VPP and Advantages

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

Precisely! This advantage adds nothing useful to the system.

 

100% agree.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Precisely! This advantage adds nothing useful to the system.

 

100% agree.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

It certainly does not add more balsnce to the standard rules.

 

But the purpose of optional rules , at lerast to me, is to serve certain types of games, not the system. In the end, its the type of game you are trying to make thats more important, not the system.

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

It certainly does not add more balsnce to the standard rules.

 

But the purpose of optional rules , at lerast to me, is to serve certain types of games, not the system. In the end, its the type of game you are trying to make thats more important, not the system.

And yet you've failed to show exactly how this optional rule actually serves this role in any way that is not already handled by the current mechanics and rules.

 

You've already agreed that the same effect can be handled by the GM simply granting increased points as desired, and that is already available to the GM in the rules.

 

By you own statements, you've shown just how pointless having this particular advantage is. It doesn't add any SFX flexiblity, it doesn't add to any campaign flavor or style (since it can done easily, and I do mean easily, by the GM anyway) to any game, so I just don't any point in having this option.

 

I've asked for several different options be added to the system that would add flexiblity to the system via SFX/Setting, and was told that there wasn't enough need for them to be included. If that's the case, then this advantage clearly falls into the same category since I can't think of any reason for it exist for any GM/Player/Game.

 

This is one of the main reasons why this option is inconsistent with the rest of the rules.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

And yet you've failed to show exactly how this optional rule actually serves this role in any way that is not already handled by the current mechanics and rules.

 

It's a matter of GM preference. If he still wants some measure of point accountability after the start of the game, he may not want to simply abandon points. Simply making the reserve large enough to handle most power with the advantage becomes a potential problem if its possibel for players to not use thew advantage. IWhat if player wants or tries to use a power without that advantagte, but at the full AP level of the reserve. (Nope--no 12d6 0 end EB this time--I'll take the 18d6). With the advantage on the control cost, that isn't an issue. He may decide not to use the advantage--but he's not getting more than 12 DC out of it.

 

again, there are so many possibel types of games and effects, its actually certain there is one that this mechanic would work for a GM.

 

You've already agreed that the same effect can be handled by the GM simply granting increased points as desired, and that is already available to the GM in the rules.

 

Yes--but there are reason why the GM may not want to do so. Or after the game starts, the utility of XP handed out may matter, and to allow significant power progression, applying the advantage within the reserve may not allow the progression the GM wants without vastly increasing XP (which then causes issues with rate of skills, characteristics increase).

 

Thats why its an optional rule. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. Only used if the GM desires. Maybe I'm just not confident as everyone else that I inhgerently know what every potential GM may require or want as an option.

 

By you own statements, you've shown just how pointless having this particular advantage is.

 

Nope--I've admitted that its not suitable for a standard campaign where this build would only belong to a few characters, and all other builds are expected to be roughly equivalent. (Of course, even in standard hero rules, this isnt true. Straight out purchased powers, or massive EC's don't give you the effect of VPP's or multipwers)

 

It doesn't add any SFX flexiblity, it doesn't add to any campaign flavor or style

 

You are in no position to say that, unless you claim to know the only one true way to do every possibel type of game or genre.

 

I've asked for several different options be added to the system that would add flexiblity to the system via SFX/Setting, and was told that there wasn't enough need for them to be included. If that's the case, then this advantage clearly falls into the same category since I can't think of any reason for it exist for any GM/Player/Game.

 

Ah, its a personal thing. Maybe youre offended by the lack of options you wanted included, but thats no reason to start eliminating all other options. Or maybe it is, and you can join the HERO black marker club. Its your book after all. I'm not interested in limiting or changing your game.

 

Simply because you can't think of it doesn't mean someone else might. In any case..its not going to be in any of your games now, is it? So why are you so vehement in taking away options from others? You don't want to use it, its not going to be added as an option to any of your games, so I don't understand the strident desire to denounce the possibility that maybe someone else will find it useful. It's in there, someone might use it..and the HERO system won't fall apart. Trust me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

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' date=' but maybe someone wants the oddball tool.[/quote']

 

I have no problem with the oddball tool. I do have a problem with it being priced to give VPP users a 50% discount over a multipower using what appears, prima facie, to be the same optional rule, particularly when I don't see any indication that such a discount was contemplated.

 

Multipowers certainly benefit more from universal limitations than VPP's do.

 

That's debateable. I can buy a Multipower with a 120 point reserve, make it OAF and slap in, say, 5 60 AP Ultra slots. This costs 60 + 15 = 75 real points. I can use any two slots at a time.

 

Or I can buy a 60 point VPP, and slap OAF on the Control Cost, for a total cost of 75 points. I can have two 60 AP powers operational in the VPP at any one time. The VPP can have a wider array of slots, but can't be changed as an automatic zero phase action.

 

If we want them equalized, buy Cosmic for the VPP (+30 points) and another 10 slots for the multiopower (much wider versatility).

 

The OAF has, in this case, resulted in very similar abilities with very similar costs. Of course, there's a level of slots in a Multipower where it should "graduate" to being a VPP from a pure efficiency perspective - and a character with that many uses for his powers should probably consider just opening up the possibilities and switching to a VPP.

 

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' date=' but its certainly VERY beneficial.[/quote']

 

Allowing a 50% discount for advantages on a VPP versus a Multipower if one allows advantages to be placed on the control cost seems pretty beneficial as well. For that matter, so is allowing advantages to be placed on a reserve or control cost and not on the individual powers. The option can work reasonably if we assume a game where all PC's will have advantaged VPP's, but not if we simply say "OK, that optional rule is available for anyone whose concept includes a VPP".

 

At that point' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

By this test, I will suggest that this optional rule fails miserably. The balance implications are not addressed anywhere, nor is the effect this optional rule is designed to achieve.

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

I have no problem with the oddball tool. I do have a problem with it being priced to give VPP users a 50% discount over a multipower using what appears, prima facie, to be the same optional rule, particularly when I don't see any indication that such a discount was contemplated.

 

We have no way to be sure if it was contemplated and offerred anyway, or not. My feeling was that it was..and thats why its optional.

 

 

The OAF has, in this case, resulted in very similar abilities with very similar

 

 

 

Allowing a 50% discount for advantages on a VPP versus a Multipower if one allows advantages to be placed on the control cost seems pretty beneficial as well.

 

No argument there.

 

The option can work reasonably if we assume a game where all PC's will have advantaged VPP's, but not if we simply say "OK, that optional rule is available for anyone whose concept includes a VPP".

 

Total agreement. (Barring some other inflicted limitations that make up for that)

 

By this test, I will suggest that this optional rule fails miserably.

 

only by one standard--a standard that it never was meant to meet being an optional rule.

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

It's a matter of GM preference....

Whoah, stop right there, if it's just a matter of GM preference then there is no need for an option. The rules state that the GM can change anything at anytime in anyway they want. So this option isn't needed based on GM preference.

 

If he still wants some measure of point accountability after the start of the game' date=' he may not want to simply abandon points...[/quote']

Again, nothing with the standard rules works this way. The rules work throughout the campaign or they don't work throughout the campaign.

 

This is akin to the GM changing the rules on the players as things progress. Doesn't make any sense for a player to purchase something to if the rules he is basing it on will be nullified later.

 

However, once again, the GM already has option to create any option that may work as erratically as he wants it to. It doesn't make sense to have such an erratic option built into the system as default.

 

Simply making the reserve large enough to handle most power with the advantage becomes a potential problem if its possibel for players to not use thew advantage.

Not in your games. You've already stated that you would restrict rules as you see fit, even if it isn't consistent across the board. So for your games increasing points and putting restrictions on how those points can used sieems to be in sync with how you GM. Based on your statements.

 

What if player wants or tries to use a power without that advantagte' date=' but at the full AP level of the reserve. (Nope--no 12d6 0 end EB this time--I'll take the 18d6). With the advantage on the control cost, that isn't an issue. He may decide not to use the advantage--but he's not getting more than 12 DC out of it.[/quote']

Thank you! You just supported my point. 4th Edition forced any Advantage on the Control Cost onto the slots just like Limitations. This makes a lot of sense, and what you just said above makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Unless you think I'm missing something. Feel free to expound on this.

 

again' date=' there are so many possibel types of games and effects, its actually certain there is one that this mechanic would work for a GM.[/quote']

Except I'm still waiting for you show me one. You can point out any other option in the system and I can give you good SFX/Setting reason why that option works better than any other to obtain that SFX/Setting, no matter how rare or uncommon might be. But you haven't been able to give me one.

 

When someone asks me for a SFX or a Setting reason, I jump all over it, since it is so easy to do. It just makes your arguments seem to be without substance, since you can't back up your claim with a concrete SFX/Setting example of how it would work and why this option, instead of other options, would work best.

 

Yes--but there are reasons why the GM may not want to do so.

Please! This is what I've been trying to get you to explain to me, but you refuse to do so. What SFX/Setting would this option be more beneficial to the GM instead of any of the other options available to him?

 

Or after the game starts' date=' the utility of XP handed out may matter, and to allow significant power progression, applying the advantage within the reserve may not allow the progression the GM wants without vastly increasing XP (which then causes issues with rate of skills, characteristics increase).[/quote']

Again, you've already shown that this is not a problem in your games, since you have no problem applying rules in an inconsistent manner (based on your statements above).

 

You keep pointing out the inconsistency of this option as some type of benefit, but then complain about the GM having to apply inconsistent measures when applying XPs. Seems you prefer to have the rules support inconsistency in the rules instead of it being the burden of the GM. At least this what I'm getting from you posts and it is quite perplexing.

 

Thats why its an optional rule. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. Only used if the GM desires. Maybe I'm just not confident as everyone else that I inhgerently know what every potential GM may require or want as an option.

And O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L rules are added to allow Flexibility for SFX/Setting. (8^D)

 

Based on this comment, then you should totally back all of the suggestions I've made for addtional options and mechanics changes since 99% of them add Flexiblity for the GM, right? (8^D)

 

See, I can spell out words too. (8^D)

 

Nope--I've admitted that its not suitable for a standard campaign where this build would only belong to a few characters' date=' and all other builds are expected to be roughly equivalent. (Of course, even in standard hero rules, this isnt true. Straight out purchased powers, or massive EC's don't give you the effect of VPP's or multipwers)[/quote']

This is precisely the point that Hugh and I were making. By allowing this option, if used, every character would have to use it in order to keep up with every other character who took it. The point savings are too much.

 

Now you have made a good pont here about Frameworks in general. And there are many threads that have debated the cost savings of EC's and Multipowers. You can post on them if you want to continue that debate, but you find that only reason that ECs and Multipowers see work "ok" is due to STR and the archetypes that normally invovle ECs and Multipowers. Plus the fact that ECs and Multipowers can ususally be used in 90% of character concepts, so everybody has access to the same points savings. This dovetails with what Hugh was trying to get you to understand above.

 

You are in no position to say that' date=' unless you claim to know the only one true way to do every possibel type of game or genre.[/quote']

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying I can't think of one, which is a big issue for me, since I can usually think of a SFX/Setting for just about any other option/rules in the book on the spot.

 

Thus perplexed, I've asked you for a concrete example of one, and it appears you can't think of one either. Oddly enough, no one else has popped in to give me one either, which is even more astounding. It would seem there isn't any support for what you are claiming as far as SFX/Setting.

 

If you could just come up with one SFX/Setting that would need this option over and above other options that can do the same thing, it would help your side of the debate.

 

Ah' date=' its a personal thing.[/quote']

Not personal, just inconsistent with the intent of the system. Why have a set of rules that claim to be a "toolkit" for building any game you want, and then put severe restrictions in certain areas and outright "do it this way" in the book? Doesn't make any sense to me. But that is a separate issue and not related to this one in the least. I would be 100% behind this option if I could find an actual real use for it. But I can't, and apparently, neither can you.

 

You sit there and claim that I'm seem to be trying to restrict things, but my posts prove otherwise. In fact, I've been told time and again that I want to change the system too much to make it too flexible. You can argue with them if you like. (8^D)

 

There is not a GM here that has not ignored some rule or definition in the book that says, "It works this way."

 

I would like to eliminate as many of those types of rules as possible by inserting more options/rules and redefining things to be more open. But that is just me, don't know what you do in your games. I can only guess that I would have to hope you wouldn't change a rule so that it was designed to change during the campaign if I were one of your players.

 

Simply because you can't think of it doesn't mean someone else might.

See above responses, I've already answered this. The fact that you can't think of a single SFX/Setting only hurts your argument.

 

In any case..its not going to be in any of your games now' date=' is it? So why are you so vehement in taking away options from others?[/quote']

See above responses. Already answered this.

 

You don't want to use it' date=' its not going to be added as an option to any of your games, so I don't understand the strident desire to denounce the possibility that maybe someone else will find it useful. It's in there, someone might use it..and the HERO system won't fall apart. Trust me.[/quote']

Look, I'm willing to be convinced that this option actually has use. It's up to you to convince me. If you can come up with a SFX/Setting that this option works better for than any other option, hey, I'm all for it.

 

You just haven't even attempted to give anything to get behind. So once again, I'm left with, "I can't seem to find any reason that any GM/Player/Campaign would need this option."

 

Sorry, but you've failed to convince me.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

The fact a rule is optional implies there may be balance issues.

No it doesn't. There are lots of optional rules that don't imply any balance issues: Hit Locations, Knockback, Impairing, Disabling, Bleeding, Velocity-DCV, etc.

 

It wasn't made by the Cult of Munchkin to drive a stake into the Heart of PhilFleischmann's game.

I never said it was. It was made by someone who either didn't make the effort to determine if it was fair, or didn't care if it was fair.

 

What is garbage to you may be the preferred diet of someone else.

No. What's garbage is garbage. That's a statement of fact, not of opinion. If you like eating garbage, more power to you! But that doesn't make it not garbage.

 

The GM may have decided that initially, price doesn't matter. .... Some GM's might not even worry about costs at all.

Fine. They're entitled. Just because they don't mind unbalanced games doesn't mean they aren't unbalanced. I am curious however, if a GM doesn't care about point balance, why would they bother playing HERO? Does anyone here play an "I don't care about points" game? I would have no problem if DOJ published a greatly simplified rulebook that left out all the point costs and balancing considerations. It could probably be about 50 pages. You could call it "Pointless HERO." Well, that doesn't sound very good. How about: "Freestyle HERO."

 

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.

As with the garbage analogy, fairness is a matter of fact, not opinion. That's why I gave actual numbers to illustrate the unfairness. GMs can do what they want in their games. It they want it to be unfair, or don't mind the unfairness, that doesn't make it any less unfair. Some GMs might use hackneyed plot lines and characters, too. They might like their games to be that way. But just because they like it that way, doesn't make it less hackneyed. Some GMs and players might want to play a plotless, personality-less, hack-and-slash game. They're free to do so. Just because they're having fun doing it that way, doesn't make it less hack-and-slash.

 

And again, as schir1964 has said, this rule has nothing to do with genre or setting. It has to do with how a particular game mechanic is purchased with points.

 

 

It doesn't mean there ever was a point to an argument over an optional rule.

I have made the assumption that most of the people on these boards and who play HERO in general are interested in fairness. I think it's a reasonable assumption to make, since fairness is a core principle of the system. But I never said that anyone *must* enforce fairness in their games. GMs can do what they want.

 

Weather its unfair or not depends entirely on all PC builds, NPC builds in the game.

Sure. As Hugh pointed out, if all PCs and NPCs have VPPs with the same size Reserve, and the same total of Advantages, then yes, it's fair, but then you certainly can't claim that you've increased flexibility by using this optional rule.

 

Some people feel thatway about VPP's period as well.

I wasn't discussing how people feel. I was discussing the fairness of a rule. If people "feel" that way about VPPs in general, I can't do anything about it. If on the other hand, they have a logical reason to claim that VPPs are unbalanced, then they are welcome to post their arguments. I would be happy to see them. I would take such arguments seriously, and if I find them to have merit, I will modify my games accordingly. And when I say "merit," I mean logical validity, not "feeling right". If I find a logical flaw in the, I will point it out; I won't simply say, "I feel that it's wrong."

 

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.

I'm not losing any sleep over it. And I doubt they have a good reason for using it, but it's possible. I haven't heard one yet.

 

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

Who? Not me. If you think I am, then you've misinterpreted my posts.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Wow. I'm really confused. I see that there are some people reposting a bunch of stuff and disagreeing... and I see some math, yeah, saw some math. One guy said a VPP with an Advantage tacked on is more efficient (ultimately) than an MP with the same advantage tacked on. I know that rule is in the system, and I know the rule also says: "You'll want to consider carefully before allowing a player to add an advantage to an entire power framework. In many cases, such as with Armor Piercing, it's better, and more balanced, to have it be applied to each power individually." Or words to that effect, I don't have the book in front of me.

 

Okay. So ... we're fighting over various designs of an optional rule? And, just so I'M clear (which I may not be), in a VPP, you can do Dern Near Anything with the appropriate structure within the point framework. We'll say, 60 Active. So you can create any ability, within your idiom, that caps out at 60 AP. Okie doke. And in a Multipower, your powers are pre-set, but all the limitations you purchase apply to both the MP AND all the powers, making the MP generally more cost-efficient, because there's no additional control-cost tax.

 

So my 60 MP, with appropriate lims, could only cost me 15 points at the base, yeah? And the VPP, with appropriate lims, can never go below 60 + Modified Control Cost, yeah? So even IF we were to add a +1/2 0 END advantage to the entire multipower, and add the same Advantage to the entire VPP, the smart player is still building their MP with all the limitations and flavor they can think of, and the VPP user is still paying for the full pool plus the CC, yeah?

 

So why are y'all fighting? Outside of the obvious, it is optional, and outside of the suggestion to double the cost of the Advantage for the VPP, there seems to me to be more here than an apples to apples comparison of frameworks. Because frameworks aren't apples to apples. There are many other variables (no pun intended) outside of the scope of just this question.

 

So can someone boil this down to a thesis statement and explain why y'all are up in arms?

[PhilFleischmann]

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. The other GMs in the group don't even do that much.[/quote']

I agree, with your doubling rule, characters are paying the full price for the advantage. That's fair.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

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

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".

I don't think that's what anyone here is saying. Some point breaks are fair and some aren't. Some have trade-offs included to prevent them from being unbalanced. I can't speak for others, but I am saying that this particular rule is unfair; that the price break it gives comes with no balancing factor; that the more you use it, the more unfair it becomes; and that it does not reflect the actual value of the contruct.

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Whoah, stop right there, if it's just a matter of GM preference then there is no need for an option.

 

The usage of any optional rule is at GM preference.

 

Again, nothing with the standard rules works this way.

 

 

This is akin to the GM changing the rules on the players as things progress. Doesn't make any sense for a player to purchase something to if the rules he is basing it on will be nullified later.

 

If the GM adopts a rule change in mid game this significant, it would cause a stir. It seems this option would be implemented from the start.

 

It doesn't make sense to have such an erratic option built into the system as default.

 

Maybe to you. Good thing you don't have to worry about it in your games.,

 

Thank you! You just supported my point.

 

 

Except I'm still waiting for you show me one. You can point out any other option in the system and I can give you good SFX/Setting reason why that option works better than any other to obtain that SFX/Setting, no matter how rare or uncommon might be. But you haven't been able to give me one.

 

Because I don't care enough? And anythign you poitn out only ius proven to work better because its a matter of your opiinion. you haven't proven anything, just demonstrated your opinion., and just because you don't like that option doesn't mean it was a bad thing it was listed in the book.

 

But to humor you--I will. the GM decides he wants players to be able to exceed active point limits, temporarily, in exchange for a version of the side effect advantage. Instead of buying a normal VPP, then another reserve at various increments witht he side effects disadvantage, or some over complicated aid build, he works up a flat advantage that for every X amount of active points over the reserves normal limit, the character takes Y damage. The ratio between X and why determines just how much the advantage costs. He still wants a flat AP limit/DC limit on normal use of powers, so he doesn't want to inflate the reserve itself.

 

It just makes your arguments seem to be without substance, since you can't back up your claim with a concrete SFX/Setting example of how it would work and why this option, instead of other options, would work best.

 

your demand for a concrete SFX setting is pretty silly, since how any of those should work eventually comes out to a matter of opinion.

 

Please! This is what I've been trying to get you to explain to me, but you refuse to do so.

 

 

Because its a waste of time.

 

 

Again, you've already shown that this is not a problem in your games, since you have no problem applying rules in an inconsistent manner (based on your statements above).

 

I apply rules in a maner that works for the particular game and setting I have in mind. If you mean inconsistant as in "not consistant with the default rules", then you are right. If you mean inconsistant with the effective fairness and balance of my game, then you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, and should try to perhaps find out more about a game before passing off judgements on them.

 

You keep pointing out the inconsistency of this option as some type of benefit, but then complain about the GM having to apply inconsistent measures when applying XPs.

 

I never complained about anything. I don't point out inconsistancy as a benefit--merely that the way the advantage works may be what works best for some other GM.

 

Seems you prefer to have the rules support inconsistency in the rules instead of it being the burden of the GM. At least this what I'm getting from you posts and it is quite perplexing.

 

I've nto come close to stating any such preference. I think you are getting a little too worked up about the subject, and have to portray our disagreement into the realms of a personal failure to properly play the system I suggest you draw back, calm down, and see that it is nothign like that.

 

 

 

Based on this comment, then you should totally back all of the suggestions I've made for addtional options and mechanics changes since 99% of them add Flexiblity for the GM, right? (8^D)

 

If they work for your game, I sure do. I'd be happy to see them, there might be somethign good I'd liek to borrow or adapt. There comes a point where you can only fit in so many optional rules though to what is printed. Seems the folks at HERO had different ideas than you, your problem is with them, not me.

 

 

This is precisely the point that Hugh and I were making. By allowing this option, if used, every character would have to use it in order to keep up with every other character who took it. The point savings are too much.

 

The point savings could be too much, I agree, for unlimited use by just a few characters. I would expect the invoking of this optional rule to probbly cover only a certain few advantages; usually extra care is given to how optional rules are employed. Inherent or personal immunity, for example, really wouldn't rate the cost it would take to place on a really big pool. I'd rather spend the doubled advantage costs for inherent on a VPP for straight out power defense, and protect all of my powers and characteristsics.

 

This dovetails with what Hugh was trying to get you to understand above.

 

No one has to get me to understand anything.

 

 

If you could just come up with one SFX/Setting that would need this option over and above other options that can do the same thing, it would help your side of the debate.

 

It doesn't matter if I can, or cannot. Its the potential for use by someone else.

 

They could like the syymetry of limits and advantages affecting the control cost. they may prefer an advantage to always be there, but not allowing a character to use more than a certain amount of power when they don't employ the advantage. The reasons for why they might want to do soemthign, or not, are more than we could ever discuss in this thread. Why should I bother picking one needle out of a haystack thats visible to anyone with an open mind?

 

 

I can only guess that I would have to hope you wouldn't change a rule so that it was designed to change during the campaign if I were one of your players.

 

If I change a rule 'in play' its because the rule wasn't working, and was hurting the enjoyment of the game for the majority of my players. (I say majority because it there is a imbalance issue, usually one person is really happy and everyone else isn't).

 

However, there is absolutely no call for this staement at all, and it borders on the level of insulting. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't.

 

 

See above responses. Already answered this.

 

that sums up the last three posts we've made each.

 

 

Look, I'm willing to be convinced that this option actually has use.

 

No, you aren't.

 

It's up to you to convince me. If you can come up with a SFX/Setting that this option works better for than any other option, hey, I'm all for it.

 

and there is your out "better than any other option." And when we degree about what other options are better..the infinite thread continues.

 

Sorry, but you've failed to convince me.

 

I'm very glad that I've failed to convince you to embrace an optional rule you didn't like. No apologies needed.

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

So can someone boil this down to a thesis statement and explain why y'all are up in arms?

 

Because we're gamers who need a life, or at least find something more useful to do than debate optional rules we may never use and trying prove the unproveable.

 

How's that?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

I didn't say you were wrong.

 

 

I said your attitude sucks.

No. You said I had a "knee jerk reaction." I didn't. I had a logical reaction. So how exactly does my attitude suck?

 

Not specifically directed at you:

I fully recognize that not everyone is interested in logical reasoning. Not everyone is willing to make the effort to follow a logical argument. I am willing to live with that. To me, the attitude that sucks is, "I'm not going to bother dealing with your rational argument, I'm just going to insult you with phrases like 'knee jerk reaction' and 'Phil's HERO Inquisition,'" the idea that ad hominem attacks are an acceptible substitute for rational discourse.

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Edited for excess snarkyness. Wasn't called for.

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Because I don't care enough? And anythign you poitn out only ius proven to work better because its a matter of your opiinion. you haven't proven anything' date=' just demonstrated your opinion., and just because you don't like that option doesn't mean it was a bad thing it was listed in the book.[/quote']

Let me correct you on somethng here.

I could care less whether anyone uses the option or not. So it is not a matter of like or dislike.

I am trying figure out what kind of SFX/Setting that a GM would find this useful for that isn't already handles by current rules easily, and again I say easily.

 

So if you don't know what SFX/Setting this would be used for, just say so and let it go. That is what I've been wanting answered from the very start.

 

I said I can't see any reason for the GM/Player/Campaign to use this (for SFX/Setting).

 

But to humor you--I will. the GM decides he wants players to be able to exceed active point limits, temporarily, in exchange for a version of the side effect advantage. Instead of buying a normal VPP, then another reserve at various increments witht he side effects disadvantage, or some over complicated aid build, he works up a flat advantage that for every X amount of active points over the reserves normal limit, the character takes Y damage. The ratio between X and why determines just how much the advantage costs. He still wants a flat AP limit/DC limit on normal use of powers, so he doesn't want to inflate the reserve itself.

 

your demand for a concrete SFX setting is pretty silly, since how any of those should work eventually comes out to a matter of opinion.

So what this boils down to...

 

You don't know what SFX/Setting that any GM/Player/Campaign would need this for. Fine, great, that's acceptable. If you had simply said this from the start, it would saved a lot of posts.

 

Now that I know that you have no idea I can go on a ask other people in this thread.

 

Is there anyone here who would find a use for this ruling useful for simulating a SFX or in Setting that isn't easily handled by other rules/options?

 

Because its a waste of time.

Obviously for you it is.

 

I've always found it quite useful to give examples of SFX and Settings where different options grant flexibility over others. It works for me, not sure why it won't work for you.

 

If they work for your game' date=' I sure do. I'd be happy to see them, there might be somethign good I'd liek to borrow or adapt. There comes a point where you can only fit in so many optional rules though to what is printed. Seems the folks at HERO had different ideas than you, your problem is with them, not me.[/quote']

If you are truely in earnest, simply do a search with my name as the topic starter. You'll find plenty. But I'm not sure you are earnest based on your comments.

 

It doesn't matter if I can' date=' or cannot. Its the potential for use by someone else.[/quote']

So... when someone comes here and asks why and option exists, you won't respond if the answers would involve giving examples of SFX/Setting. Okay.

 

I don't understand this attitude at all.

 

..Why should I bother picking one needle out of a haystack thats visible to anyone with an open mind?

Nice...

 

I've been critical of your logic and reasoning... and I get this kind response.

 

I may have too harsh on you and made you angry. Maybe I should have stopped when I simply posted that it was simply one more inconsistent ruling that didn't need to be. Oh well.

 

However' date=' there is absolutely no call for this staement at all, and it borders on the level of insulting. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't.[/quote']

It really wasn't meant to be insulting. Only disbelief of the rationale I was gleaning from you posts on how you handle your games. I really don't know. All I've got to go on is your posts. Could be that I am misreading something in your posts or perhaps you've expressed yourself inadeqately for me to understand.

 

But I can see how you might take offense. My apologies.

 

I guess I can be just too intense sometimes without being worked up at all. (8^D)

 

No' date=' you aren't. (in reference to me being convinced)[/quote']

All I can say that I point to different threads here where I have changed my mind on stuff after arduous discussions. So I don't care if you think so or not. Other people here who know me, know better.

 

and there is your out "better than any other option." And when we degree about what other options are better..the infinite thread continues.

Are you suggesting that no consensus can be achieved with any option over any other option in these threads? Or just this one option?

 

Normally on these threads, when I suggest an option isn't needed or has no use, or even don't even understand, I get at least two or three people posting how they have used the option in there campaigns and how it helped such and such SFX or enhanced a Setting in a way that was better than the alternatives. And I usually respond with, "Oh, hmmm... hadn't really thought of it that way", or ,"Ah, I don't play that Genre/Setting. Now it makes sense."

 

Why isn't that happening here?

It is very curious.

 

And you haven't been very helpful in this area.

 

I didn't bother responding to the rest due to fact they were not relevant to the discussion or were simply sidestepping the question I wanted answered.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Wow. I'm really confused...?

Basically, there are two different discussions here...

 

1) The discussion over the change from 4th Edition to 5th Edition where an option exists to allow Advantages on Multipowers/VPP Control Cost aren't forced to be taken by the individual slots and results in granting too large of a cost savings for VPP and therefore is unbalancing.

 

2) The second one is how this new option actually benefits the GM/Player/Campaign by adding flexiblity to a SFX or enhances a Setting in some way.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

I am trying figure out what kind of SFX/Setting that a GM would find this useful for that isn't already handles by current rules easily, and again I say easily.

I already mentioned possibiloities. You disagreed that they are the best--I see that other GM's may think differently. yuou can keep on demanding SFX/options--I gave one perfectly valid already (which was oen more than I shoudl have bothered with) and apaprently you dismissed it out of hand. Pardon me if I don't care to cater to a closed mind that pretends to be open.

 

So if you don't know what SFX/Setting this would be used for, just say so and let it go. That is what I've been wanting answered from the very start.

I'm saying there almost certainly is one due to the incredible number of games that HERO can .

 

 

 

You don't know what SFX/Setting that any GM/Player/Campaign would need this for. Fine, great, that's acceptable. If you had simply said this from the start, it would saved a lot of posts.

 

I never tried to find a specific one. I know enough that there is no need to. Every time you say 'there is no game or settign that woudl need X'--you'll find soemone who says X has been aprt of their game and worked great.

 

 

 

 

I've been critical of your logic and reasoning... and I get this kind response.

No--you've been critical of my opinion. I've been simply saying that certain aspects of that build may appeal to someone. I've seen many rules discssions over optiosn or house rules I'd never want to see as standard, nor want as an option, but saw plenty of GM's who thought completely differently. Trying to prove the utility of everything logically just doesn't always work.

 

 

 

 

Normally on these threads, when I suggest an option isn't needed or has no use, or even don't even understand, I get at least two or three people posting how they have used the option in there campaigns and how it helped such and such SFX or enhanced a Setting in a way that was better than the alternatives.

 

Why isn't that happening here?

 

Well, its a very specific option on somethign many GM's view with caution to begin with. Also, the HERO baords aren't the sum total of HERo gaming experience. A lack of response can be a simple 'havent tried it yet".

 

But, to make you happy, the build I made on the fly with the side effect and increasing active point advantage will probably be going on a campaign villain in place of a big ungainly triggered standard effect aid.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

1) The discussion over the change from 4th Edition to 5th Edition where an option exists to allow Advantages on Multipowers/VPP Control Cost aren't forced to be taken by the individual slots and results in granting too large of a cost savings for VPP and therefore is unbalancing.

 

- I can see that. I also saw some of the math but I'm also certain I started falling asleep somewhere. I know from reading the posts that someone suggested using a 2:1 ratio on the cost for a VPP and costing it normally for an MP, and that seemed to work out mathematically. My VPPs are strictly limited to represent a full & proper spell book, but each "spell" isn't paid for because it's covered in the VPP. However, it comes with a limitation: only spells known. But it's all lims, I don't think there's an advantage on it anywhere.

 

I never played fourth - I think I touched a copy once while I was very young and fanboying some AD&D and it confused me. Then I learned Superman was a Paladin and I was all right again.

 

2) The second one is how this new option actually benefits the GM/Player/Campaign by adding flexiblity to a SFX or enhances a Setting in some way.

 

... this one seems pretty straight forward to me. Let's say you want to do a racial VPP, and you want every person in said race ... a name. Gallerians. So named for a group that came from a distant star that Gallileo was the first to spot & name. Good? Don't worry about it. Okay. So we've got our new race, and every member of the race is capable of performing "Z'kinai." The 'z' is pronounced 'je' - so JE-kin-i. These Z'kinai are natural to the user - they drain him not in the slightest.

 

To represent that, I slap 0 END on the entire VPP, and then limit it in other ways to keep the tricks in line with how I envision the race. Probably extra time, concentration, RSR, etc. But it would be a very effective way of demonstrating that the power in all cases comes from an outside source. COULD you do that with individual lims on each power that the character uses? Yes! But in a VPP model, where it's likely that they can cough up an effect on the fly, you won't always think of it. You could just as easily put Charges on it and limit the times per day they can do it, but I'm saying, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Here's another example. I'm going to pilot a Starfighter, a Lineon Enterpryzes Delta Star 9, so named for its old-school bi-wing configuration, appearing to have a pair of triangular 'wings.' 9 because it's 9th in the Delta Star series. K. My DS9 (ya like that? wasn't even intentional, I'm just typing) has an Engine VPP that allows it to perform insane stunts. To do this, though, I need to "tell" the machine what I want it to do and then execute at the appropriate time - whenever that may be. So I build the entire Engine Trick VPP with Delayed Effect as standard on all models.

 

Then you can do things like trick flips, 180 spins, put an NPA on a weapon to represent Find Weakness, and so on. All kinds of insanity you can pull off with your uber craft because it has an Intelligence Drive in it.

 

Is that what we're talking about here, or did I miss the mark?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

2) The second one is how this new option actually benefits the GM/Player/Campaign by adding flexiblity to a SFX or enhances a Setting in some way.

 

... this one seems pretty straight forward to me. Let's say you want to do a racial VPP, and you want every person in said race ... a name. Gallerians. So named for a group that came from a distant star that Gallileo was the first to spot & name. Good? Don't worry about it. Okay. So we've got our new race, and every member of the race is capable of performing "Z'kinai." The 'z' is pronounced 'je' - so JE-kin-i. These Z'kinai are natural to the user - they drain him not in the slightest.

 

To represent that, I slap 0 END on the entire VPP, and then limit it in other ways to keep the tricks in line with how I envision the race. Probably extra time, concentration, RSR, etc. But it would be a very effective way of demonstrating that the power in all cases comes from an outside source. COULD you do that with individual lims on each power that the character uses? Yes! But in a VPP model, where it's likely that they can cough up an effect on the fly, you won't always think of it. You could just as easily put Charges on it and limit the times per day they can do it, but I'm saying, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Here's another example. I'm going to pilot a Starfighter, a Lineon Enterpryzes Delta Star 9, so named for its old-school bi-wing configuration, appearing to have a pair of triangular 'wings.' 9 because it's 9th in the Delta Star series. K. My DS9 (ya like that? wasn't even intentional, I'm just typing) has an Engine VPP that allows it to perform insane stunts. To do this, though, I need to "tell" the machine what I want it to do and then execute at the appropriate time - whenever that may be. So I build the entire Engine Trick VPP with Delayed Effect as standard on all models.

 

Or you could simply require every power bought within the VPP have the advantage 0 END/Delayed Effect and get the same result, without a lot of added complexity, and without the math problem. Thus the contention that this option adds nothing that is difficult to achieve in some other way.

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

2) The second one is how this new option actually benefits the GM/Player/Campaign by adding flexiblity to a SFX or enhances a Setting in some way.

 

... this one seems pretty straight forward to me. Let's say you want to do a racial VPP, and you want every person in said race ... a name. Gallerians. So named for a group that came from a distant star that Gallileo was the first to spot & name. Good? Don't worry about it. Okay. So we've got our new race, and every member of the race is capable of performing "Z'kinai." The 'z' is pronounced 'je' - so JE-kin-i. These Z'kinai are natural to the user - they drain him not in the slightest.

 

To represent that, I slap 0 END on the entire VPP, and then limit it in other ways to keep the tricks in line with how I envision the race. Probably extra time, concentration, RSR, etc. But it would be a very effective way of demonstrating that the power in all cases comes from an outside source. COULD you do that with individual lims on each power that the character uses? Yes! But in a VPP model, where it's likely that they can cough up an effect on the fly, you won't always think of it. You could just as easily put Charges on it and limit the times per day they can do it, but I'm saying, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Right. I can completely understand what you are trying to do here, but I'm curious. Do you understand the option were are discussing?

 

To be clear, let's differentiate the standard rule, and the option.

The standard rule is, if you add an Advantage on the Control Cost, then all slots must have that Advantage included in thier write up. There is no choice, it must be done.

 

The optional rule is that when you add an Advantage on the Control Cost, it does not go into the rightups of the individual slots and has no effect on the Active Points thereof.

 

So, what I think you are saying is that it makes it slightly easier since you don't have to worry about Advantages, just Limitations, when trying to come up with a new power on the fly.

 

Is this correct?

 

Thanks for giving me an actual SFX/Setting to work with. At least now I can try to understand.

 

I'm pretty sure the other poster doesn't want to discuss this with me anymore. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

Or you could simply require every power bought within the VPP have the advantage 0 END/Delayed Effect and get the same result' date=' without a lot of added complexity, and without the math problem. [/quote']

 

Of course, there is the problem that not every ability always needs those limitations--or can but them (If an ability in the 0 End advantages pool didnt use end, or was on charges). If the power doesn't have the advantage, then unlike the other powers, it has more DC's or effect as a result. The advantage bought as part of the control poll (doubled, if you like) may work better for regulation of overall effect than just buying a big reserve.

 

I guess you could buy the big reserve, then throw on some limitation (maybe even a 0- value) on the control cost that powers of a maximum DC of X regardless of AP;s available, or that AP's above a certain number can only be used for certain advantages.

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

I already mentioned possibilities. You disagreed that they are the best--I see that other GM's may think differently. you can keep on demanding SFX/options--I gave one perfectly valid already (which was one more than I should have bothered with) and apparently you dismissed it out of hand. Pardon me if I don't care to cater to a closed mind that pretends to be open.

No. What you did was give some weird explanation why a GM might use the option, when what I was asking for was a specific SFX or Setting that might require the GM to choose that option over any other.

 

Maybe you should calm down. You are typing so fast that you have excessive typing mistakes.

 

But you already admitted that you never intended to answer the question of SFX/Setting. So just let it go.

 

You can insult me and call me names all you like, but those who know me here, know better.

 

I've moved on. You should too.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[incrdbil]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

No. What you did was give some weird explanation why a GM might use the option, when what I was asking for was a specific SFX or Setting that might require the GM to choose that option over any other.

 

And I've stated over and over that I don't need top--there are literally infinite possible settings, making it certain there is a setting where that judgment would be the best to some GM's judgment. All it has to do is work better than other options, or be more accessible and/or feel comfortable to that GM while delivering the needed results, and its a viable option. And thats what I'm advocating--tolerating options that might work for others.

 

But for specific settings--you have a mystic campaign. All magic comes from VPP's. There are a few high blood wizards, and lower hedge mages. High Magic (The type most of the PC's are, who are among the last wielders of the high magic--besides the horde of evil beings summoned by the Big Evil Guy) trumps Hedge magic. It's attacks always do some form of damage (penetrating) against other magical defenses or against magical creatures; its defenses are always stouter (hardened) versus non High Magic attacks, and Hedge magic struggles to dispel it (Difficult to dispel). High Magic always affects non-corporeal beings, while hedge magic may not without a unique spell design (affects desol versus limited FX). High Magic is much more complex than Hedge Magic (Hedge magic skill rolls are -1 per 20, while High Magic is -1 per 10) Hedge Magic has an advantage in being much more flexible. (High Magic has a small limited powers limitation). Anyone can learn Hedge Magic, while a certain perk is needed to be of the High Blood. True masters of magic learn hedge and high magic, but everyone just starts out learning one.

 

 

Placing all of these mandatory on individual powers in a VPP means the reserve will have to be large to accommodate attacks or powers that meet starting game standards for the high magic wielders. Normal XP awards mean their abilities advance at a snails pace. Excess XP awards means the non-mages start outshining the high mages Powers. Large VPP's mean that powers or spells that don't need the hardened, AP, or affects desol advantages have a lot more active points to make use of--or many of these powers can be wielded at once. You can't achieve High Magics superiority by placing a limit on Hedge Magic alone, you'd have to add something to the write ups of most fantasy creatures, and items.

 

 

Tie it into the Control cost with a custom advantage just labeled High Magic), and this isn't a factor. The characters pay the cost in the control, plus the perk they have. The various advantages don't have to be worked into every possible spell. It's all contained in one nice little line on a sheet.

 

Now, this is a quick project. More in game problems balancing out High Magic can exist. (High Magic Wielders attract a certain type of magic consuming foe, while Hedge Magic isn't detected by that type of creature). Non Magic using characters don't care that much--a sword will go through a High Magic protective field just as well as a Hedge Wizards. Hedge wizardry isn't the magic of the parties 'front line' casters its the magic of the sneak, the healer, the wilderness warrior, the bard.

 

 

Sorry about the earlier typos--I've been dealing with a rather disastrous washer failure here of great annoyance, so I've been a bit rushed at times.

 

Darn it, now I'm in a Fantasy Hero mood, and I just don't have time for another game. Curses!

[schir1964]

Re: VPP and Advantages

 

But for specific settings...

Okay, now we are getting somewhere...

 

I don't run fantasy games so I'm having little trouble getting my head around the concept. It seems what you are suggesting that that Contol Cost is being used as "buy in" value for magic school which grants a bunch of freebies underneath.

 

I'll have to do some research before I respond. I need to check to make sure I understand a couple of other rulings so I don't make any false presumptions.

 

- Christopher Mullins