point Multipower with "Affects Solid World" on the reserve, and 15 Ultra slots.

 

I'm still not seeing why that's superior to a 180 point Multipower with a bunch of 180 point slots, but I suppose the minor point savings eliminates a 45/45 Force Field and 18d6 EB slot "just in case".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

If you do use our games as an example to test the theory - no one has found these builds too powerful.... in fact they have been pretty much ignored... which would indicate that other builds are more to the liking/better for the game/more powerful. :)

Since you doubled the cost to try to compensate points some, the result makes sense. There doesn't seem to anything it adds for flexibilty beyond reducing Active Points for individual powers. So it seems to completely a point issue. Its not going to affect my games any since I'll continue the standard rule application of 4th Edition in this regard. I just don't see the logic in having this option as far as adding any flexibility to the system.

 

However, if someone else has used it in order to get a specific SFX or type of genre/campaign, I would certainly like to hear about it, and why this Advantage was the best way to simulate it.

 

And again, Active Points don't matter since you can always increase them to build powers that would be necessary for a campaign.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Since you doubled the cost to try to compensate points some, the result makes sense. There doesn't seem to anything it adds for flexibilty beyond reducing Active Points for individual powers.

- Christopher Mullins

 

Limitations on the control. That is where the cost saving for using the build seems to come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

I'm not sure that it's consistent to say that a point break is inherrently a bad thing.

 

My very first HERO build was a dragon with a breath weapon limited to being full phase action, and a few melee attacks. With each of these attacks built as seperate powers, it was quite expensive.

 

It was suggested to me on this very board that I should put those powers into a multipower. Given the nature of the multipower rules, this meant the dragon could use both melee attacks, or a a single breath weapon at any one time -- which, due to the extended time lim on the breath, was already the case.

 

The only difference placing the attacks into the multipower made? The melee attacks became close to free.

 

Is this an abuse of the system, getting the same effect much cheaper? The prevailing wisdom on the board seemed to be that using the Multipower was simple common sense.

 

I agree that advantages on control pools should be monitored closely, but I think it is simplistic and closed-minded to begin and end the discussion at "Cheaper is wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Yes, but how is that any different from treating the Advantage like a Limitation on the Control Cost?

 

Just curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Let's say you want to have a pool that is 0 end. And you plan to have 60 point powers. Without advantages on control you have a 90 pt reserve, a 45 pt control with a -1/2 (fire only).

Total cost - 120 points.

 

As opposed to a 60 pt pool, with a 60 pt control cost (30 +1 for 0 end) with a 1/2 fire only

Total cost 100 pts.

 

No you coult throw another -1/2 on the first pool to have "must have 0 end" on it to bring the total cost down to 112.

 

Or did I misunderstand the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

This is a flawed rationale.

 

I agree with Hugh that there doesn't seem to be any reason for this option to exist.

 

How does it make the system more flexible?

 

It's simply a shortcut--instead of individual power calculations, its just built in. If anything, its to suit a GM's taste--I would be just as happy hand waving the cost on a universal advantage, or if it was a campaign where points didnt matter, why not just build it into the reserve? Maybe the GM is cooncered about overall points balance, but decides a certain advantage should apply to all VPP's. Maybe he makes them all inherent for some reason :) (Meep!)

 

But I'm not going to assume I can think of every possible reason, or preference a GM may have--since its safely optional, its not going to affect any mainstream game anyway.

 

What SFX does it help simulate the would be more difficult without it?

 

Sort of a pointless question--I could just make up any campaign that could call for it. A multi-dimensional campaign where all powers need to be transdimensional. A Magical campaign where all spelsl come from a VPP, and all pools are inherently of one FX--and certain pools only get to use variable FX by buying it as an overall advantage. Maybe no one ever uses it.

 

I can see part of the reason that it onyl affects the control cost--a measure of simplicty, having all of the advantages and limitations working on one total, not two. But worrying about too mch simplicity in something complx as a VPP seems odd to me.

 

I'm not saying this is the one true way to do it, but its not the doom of HERO, or the worst possible mechanic. Maybe it was Phil's Game Police melodrama that just struck me as odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

It has nothing to do with style or genre considerations. It's about cheating vs. fairness. Just because someone doesn't sense the unfairness doesn't mean it isn't there. I have tried to point out logically why this is unfair using examples and actual numbers. If you don't wish to follow my argument and take it seriously' date=' that doesn't mean I'm wrong.[/quote']

I didn't say you were wrong.

 

 

I said your attitude sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

It's simply a shortcut--instead of individual power calculations' date=' its just built in. If anything, its to suit a GM's taste--I would be just as happy hand waving the cost on a universal advantage, or if it was a campaign where points didnt matter, why not just build it into the reserve? Maybe the GM is cooncered about overall points balance, but decides a certain advantage should apply to all VPP's. Maybe he makes them all inherent for some reason :) (Meep!)[/quote']

 

If we don't care about points, then the optional rule should be "don't bother tracking point costs at all". Within the framework of a game where each character is expected to adhere to a points-based limit, the various approaches should carry costs commensurate with their benefit.

 

I don't think anyone is saying "there should be no way to place a universal advantage on a VPP". I think we are saying that the mechanic for doing so (core or optional rule) should be costed at an appropriate level, and that we don't see applying the advantage to the control cost to set the price at an appropriate level when compared with achieving the same result on a Multipower, or by applying the advantage to individual powers within the VPP.

 

Sort of a pointless question--I could just make up any campaign that could call for it. A multi-dimensional campaign where all powers need to be transdimensional. A Magical campaign where all spelsl come from a VPP' date=' and all pools are inherently of one FX--and certain pools only get to use variable FX by buying it as an overall advantage. Maybe no one ever uses it. [/quote']

 

Let's take your first example - all powers need to be transdimensional. We have two characters, one who is highly versatile and has a VPP - call him "V". The second is less versatile, and has a Multipower - call him "M". Both use 60 AP powers. They assume the GM will allow them to use the optional "advantages framework" rule.

 

V purchases his VPP with a 60 point pool. He applies +1/2 Transdimensional, and +2 Cosmic to the control cost so he can change at will, so the control cost is 105, for a total of 165 points.

 

M buys a 60 point Multipower, with +1/2 Transdimensional for 90 points, which leaves 75 for slots. He buys 10 slots and uses the other 15 points somewhere else.

 

However, the GM then tells them he's not using that optional rule. They must place the advantage on individual powers.

 

M redrafts. He needs a 90 point reserve. His 10 slots will cost another 90 points, 180 in aggregate. He needs another 30 points since it cost only 150 using the "Advantaged reserve" approach.

 

V redrafts. He needs a 90 point pool, plus a control cost at +2 Cosmic = 135 points, 225 in total. He needs to find an extra 60 points.

 

The point savings from applying the optional "put an advantage on the reserve" pool are doubled if you use a VPP instead of a multipower. In my opinion, this is an excessive benefit to the VPP user over and above the Multipower user.

 

Meanwhile, Elemental Control Man is thrilled - his power level is unchanged, and M and V both have to tone their characters down. The optional rule makes VPP's and Multipowers an even better cost break than they already are. In my view, they are already reasonably balanced without the optional rule providing a greater point savings.

 

Change your example to a Ghosts campaign, and assume all powers must Affect the Solid World, and this is more pronounced. Now, we get this result:

 

V purchases his VPP with a 60 point pool. He applies +2 ASW, and +2 Cosmic to the control cost so he can change at will, so the control cost is 150, for a total of 210 points.

 

M buys a 60 point Multipower, with +2 Transdimensional for 180 points, which leaves 30 for slots. He can only buy 5 slots. he's substantially less versatile than V, and should think about changing to a VPP to be competetive.

 

However, the GM then tells them he's not using that optional rule. They must place the advantage on individual powers.

 

M redrafts. He needs a 180 point reserve. His 5 slots will cost another 90 points, 270 in aggregate. He needs another 60 points since it cost only 210 using the "Advantaged reserve" approach. That 60 reflects the advantage coost on the slots, avoided under the optional rule.

 

V redrafts. He needs a 180 point pool, plus a control cost at +2 Cosmic = 270 points, 450 in total. He needs to find an extra 240 points, as the cost of his powers without this optional rule is more than doubled.

 

As Phil noted, the bigger the advantage applied, the greater the incentive to use a VPP rather than a Multipower.

 

Now, if everyone will have a VPP with the same advantages, it's easily handwaved - all characters get the same bonus. Unless, of course, the VPP's will have different reserve sizes, in which case larger reserves are still getting a larger point gift. However, if we didn't have the optional rule, the same result could still be achieved by giving the characters more points, or just handwaving the cost of the mandatory advantage itself. Rather than apply a discount for Multipowers, and a greater discount for VPP's, why not just make Transdimensional (or ASW) automatic at no point cost on all powers, rather than provide a cost benefit to certain character designs?

 

I can see part of the reason that it onyl affects the control cost--a measure of simplicty' date=' having all of the advantages and limitations working on one total, not two. But worrying about too mch simplicity in something complx as a VPP seems odd to me.[/quote']

 

For the greatest simplicity, just allow the advantages for free. Often, balance and simplicity are tradeoffs.

 

I'm not saying this is the one true way to do it' date=' but its not the doom of HERO, or the worst possible mechanic.[/quote']

 

I think your viewpoint is a bit skewed because you approach this from a perspective of not worrying about the points from the outset. If you're not using the point-based system, then there's no reason to worry that the "advantaged control cost" rule would create a significant point advantage for the VPP. However, unless the optional rule is "don't worry about the points", I think the options need to carry some measure of point balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

If we don't care about points, then the optional rule should be "don't bother tracking point costs at all".

 

I think that one is sort of mentioned somewhere else isnnt it?

 

Within the framework of a game where each character is expected to adhere to a points-based limit, the various approaches should carry costs commensurate with their benefit.
there are other optional rules that move to present a power in a rather simplified way that may not match up to a standard build of that effect. It's an oddball tool, but maybe someone wants the oddball tool.

 

I think we are saying that the mechanic for doing so (core or optional rule) should be costed at an appropriate level, and that we don't see applying the advantage to the control cost to set the price at an appropriate level when compared with achieving the same result on a Multipower, or by applying the advantage to individual powers within the VPP.

 

I'm perfectly fine with increasing the reserve as well--optiional rules are the ones most likely to be tinkered with. The comparisons to multipowers is the reason that doesn't concern me the strongest, as you have to add advantages to the control cost to be able to switch powers in the same way. It's effectively more multiple higher AP powers at once within a certain reserve that is the most balance challenging problem.

 

 

 

Let's take your first example - all powers need to be transdimensional. We have two characters, one who is highly versatile and has a VPP - call him "V". The second is less versatile, and has a Multipower - call him "M". Both use 60 AP powers. They assume the GM will allow them to use the optional "advantages framework" rule.

 

 

The point savings from applying the optional "put an advantage on the reserve" pool are doubled if you use a VPP instead of a multipower. In my opinion, this is an excessive benefit to the VPP user over and above the Multipower user.

 

Yes it is. That may not be a oncern though. I have a campaign right now that features a VPP make up that allows more benefits to tem (effectively, some non common modifiers are allowed to reduce real costs in VPP's). This is deliberate, and the PC's share the build one and all, as they are part of a rarer breed of metahuman that is frankly superrior to the garden variety superhuman....eventually. (Though immediately, there are 250 to 2775 point NPC's who are their combat equals right now..even if the PC's double their points).

 

Yes, it is a pretty unique situation, and nothing I'd allow in a standard campaign as an option for one PC. Optional rules that have such an extra boost to have the least ill effect when they apply to all ofthe PC's, instead of just one or two--unless you've got a really specific campaign set up and the type of players who, for the sake of a game, don't sweat some characters having an advantage over them.

 

 

 

Change your example to a Ghosts campaign, and assume all powers must Affect the Solid World, and this is more pronounced. Now, we get this result:

 

V purchases his VPP with a 60 point pool. He applies +2 ASW, and +2 Cosmic to the control cost so he can change at will, so the control cost is 150, for a total of 210 points.

 

M buys a 60 point Multipower, with +2 Transdimensional for 180 points, which leaves 30 for slots. He can only buy 5 slots. he's substantially less versatile than V, and should think about changing to a VPP to be competetive.

 

Why, yes he should. Maybe the GM's going to tell people they should do that.

 

However, the GM then tells them he's not using that optional rule. They must place the advantage on individual powers.

 

 

As Phil noted, the bigger the advantage applied, the greater the incentive to use a VPP rather than a Multipower.

 

I don't disagree at all.

.

Now, if everyone will have a VPP with the same advantages, it's easily handwaved - all characters get the same bonus. Unless, of course, the VPP's will have different reserve sizes, in which case larger reserves are still getting a larger point gift.

 

Certainly. In my campaign featuring different optional rules--there is a definite pecking order among evn the elite superhumans.

 

 

Rather than apply a discount for Multipowers, and a greater discount for VPP's, why not just make Transdimensional (or ASW) automatic at no point cost on all powers, rather than provide a cost benefit to certain character designs?

 

Perfectly valid approach. Some GM's may feel different, or want to keep some attachment to points, even if there is a bit of advantage given to one certain build. Some games don't call for 'perfect fairness' for every build. I don't begrudge HERO for throwing in the option; for those who want to keep everything ultimately point fair, the obvious course is just using the rules as written.

 

there are many other optional rules that toss balance to the wind as well. The no endurance option--certainly more useful to energy projectors than bricks and martial artists. Or no limitations--certainly no reason to play a focus based character.

 

I guess I just expect GM's who use an optional rule to have a good reason to use it, and know the consequences. From a mechanics standpoint, there is a uniformity argument since universal limitations only affect the control cost, why not advantages? Multipowers certainly benefit more from universal limitations than VPP's do.

 

I wouldn't agree that this is a valid enough reason to make the advanatged pool worry free and let it in a standard game though- it may be a uniform way of doing things, but its certainly VERY beneficial.

 

 

I think your viewpoint is a bit skewed because you approach this from a perspective of not worrying about the points from the outset.

 

No, its the perspective that not all games worrk the same, and not every game requires equality among builds. Points may matter a lot, or very little, or somewhere in between, but the se of this build could still be meeting the GM's needs in all three situations.

 

 

However, unless the optional rule is "don't worry about the points", I think the options need to carry some measure of point balance.

 

At that point, I'll somewhat quibble. It's ok for optional rules to smack balance silly occasionally, but it shoudl be well noted that it does so, and should only do that in order to get an effect the GM wants.

 

This rule does totter on the edge of necessity, there are certainly other ways to do it, and it certainly could pose a severe balance issue if used unknowingly.

 

That said, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a potenmtial , or that the words in the book should be blotted out by Phil's HERO Inquisition.

 

Being too focused on everythign being balanced, and printing no optional rule nothing that might be unbalanced without careful use is a terribly limiting mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...