Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

[Robyn]

For background, please read this, this, and this.

 

Then, please explain to me how we're supposed to do things, here.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

The topic of "reason from effect" is covered in 5ER in the Powers section. The basic premise there extends to the entire set of rules (from Characteristics through Combat Maneuvers) but primarily applies to the building of Powers.

 

The main thing I have to say on this topic is how I disagree with the terms "allways" used in the referenced posts and your use of the phrase "supposed to". There is no allways and there is no supposed to. It a method works, it works, and nother anyone says about it will change that. Also, there is nothing wrong with using different methods at different times for different stuff on different characters. Even on the same character, I might want him to have a "heat blast" and reason from effect that the effect I want to simply to damage an opponent at range. I choose Energy Blast as my mechanic, assigning the SFX "heat blast" to it. Then I decide that I want this character to be really accurate with this attack, and decide to buy him a few 2 point CSLs with his EB. I then decide that I don't want this to be really skill, just that I envision him firing these blasts out if his eyes and whatever he looks at should be as easy to hit as looking at it. I just did that part backward, and even modified how the original heat blast works in he process. Did I do anything wrong here? No. The final character is still book legal and the GM may or may not approve of the build based on his campaign guidelines and it would be this way no matter how I arrived at that particular combination of game mechanics and SFX.

 

I've recently noticed a number of posters on these boards who are making friendly reminders of the reason from effect method, and that's a good thing. But I'd like to remind them that reasoning from effect is just one method of creating a character's abilities. Reasoning from effect has a lot going for it through. For one, it always works. You never can go wrong with it in my opinion. But it's far from the only way that works.

 

I hope this helps.

[David Johnston]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

The disagreement seems to be a semantic one.

 

From the FAQ:

n short, to use the HERO System to its fullest, you have to reason from effect. This entails two closely related things:

 

1. Reasoning From Special Effect: You decide what an ability's special effects are — what it looks like and how it functions — then you work back to the game effect and determine how to represent that appearance and function with the appropriate game elements. For example, if you want to build a "Fire Blast," you determine what effect a blast of fire would have in the HERO System rules, then use the appropriate game elements and rules to build it to have that effect.

 

2. Reasoning From Game Effect: Rather than worrying about what an ability looks or feels like, decide what it does in game terms. Then use the appropriate game elements and rules to build it to do that. For example, a Fire Blast causes damage. Rather than comb through the rulebook looking for "rules for fire blasts," which you won't find, you look for "Powers that cause damage." Then, after determining which Power's game rules most closely create the effect of "fire" that you have in mind, you use that Power to build the ability you want.

 

What that means of course, is that the person who picks his powers and then decides on a matching special effect, and the person who decides on a special effect and then designs his powers to match that special effect are both reasoning from effect. The only people who aren't reasoning from effect, are the people who, say, put together a nonsensical combination of power and special effect like a normal damage Energy Blast with double knockback that is represented by the special effect of ripping your opponent's heart out or the person who just buys the power but doesn't bother to pick a special effect for it at all.. Those persons haven't reasoned from effect because they've made no effort to match a special effect with game mechanics in the design.

 

 

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

I use the word "Always" with "Reason from Effect" because that's square one in the sytem. Decide what you want to do. Either in terms of Special Effects or in terms of Effect On the World.

 

In the above post by David Johnston he gives the two methods:

 

1. Reason from Special Effect - what you want it to look like and how you want it to act.

 

2. What you want it to do (damage, protect, whatever).

 

Once you've decided on one or both of those you find the Power/Skill/Talent/Characteristic/Perk/Thing that best fits the bill. Or at least fits the bill to your liking since there are almost always multiple ways to build any one thing.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Yep, I agree it's mostly a semantic difference. I suspect most folks are thinking of reasoning from game effect when they use the phrase "reasoning from effect," but either way can and does work.

[Susano]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

My method has always been "what does the power do?"

 

In other words, if the character throws fire bolts, what do the bolts do? (Damage of course.) Then select what damage-causing powers seem proper for the genre and concept. When things get strange (like gravity control), then I look at the end result of the power. If your gravity power allows you to hold someone in place -- that's TK (it's not an Entangle because the Entangle build gets too complex to simulate the "hold in place" effect. If your gravity powers allows you to make yourself lighter-than-air, that's flight. And so on.

 

Linking powers also helps (thus splitting the effect up among several powers) as does looking at established, "official" (i.e. published) builds. Also, don't get stuck into the semantics of power names. Entangles can make walls, for example, while Desolid can simulate a super escape artist. Also, there comes a time to sit back and say "does this need to be built"?

[Vurbal]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

I start by determining what mechanics best simulate what I'm trying to do. That determines the basic power, skill, talent, etc, ... used. Then I look at the special effect. That's primarily used to determine adders, advantages, and limitations, It's also usually the determining factor for whether a framework is appropriate.

 

If there are multiple ways to build something the determining factor is usually special effect, but in some cases that makes a build that's either overly complicated or greatly over/under-priced so other factors certainly come into play.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

You're pretty much always figuring out rules for special effects. You know your Fire-blaster is going to have fire powers... whether you think about in-character effects and stat them out with powers, or flip through the powers and think about how they apply to Fire powers... it's all the same...

 

You're looking at the special effect and seeing what powers could fit with it. Sometimes I page through the book, looking at powers for inspiration... for example, I have a teleportation character I'm working on, and I couldn't think of enough useful things to do with him. So, paging through the book I stumble onto missile deflection.... yeah, he could teleport the missiles to the other side of himself... or even teleport them so they're aimed at someone else. Boom, new power. Is that reasoning from effect? Meh, kinda.

 

Really, the only thing you shouldn't do is grab a bunch of powers you want to use and then try to figure out a special effect that goes with them.

 

-Nate

[Susano]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

You're pretty much always figuring out rules for special effects. You know your Fire-blaster is going to have fire powers... whether you think about in-character effects and stat them out with powers, or flip through the powers and think about how they apply to Fire powers... it's all the same...

 

You're looking at the special effect and seeing what powers could fit with it.

 

Really, the only thing you shouldn't do is grab a bunch of powers you want to use and then try to figure out a special effect that goes with them.

 

I believe that the V&V method.

[CBikle]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

The reasoning from effect thing becomes easier once you become familiar with the Hero System. At that point, it's just a matter of figuring out what power(s) to use with whatever combination of advantages and limits are deemed applicable for the power.

 

Initially, you might decide that a speedster's high-velocity barrage of punches is a straight +10d6 hand attack and later on in the campaign you might decide that the power is better represented as a 2d6 HKA with autofire, armor-piercing,etc.

 

If you're new to the system, a good rule of thumb is to use energy blasts (EB) to build attacks and for defense use force-field(FF) for any defense that is "powered up" like the Human Torch's fiery form or the Invisible Girl's force-field and use armor for any passive mode of protection (The Thing and Iron-Man both have the armor power, but with different special effects).

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

For background' date=' please read this, this, and this.

 

Then, please explain to me how we're supposed to do things, here.

 

I found JmOz's final posted comment on the third "this," about twins, to be quite illuminating:

 

Thank you everyone, I think I am going to call it a minor (5 point) DF or social lim, require them to have the same COM (for obvious reasons) and call it good.

 

The reason I posted this was to get a number of different ideas, see how they rated vs my own (I was at first going to just require the same COM) and go from there...

 

The multiplicity of mechanical options possible under HERO are one of the things I notice causing confusion for newcomers to the system. HERO has little of the "this is the one/best way to do X" advice that is very common in other games. For any given concept, any given special effect, there may be a dozen different ways to build it which are equally rules-legal and mechanically valid. Often the main determinant between one build and another is how the individual designing it wants it to work - in other words, purely individual taste.

 

Robyn, I've been watching you struggle with this as you get further into HERO. I've seen you present wonderfully detailed conceptual descriptions of things you want to do, and ask for suggestions on how to do it in the system. Often your reply to those suggestions comes down to, "That isn't what I'm describing," as though the description should clearly convey THE way it should be done. It appears that what you're looking for is the particular feel that a construct might give, and those are highly individual and subjective. We can offer suggestions for the concepts and SFX that you provide that seem most logical or appropriate to us, but which one if any feels right to you is your decision.

 

It's like your questions regarding firearm scopes, on another of those threads you linked to:

 

 

I'm thinking of one of those with all the optional accessories and clip-on components' date=' like a scope; the scope might be +X OCV in a Focus for that specific attack, SFX "only when used to aim". Even if the scope only fit that model of rifle, though, it would be possible to move it onto a [i']different[/i] rifle (still of that model) and give +X OCV to attacks with that weapon. Still, it seems like it would be fair, because the character isn't using the bonus for more than one attack at once; it can only be used to aim a shot for the rifle it's attached to.

 

I'm wondering how to treat the Focus, though, when it can effectively become part of the main weapon like that. Should the rifle be built as a Multipower with "you can only fit so many of these on it, and you need the physical component for each to put points into this area of the Multipower, and detach them when withdrawing the points"?

 

As a related question, how might I do just a scope, where the character lines up two points along their arm and fires a beam straight from their hand? It's not an Independent Focus because, unlike the rifle, it can't be taken away and used against the character; but, at what point is the "scope" more than SFX? If the PC has a golf club that they use to line up their shots by aligning it with their arm and sighting along the club, is this SFX or would they be unable to use the ranged attack because their hand was "busy" with the club?

 

The ultimate answer to all these questions is, "Yes, if you want it to, No if you don't want it to." Again, we can offer you our views on what seems most appropriate, or point you to examples from published books that give you an "official" take on the issue; but in the end, the components of HERO are there to be cherrypicked and arranged in whatever way feels most suitable to you. Even Steve Long constantly repeats that those decisions are just as valid for your own game as any ruling of his.

 

Admittedly it's kind of a postmodern take on gaming , but if you accept that not only the concepts and special effects, but even the mechanics of the game are to a large degree subjective, I think this stuff will go down more easily.

[Robyn]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

as though the description should clearly convey THE way it should be done. It appears that what you're looking for is the particular feel that a construct might give' date=' and those are highly individual and subjective.[/quote']

 

I think you're spot on with this one. I'm so accustomed to playing games where the mechanics are built around the concepts, and the two fit each other like a glove, that I'm not feeling satisfied unless the same is done in HERO. But HERO is a generic system, trading that custom fit for a higher level of flexibility to accept any concept. Adjusting to this would probably help a great deal with my tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be, too, because I could stop once I saw the concept-mechanic match and not go on trying to make the mechanics perfectly reflect the concept.

 

__________________

Robyn has given out too much Rep in the last 24 hours

[sbarron]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

But HERO is a generic system' date=' trading that custom fit for a higher level of flexibility to accept [i']any[/i] concept. Adjusting to this would probably help a great deal with my tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be, too, because I could stop once I saw the concept-mechanic match and not go on trying to make the mechanics perfectly reflect the concept.

I would also suggest that you not be afraid to "go off the reservation," so to speak, when it comes to modeling things in HERO. There is a tendency with HERO to try to build every effect and mechanic using the rather comprehensive HERO rules. But, you really don't need to model everything with the rules if you're just playing your own game.

 

This thread shows how trying to model a relatively simple effect (mutliple attacks) can result in some conveluted rules debates. Thia could just have easily given these monsters an extra attack per phase when they go "all out" with a lot less grief, and likely without unbalancing the game one bit. There are a lot of effects that HERO can handle that are never explored because GMs clings so desperately to the rules. Don't be afraid of making changes if it helps the feel of your game. Nothing turns fantasy mages into normals with superpowers faster than powers designed without regard to how they feel to the players...and that's not a good thing.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Don't forget also that you can handwave a lot of minor stuff. You don't have to stat out every little tiny detail 100% perfectly.

 

I think the scope, for example, could easily just be +X OCV for one specific attack, OIF. The fact that it can be used by anyone on any gun of a similar type is something you can just handwave.

 

You just have to describe exactly what it is your special effects are, and any minor stuff just works as you want. It *is* a perfect reflection of the idea that fits like a glove... you just don't bother to model every tiny detail.

 

For example, my character has weather control as control environment. We needed to wash some goop off our allies' mouths. My weather control doesn't really specify it can do that, but I can create driving rain, and that should do the trick, right? Of course, so, it works.

 

That's the thing about Hero, you and the GM have to agree to handwave the small stuff, because you can't ever make anything perfect.

 

Hell, even in other games, how often is your character *exactly* what you want? I bet it's far less than it is in Hero. I'll use D&D as an example because it's what I know best. You take this class or that class, this feat or that feat, and you come to an appoximation of what your character should be able to do. Unless you have a very straightforward concept, chances are it's a lot less of a perfect fit than you'd think. But in D&D you just tend to create characters that fit the rules, rather than vice versa. You know you can't really create a Wizard in Full Plate at first level, so you don't try. In Hero, you could (in theory).

 

-Nate

[Robyn]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

There are a lot of effects that HERO can handle that are never explored because GMs clings so desperately to the rules. Don't be afraid of making changes if it helps the feel of your game. Nothing turns fantasy mages into normals with superpowers faster than powers designed without regard to how they feel to the players...and that's not a good thing.

 

Yeah. That's my basic problem, I think. I'm so used to being able to get the feel of the game through studying the rules, that I'm in the habit of defining the "feel" by how the mechanics behind it operate

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Yeah. That's my basic problem' date=' I think. I'm so used to being able to get the [i']feel[/i] of the game through studying the rules, that I'm in the habit of defining the "feel" by how the mechanics behind it operate

That's OK, six months around here and we'll break you of that habit.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Yeah. That's my basic problem' date=' I think. I'm so used to being able to get the [i']feel[/i] of the game through studying the rules, that I'm in the habit of defining the "feel" by how the mechanics behind it operate

 

This is a common problem, and why many people think Hero is too SuperHero centric.

 

The rules do not define the game. The rules *support* the game.

 

That's why I never use rules-speak when I announce the powers I'm using. It makes it a lot easier to think about the game and not the rules.

 

"Baron Von Awesome lets loose his Awesome Blast! on the unsuspecting ZigZag!"

"Sebastian casts a fireball at the group of oncoming goblins"

"I flick my FN-FAL to full auto and fill the hallway full of lead"

 

Sure, you could say "I'm using my 2d6 OAF RKA with autofire 5 making 5 shots attempting to hit three hexes of the hallway", but that's not nearly as fun

 

-Nate

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

And to clarify, SBarron, the point of that thread was as much to determine HOW to do a thing as anything else. My PCs are genuinely curious as to how I plan on building/statting monsters and such, and we're running hard math tests in combat situations to determine the validity of their builds, and how tough I need to make my monsters.

 

That's what started that thread - it was actually an off-shoot of my "How to build a Barghest" thread, which, thanks to some rethinking and retooling (and some input from my peers, here) I've redesigned into something far more sensible.

 

But yes, I did notice that simply asking "How do I do multiple attacks in a round?" seemed to get into an unnecessarily complicated discussion.

[ideasmith]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

I believe that the V&V method.

 

Nope. V&V method is 'Randomly roll Powers without regard to whether anyone wants to use them; special effects are as rolled, without regard to consistency.'

[Susano]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Nope. V&V method is 'Randomly roll Powers without regard to whether anyone wants to use them; special effects are as rolled' date=' without regard to consistency.'[/quote']

 

Oh....

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Adjusting to this would probably help a great deal with my tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be' date=' too, because I could stop once I saw the concept-mechanic match and not go on trying to make the mechanics [i']perfectly[/i] reflect the concept.

OTOH, it can be fun -- as an intellectual exercise if nothing else -- to try and arrange the mechanics in such a way that they *do* match the concept perfectly (or darn near). We just have to realize that it won't *always* be possible to succeed at that, since concepts are infinite, and game mechanics are necessarily finite. Sometimes we have to accept the "80% solution," building the concept as closely as possible, and then either accepting that it isn't going to function mechanically exactly as envisioned, or handwaving the remaining gap between concept and mechanic so it *does* function exactly as envisioned.

[JmOz]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

OTOH' date=' it can be fun -- as an intellectual exercise if nothing else -- to try and arrange the mechanics in such a way that they *do* match the concept perfectly (or darn near). We just have to realize that it won't *always* be possible to succeed at that, since concepts are infinite, and game mechanics are necessarily finite. Sometimes we have to accept the "80% solution," building the concept as closely as possible, and then either accepting that it isn't going to function mechanically exactly as envisioned, or handwaving the remaining gap between concept and mechanic so it *does* function exactly as envisioned.[/quote']

 

I think that is an important point, as a rules lawyer type of person I fall into this trap often...

 

I do prefer the handwave when I am GM'ing, player and I talk about an ability, then we point up a close proximidy of what they want, and go from there. It should be noted that really unless you are doing something super simple (I want to fly) then you always have some room of "this is not quite right", that's why the SFX rules are part of the game (So my Flight with a fire tail might ignite paper)

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Steve Long himself has bent or broken his own default rules for some published character or power/spell builds, when IHO the effect he was going for warranted it and it wouldn't be too unbalancing.

 

If it's good enough for the Big HERO Kahuna, I figure it's good enough for us peons.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

. . . Why would he peon us?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

 

Aye, Steve's big thing has been "If the GM thinks it's balanced the rules really haven't been broken"