Power Defense

Dust Raven · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

That's what I've been saying I wanted to do almost since the start. Power Defense would generally have a limitation attached to it. Universal Power defense can be purchased but would be fairly rare IN MY GAME and it seems like people have trying to point that I am wrong to play it that way because it doesn't fit the genre/isn't cinematic/etc. I'm not one the posters that want to make it mandatory that Power Defense be broken up into seperate category yet I seem to be being lumped in with them.

Like I said, the big point of contention here seems to be how common universal Power Defense is and that's subjective.

Okay. Sorry about the confusion. It's a somewhat heated thread afterall. No harm done I hope?

[waves flag of truce and offers hand in reconciliation]

nexus · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Okay. Sorry about the confusion. It's a somewhat heated thread afterall. No harm done I hope?

[waves flag of truce and offers hand in reconciliation]

No hard feeling at all. Just Seems like wires got cross somewhere and things got out of hand. I apologize anything I might have said to contribute to the problem.

July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Power Defense doesn't as I recall and what about the oft cited "I'm just that tough!" Power Defense? IME' date=' I've seen Power Defense defined in way that it shouldn't be able to be turned off anymore than you can "Turn off" you innate Armor defined as "Tough Skin".[/quote']

...hence Always On as a limitation? Or Inherent as an Advantage?

July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Hugh, you are talking about the POWER (read the item described within the HERO rules) Power Defense. As written, of course, that POWER doesn't apply unless you choose to. Its listed as an option in power defense.

What we are talking about hero is the power, the ability the character has, and how best to model it using the various game traits.

The example is simple enough. if i buy a game effect to represent "i am unalterable" r "i am not as easily altered" by dint of being a god or having some "immutableness" then it seems logical that that immutability would be represented by a game mechanic that resists my character being changed... and tha includes both for ill and for good.

If, and only if, they are defined *precisely* as 'being immutable', then yes.

However, there are a lot of ways a character could be resistant solely to harmful changes.

The best example i can give is "if we agree being godlike in and of itself makes me difficult to transform, then that difficulty should apply to both the transform spell that removes my two arms and to the spell which adds for me two more arms". heck, dude, it may even be the same spell, the same single power on the sheet.

Yes... but adding two arms is not the same as healing. In a lot of ways it is actually a negative effect, and it is _not_ restoring the character to their natural state of equilibrium (whereas a healing effect _is_, so if the character is not immutable, but simply has a powerful effect that restores them to a baseline state - say regeneration, healing works but mutation fails).

On the other hand, take SuperStarfishMan - he has the healing powers of a Starfish. It's easy for him to grow extra arms - he does that naturally - but just you try to remove them without him instantly regrowing more!

It's something that should not be determined by the rules, but by how you apply them and limit the powers involved.

Should the "immutable nature" or "cosmic entity" or any of the other rather broadly defined justifications for universal power defense being suggested in this thread fairly freely not be bought (or maybe jus chose the option) so that the immutability isn't just "against ill effects".

They can be. But they don't have to be. Because the power does not have to be 'resistant to all changes', either by the book, or by the types of characters that can be imagined. It can be 'resistant to all harmful changes', which makes as much sense as any other superpower.

After all, you can have superspeed without breaking legs running or being vapourized by friction. Powers can have a built in 'this power doesn't actively try to screw me over' clause.

IMO if power def3nse is being taken as "derived from concept and SFX" it seems at least some of these would, but i see no reference to it in the posts and it is being argued against. On the other hand if the whole thing starts with "i want for my character what power defense the hero power does" and then the concept FX "immutability" is just the lip service to get the game mechanic thru, then that use of the rationale is off kilter a bit.

To highlight my point, look at these quotes from the thread...

Page 1 "Power defense, at it's most generic, does have a unified special effect that works against all adjustment powers: "I am difficult to alter""

Page 2: "I have a tendancy to have character designes that fit the universal. One character is a Godling - so it doesn't matter if it's tech or magic or whatnot, she resists it."

Page 2 again (different guy): "Because they are just hard to effect with _anything_. "

All of thse descriptions of "describe the effect" make me think they mean what they say... the character is "hard to affect with anything", "it doesn't matter.. .she resists it", and "I am difficult to alter". And if a player passed any one of those as a description of a character trait they were trying to model, I would be expecting them to write the GAME MECHANIC power up so that it did just that, for good and ill.

You're insisting they stick to a one sentence description precisely.

"My character is hard to alter. Unless he consciously allows it to affect him."

is different from both

"My character is hard to alter. Period."

and

"My character is hard to alter, unless his divine spark decides it would be in his best interests to be altered"

All of which are equally logical variations on Power Defense for a superhero to have.

Bink, from a Spell For Chameleon is immune to harm from magic. He's not immune to magic, just harm. Trent the Transformer turns him into all sorts of creatures when it's being done to try and help him - but when they fight, and Bink is in danger of being turned into a tree forever, he's immune.

So, Mr magus casts his "fleshsculpting spell" on "hard to alter ladd" to take away his arms, he finds out said ladd is "hard to alter" and the defense applies. Next segment, Ms. Magus (Mr Magus' good mage ally to HTA Ladd) casts the exact same spell but to add two additional arms to HTA Ladd, she finds HTA Ladd is indeed "hard to alter".

If i sold my Gm on a character trait i described as "Hard to alter" or "just hard to affect with - anything -." and i considered that a good rationale for a trait, then i would be applying that trait game mechanically to everything that tried to alter me, not just to the effects I cherry pick in the moment.

Neither would I. *If that truly was the character concept*. But a lot of concepts which can be put in _short_ as 'hard to alter' have subclauses.

Subclauses which can have their own problems. Bink has to suffer the whims and vagaries of his semi-sentient talent as it uses it's judgement rather than his, for example.

But should there be a concept that calls for power defense with no limitations, then it should be allowed. And if the 'limitations' on it are so minor as to be a simple matter of SFX, then the GM should check the rulebook and remember that such minor issues are not worth points as a limitation and should not even be written down.

EDIT: also by the same token, using "hard to alter" as my trait and a form of power defense as part of that trait, i would ALSO expect that defense to NOT APPLY vs a fighting array built as "aid to dex" and equall NOT APPLY against a "use multiple enemy's against each other" bought as a dex drain (the exact reverse of the fighting array.) Both these follow from the SFX.

Except the 'use multiple enemy's against each other' idea

a) Shouldn't be an unadvantaged dex drain, since Power Defense apparently shouldn't work against it. (As in, reverse your argument; the problem isn't Power Defense, the problem is the reverse array)

Doesn't work as a simple reversal of the array system. The array system let's _you_ move more efficiently. Forcing your opponent to move less efficiently requires affecting them in some way (which the unalterable man should be resistant to - no, dammit, I will remain as efficient as ever!).

If it does not, in fact, affect them... then it is actually a DEX aid to _you_.

I mean, for instance, I wouldn't as GM normally allow someone to define a trait as "he turns to solid stone" and buy strength and body and defense but not take the increased mass that is an obvious drawback of "turns to stone".

the definition of the trait in character terms should .guide the selection of the game mechanic in game terms, right?

'He turns to solid stone. Oh, by the way, since he turns to stone because he uses a magic spell, he also usually casts Levitation to cancel out his extra weight, because he's based on this golem in a short story I read...;

(I did consider building a solid stone 'partial levitation' golem character based on a short story I read once... - this is not a hypothetical, it's an actual character concept I had)

Or

'He turns to solid stone. Pumice. Ultrahard PUMICE.'

Or

'Yeah, he turns to stone, I'll take the extra mass'.

All good responses.

July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

I'll assume that's meant in a hurmous manner. It safer that way.

Frustrated humour. I lost a good 20-30 minutes of my life there... and it would have been worth it if I got to POST the damn thing.

Lucius · July 1, 2006

Two Suggestions

Frustrated humour. I lost a good 20-30 minutes of my life there... and it would have been worth it if I got to POST the damn thing.

Sometimes, I compose in a word document, then copy and post, I mean, paste, I mean, post by pasting.

Also, if I spend too much time and when I hit "Submit Reply" it tells me I've logged out, I go ahead and log in, then hit the back button a couple of times and usually find myself back at the Reply to Thread screen with my whole glorious overblown longwinded neverending run-on essay there waiting to be posted - this time when I hit "Submit Reply" it does.

Lucius Alexander

Waking up to a palindromedary

Rkane_1 · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

My point is' date=' at some point you have to stop arguing and play the game (much as some of us love arguments.) [/quote']

Wait....

so let me get this straight....

you can PLAY Hero system TOO?

Wow....hadn't thought of that option....

maybe I'll make a rules variant for it.

tesuji · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

If, and only if, they are defined *precisely* as 'being immutable', then yes.

more or less a matter of taste, but my statement would be more along the lines of "if that best fits the description." The descriptions i qutoed seemed to me to be best done that way. It followed from their descriptions that it would work that way, to me just like "i turn to living stone" as the FX for armor and srength leads me to say "so you get real heavy?"

However, there are a lot of ways a character could be resistant solely to harmful changes.

I would say that depends on the campaign and world/universe. Some universes will be rife with them i imagine. others have few or maybe none. it really depends on the setting the GM chooses.

Yes... but adding two arms is not the same as healing. In a lot of ways it is actually a negative effect, and it is _not_ restoring the character to their natural state of equilibrium

Agreed.

If a character write defined his power defense as "trying to maintain his natural state and balance of equilibrium thus making his hard to alter" then I would apply it only to those effects which are trying to change his character away from his natural state. So healing would be fine.

But for that description, AID to strength would get the defense, since that is trying to change his natural state.

to be very very clear here...

I am not suggesting that every use of power defense should work vs every positive power affected by power defense, any more than I like have every use of power defense apply vs every negative power that works vs power defense. I am saying the choice of whether A is affected by the power defense of a given character or not should be, seems best to me when, determined by the SFX of the defense and the affecting power. This is because adjustment powers are used in the books to reflect a wide variety of effects some of whom do not "directly affect or change" the character at all.

It's something that should not be determined by the rules, but by how you apply them and limit the powers involved.

I think it should be determined by the SFX, by the character trait.

Maybe I will just write it as this "In this campaign, all adjustment powers and power defense take a -0 limitation for "might not work when SFX say it doesn't make sense."

They can be. But they don't have to be.

You seem to be arguing against making all power defense work against both positive and negative effects. If so just realize, I never claimed it should so you are not arguing with me.

I am simply arguing that, when the SFX and description of the character trait calls for it, then pow def should should be bought work against both positive and negative effects. As stated earlier, in some cases, i would see this as a -0.

Because the power does not have to be 'resistant to all changes', either by the book, or by the types of characters that can be imagined. It can be 'resistant to all harmful changes', which makes as much sense as any other superpower.

that judgement i would not be able to make without knowing the specifics of the campaign worlds in play. I imagine it could be true in some universes and not in others. Back to that GM judgement thing.

After all, you can have superspeed without breaking legs running or being vapourized by friction. Powers can have a built in 'this power doesn't actively try to screw me over' clause.

Indeed, they can, but that doesn't mean all powers should. It really depends on the universe the Gm is choosing. I mean, having speedster run without burning up joints is fine within most super 'verses i know of, but having stone boy do tightrope walking without having to worry about " i am really heavy" stretches the lines of reasonableness and "universe makes sense" in some.

You're insisting they stick to a one sentence description precisely.

I am expecting both them and me to follow effect from description and definition, usually involved in a discussion early on.

"My character is hard to alter. Unless he consciously allows it to affect him."

Well, for me, there would need to be more descrtion on the conscious thing.

GM: Uh ok so how does this conscious control work? If you are unaware of the attack, which way is the default?

More specific questions would follow from the further SFX info given.

"My character is hard to alter, unless his divine spark decides it would be in his best interests to be altered"

GM: So, there is this thing, called a divine spark, which can make conscious decisions as to whether or not and when your character's powers work based on its judgements on whats "in your best interest?

After getting more info on the "divine spark" and suggesting some character disadvantages to reflect it, this one might well be interesting and fine... depending on the campaign.

All of which are equally logical variations on Power Defense for a superhero to have.

again, determinations of the sort of "is this appropriate" or "does this make sense" or "is this logical" are IMO dependent on the universe the game is being run in. I cannot make such judgements whole cloth. There would likely be universes where it makes sense and others where it doesn't, which again moves it back to GM judgement and choice.

Neither would I. *If that truly was the character concept*. But a lot of concepts which can be put in _short_ as 'hard to alter' have subclauses.

again, i was not saying all power defense should be universally applicable to all positive effects.

Subclauses which can have their own problems. Bink has to suffer the whims and vagaries of his semi-sentient talent as it uses it's judgement rather than his, for example.

like divine spark above.

But should there be a concept that calls for power defense with no limitations, then it should be allowed.

again, that depends highly on the universe which puts it into GM judgement and choice. I don't run universes often where a defense against having your buddies bump into you at critical moments in combat (the fighting array as drain thing) will share the same sfx/power as the defense against the soul sucking life drain from thge mutant who has you in the bear hug.

Just because it can be imagined, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Just because it can be written down legally, doesn't mean it should be approved for a given game.

Captain Comedy, a mutant embued with the power of humor, is highyl resistant to everything thats not funny. So a drain to dex from an undead out of the blue would likely be affected. However, a drain to dex of SFX defined as itching powder or clothes get real tight might well be allowe unaffected by the defense, since it would probably look silly.

Just because i can think of captain comedy and can write up his powers, doesn't make him an acceptable or "should be approved character, particularly for worlds/universes where the Gm doesn't consider humor a "power" at all.

And if the 'limitations' on it are so minor as to be a simple matter of SFX, then the GM should check the rulebook and remember that such minor issues are not worth points as a limitation and should not even be written down.

but they ought to be discussed and understood between player and Gm to avoid in game conflicts.

Now for me, simply making power defense SFX dependent and allowing the player to buy up to get more SFX as akin to how adjustment powers work now, with a similar +2 level for "all sfx" if the Gm approves, goes a long way to avoiding overly detailed writing.

Some people here have said "most characters wont have universal power defense" and i agree... Most characters who have power defense would have a limited verion of it.

So which serves me better: defaulting power defense to the type most characters have and making the few oddball characters do a little extra figuring and writing for the advantages OR making most characters apply limitations and do the extra figuring and writing and let the few and far between universal boys use the default power?

Answer: for me, the one which makes the power most often "used as is" without modifiers and extra math and writing.

a) Shouldn't be an unadvantaged dex drain, since Power Defense apparently If it does not, in fact, affect them... then it is actually a DEX aid to _you_.

Honestly, iw ouldn''t write either one up and approve it for my game as an adjustment power at all. I just know thats the "official" way so it seemd appropriate to the discussion.

'He turns to solid stone. Oh, by the way, since he turns to stone because he uses a magic spell, he also usually casts Levitation to cancel out his extra weight, because he's based on this golem in a short story I read...;

Again, if his SFX is acceptable and he has some other 3explanation... that can work. Said description would be vulnerable to spells that did things like "took control of leveitation/flying powers". he might suffer increased knockback due to being levitating? Or he might have to actually buy a levitation spell? or in a mystical no fly zone" he would be heavy again... etc

(I did consider building a solid stone 'partial levitation' golem character based on a short story I read once... - this is not a hypothetical, it's an actual character concept I had)

similar concepts in scifi include desne aliens who use a G-belt to offset their mass when on ships and structures built for more "lightweight" races. They have problems when their belts are stolen.

Said device etc would lower the frequency of the physical lim for "really heavy" they take to reflect the mass issue. it wouldn't totally eliminate the issue.

Again, just as with power defense, i was not saying that universally every possible conception of "stone guy" would have to have or have the same "heavy form" issues... just that barring some other acceptable and reasonable trait added in, they would likely share similar drawbacks within a given universe.

Do note as a Gm with a little experience, the more frequently a player strains to come up with excsuses for why "my character doesn't suffer the drawbacks one would expect from this power's sfx and justification" the less likely the character is to be accepted or even more to the point, the player accepted. Just as a side note I know i have had more problems over the years in gaming from the "not me, that doesn't apply to me" types than from the "yeah, that makes sense if my powers work from that" types.

My purely subjective observation is that it has seemed with the players i have actually played with, as player and GM, that as a group (indivudla exceptions obviously) its very common for the "not doesn't apply to me i dont have that drawback" to be also possessed of the "must'nt let Gm have an opening" lack of trust issue more often than those who go down the opposite approach, and i think that miight be why i have seen more problems with them than the latter. But again, that is totally subjective and based on the individuals i have gamed with over the years. its certainly not meant to be any sort of universally applicable observation.

nexus · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

...hence Always On as a limitation? Or Inherent as an Advantage?

But that is something not often seen in published or player generated characters even if their special effects warrant. I'd wager many gms would shoot down "Always On" armor. Inherent might be be applicable either if the setting has "Mutant Nullifers or the like. Honestly, its probably just a sfx thing but worth considering I think at least for plot devices. It evens out in a sense. You're a Kryptaxmite with naturally tough, dense flesh; there might come a time when need an injection or an operation and mere human surgical tools can't cut your impervious flesh or your a mutant who's Armor is really a skintight invisible telekinetic forcefield you unconsiously project then one day a clever and powerful mentalist might "convince" you to drop it.

tesuji · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

All I'm really saying about "my" way is that it is as equally valid as "yours", but with the difference that "my" way allows you to have your way, but your way doesn't allow me to have mine (should your way be the default/standard of the system).

it isn't necessarily true...

Again working along similar lines to how adjustment powers are defined now consider...

POWER DEFENSE: in this game power defense applies at its base level only against one SFX or definable range of effects. For example: resistant to magic might be appropriate.

For +1/2 you can add a second SFX/range of effects.

For each additional +1/4 you add another

At +2 it affects all sfx/range of effects.

All well and good, but such Powers that shouldn't affect the character could be easily be built in a way that they aren't against Power Defense or are only affected by a Power Defense of a particular SFX. You can modify the Attack Powers just as easily as you can the Defenses you know.

getting to this several points...

yes, as i stated long ago, one solution to power defense is to just change how you write up the attacks. No argument there.

First, what i don't get is why the "there must be universal power defense to reflect cosmic tough guys" aren't just as upset about that. Why is it Ok for cosmic dude to be "rendered impotent" because the Gm wrote the adjustment power asnan NND bypassing the power defense altogether?

Second, why is it better to change the way the adjustment powers work and leave power defense "as written" than to change power defense and leave adjustment powers as written?

to me it comes down to this... which way of doing it results in less funky math and bookeeping.

if i leave power defense as universal and decide to handle it on the adjustment power end, I end up doing a lot more funky write-ups as adjustment powers are used a lot more than universal power defense is.

on the other hand, if i change power defense to be by default SFX and range of effect dependent, i get the same kinds of effects with much less writing and ciphering.

As for effects, again, just because its an adjustment power doesn't mean it is AFFECTING the target.

In fantasy hero there way the force field spell which reflected animlas throwing themselves in the way of oncoming attacks, taking some of the effect before it hit you.

Consider the sister to that spell called "the harrying swarm" where the effect is that hoardes of animlas do that very thing against attacks coming from a given guy. So flame boy throws his firebolt and a bird and a possum jump into the path, blunting the effect before it hits whoever it is targetted at. No mater who he throws his fire bolts at, some pesky rabbit will leap into the way, taking a few dice off the attack.

Game wise, that should be IMo a suppress vs the attack powers.

Or consider a water weather guy who can suck electircal current in and so he maintains a area around him where electrical effects are reduced... you throw your electrivcal bolt into this area and i leech off some juice, resulting in a less powerful bolt hitting your target.

should your power defense apply?

Should this somehow be reflected by me writing up the power as "no defense against it at all"?

or should your power defense be subjected to "within reason of SFX" and be simply disallowed from applying here?

If i say "power defense may be disallowed due to sfx" as defult i dont have to write and cipher squat.

its more user friendly.

IMO

CBikle · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

As a player, I could never do that. For one, it's underhanded and sneaky and the GM should be able to trust me (we playing a game together as friends after all). For another, it's just inviting the GM to say "what? when did you buy Power Defense? Uh-uh... if I didn't see it you didn't buy it, lose 15 STR!"

My reply wasn't really all that serious and "camoflauge" probably wasn't the best choice of words.

Another way of putting it is this:

If at some point you're overhauling a character (training, radiation accident, whatever), the opportunity might arise in which you can buy pts. of Power Defense if it fits the concept of the "Overhaul" (perhaps that cool symbiotic costume you found on "Secret Fight World" provides Power Defense in addition to the other stuff.).

Hugh Neilson · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

You can't turn of PD or ED' date=' in my view, because [u']every[/u] character has at least 1 point, it's something that is intrinsically tied to having a corporeal body.

Steel Self +15 PD - the character tenses his muscles - "Go ahead and hit me". Sounds like PD someone with a corporeal body can shut off.

Also, if I acept your logic, resistant PD (armor or Damage Resistance) should similarly be something not intrinsic to the corporeal body (not everyone has it) and should similarly switch on and off.

Finally, if PD and ED are intrinsic in corporealoty, why are there animals with low STR that have 0 PD, and why can it be Drained or Suppressed to nil?

Mental defense (and power defense) are not things that everyone has' date=' and their special effects often imply some concious resistance.[/quote']

If the specific SFX implies this, then they should have been purchased as "Nonpersistent". I think most of us would allow the character attacked from surprise by a scorpion in his shoe the benefits of both his Unlimited PD (resistant or otherwise) and his Unlimited power defense.

Additionally' date=' the description of mental defense clearly states that a character can turn it off if they so choose, and a previously cited FAQ question says the same for power defense.[/quote']

IMO, there's a substantial difference between "he can turn it off" and "he can turn it on". Extending the logic, where does it say PD or ED cannot be turned off (as opposed to "what would possess you to WANT to turn it off)?

Hugh Neilson · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Again working along similar lines to how adjustment powers are defined now consider...

POWER DEFENSE: in this game power defense applies at its base level only against one SFX or definable range of effects. For example: resistant to magic might be appropriate.

For +1/2 you can add a second SFX/range of effects.

For each additional +1/4 you add another

At +2 it affects all sfx/range of effects.

Why not say at the outset "Power defense is more expensive in this game. Pay 3 points for each point of power defense. If you limit your Power Defense to a single SFX, this allows a -2 limitation. If you limit it to two SFX, that's a -1 limitation" and so on?

Or you could leave the cost at 1/1 without impacting the SFX, but allow the same limitation and stress that you will require good justification for popwer defense affecting multiple or all SFX.

Unless the player knows what SFX he'll be up against, it's hard to judge the fairness of aprice for a defense against only one specific SFX. OTOH, I know my Energy Blast will have an impact, regardless of the SFX I select, unless a character is specifically designed to be ultra-resistant to my SFX.

prestidigitator · July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

That's what I've been saying I wanted to do almost since the start. Power Defense would generally have a limitation attached to it. Universal Power defense can be purchased but would be fairly rare IN MY GAME and it seems like people have trying to point that I am wrong to play it that way because it doesn't fit the genre/isn't cinematic/etc. I'm not one the posters that want to make it mandatory that Power Defense be broken up into seperate category yet I seem to be being lumped in with them.

Like I said, the big point of contention here seems to be how common universal Power Defense is and that's subjective.

If your players are all cool with it, great. If not, consider what you are forcing on them. That's all.

July 1, 2006

Re: Power Defense

more or less a matter of taste, but my statement would be more along the lines of "if that best fits the description." The descriptions i qutoed seemed to me to be best done that way. It followed from their descriptions that it would work that way, to me just like "i turn to living stone" as the FX for armor and srength leads me to say "so you get real heavy?"

If it does follow from the concept, then it should be statted by the rules as so.

None of which requires altering the rules.

I would say that depends on the campaign and world/universe. Some universes will be rife with them i imagine. others have few or maybe none. it really depends on the setting the GM chooses.

Agreed.

If a character write defined his power defense as "trying to maintain his natural state and balance of equilibrium thus making his hard to alter" then I would apply it only to those effects which are trying to change his character away from his natural state. So healing would be fine.

But for that description, AID to strength would get the defense, since that is trying to change his natural state.

Perhaps. Wouldn't be so for the versions of Hulk that have him as being hyper-regenerative, since among other things his strength is only limited by his rage - his 'natural equilibrium' has 'can be stronger than this quite easily' factored in.

to be very very clear here...

I am not suggesting that every use of power defense should work vs every positive power affected by power defense, any more than I like have every use of power defense apply vs every negative power that works vs power defense. I am saying the choice of whether A is affected by the power defense of a given character or not should be, seems best to me when, determined by the SFX of the defense and the affecting power. This is because adjustment powers are used in the books to reflect a wide variety of effects some of whom do not "directly affect or change" the character at all.

And by the book, this is how things already work and should be done. No house rules required, no 'no Universal Power Defense is not allowed' required, no nothing.

I think it should be determined by the SFX, by the character trait.

Maybe I will just write it as this "In this campaign, all adjustment powers and power defense take a -0 limitation for "might not work when SFX say it doesn't make sense."

You seem to be arguing against making all power defense work against both positive and negative effects. If so just realize, I never claimed it should so you are not arguing with me.

I am simply arguing that, when the SFX and description of the character trait calls for it, then pow def should should be bought work against both positive and negative effects. As stated earlier, in some cases, i would see this as a -0.

So why is this important to note? It's not like this a change from the default rules...

that judgement i would not be able to make without knowing the specifics of the campaign worlds in play. I imagine it could be true in some universes and not in others. Back to that GM judgement thing.

The context is all possible game worlds, since we're talking about basic game design and rules structure.

Indeed, they can, but that doesn't mean all powers should. It really depends on the universe the Gm is choosing. I mean, having speedster run without burning up joints is fine within most super 'verses i know of, but having stone boy do tightrope walking without having to worry about " i am really heavy" stretches the lines of reasonableness and "universe makes sense" in some.

Neither is strictly realistic. Indeed, ultradense boy walking a tightrope may be more reasonable in regards to real physics than speedster boy.

I am expecting both them and me to follow effect from description and definition, usually involved in a discussion early on.

Well, for me, there would need to be more descrtion on the conscious thing.

GM: Uh ok so how does this conscious control work? If you are unaware of the attack, which way is the default?

More specific questions would follow from the further SFX info given.

GM: So, there is this thing, called a divine spark, which can make conscious decisions as to whether or not and when your character's powers work based on its judgements on whats "in your best interest?

After getting more info on the "divine spark" and suggesting some character disadvantages to reflect it, this one might well be interesting and fine... depending on the campaign.

again, determinations of the sort of "is this appropriate" or "does this make sense" or "is this logical" are IMO dependent on the universe the game is being run in. I cannot make such judgements whole cloth. There would likely be universes where it makes sense and others where it doesn't, which again moves it back to GM judgement and choice.

Exactly. That is why the -/+0 modifiers rule and the Limited Power Limitation exist. Because you can't say whether a power can exist with particular restrictions.

again, i was not saying all power defense should be universally applicable to all positive effects.

like divine spark above.

again, that depends highly on the universe which puts it into GM judgement and choice. I don't run universes often where a defense against having your buddies bump into you at critical moments in combat (the fighting array as drain thing) will share the same sfx/power as the defense against the soul sucking life drain from thge mutant who has you in the bear hug.

Just because it can be imagined, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Just because it can be written down legally, doesn't mean it should be approved for a given game.

Captain Comedy, a mutant embued with the power of humor, is highyl resistant to everything thats not funny. So a drain to dex from an undead out of the blue would likely be affected. However, a drain to dex of SFX defined as itching powder or clothes get real tight might well be allowe unaffected by the defense, since it would probably look silly.

Just because i can think of captain comedy and can write up his powers, doesn't make him an acceptable or "should be approved character, particularly for worlds/universes where the Gm doesn't consider humor a "power" at all.

But just because he might not be approved doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible - or easy - for him to be statted up for a game he could be approved for.

but they ought to be discussed and understood between player and Gm to avoid in game conflicts.

Now for me, simply making power defense SFX dependent and allowing the player to buy up to get more SFX as akin to how adjustment powers work now, with a similar +2 level for "all sfx" if the Gm approves, goes a long way to avoiding overly detailed writing.

But it requires the exact same level of detail to write:

'Power Defense versus Physical Harm'

as

'Power Defense, Only versus Physical Harm'

and one option requires no modification to the rules - which is inherently a plus.

Some people here have said "most characters wont have universal power defense" and i agree... Most characters who have power defense would have a limited verion of it.

Those two statements are not equivalent. Most characters won't have power defense at all.

Whether more would have limited or unlimited is entirely debateable and contingent - which is why I come down on the side of 'don't change the rules as written, there's nothing provably broken'.

So which serves me better: defaulting power defense to the type most characters have and making the few oddball characters do a little extra figuring and writing for the advantages OR making most characters apply limitations and do the extra figuring and writing and let the few and far between universal boys use the default power?

Answer: for me, the one which makes the power most often "used as is" without modifiers and extra math and writing.

It's two to three extra words, but requires playtest to make sure any functional changes don't unbalance the game, requires retraining experienced players, and there's no proof most characters who would buy power defense would NOT be unlimited or close to it.

Honestly, iw ouldn''t write either one up and approve it for my game as an adjustment power at all. I just know thats the "official" way so it seemd appropriate to the discussion.

Again, if his SFX is acceptable and he has some other 3explanation... that can work. Said description would be vulnerable to spells that did things like "took control of leveitation/flying powers". he might suffer increased knockback due to being levitating? Or he might have to actually buy a levitation spell? or in a mystical no fly zone" he would be heavy again... etc

similar concepts in scifi include desne aliens who use a G-belt to offset their mass when on ships and structures built for more "lightweight" races. They have problems when their belts are stolen.

Said device etc would lower the frequency of the physical lim for "really heavy" they take to reflect the mass issue. it wouldn't totally eliminate the issue.

Even if it's in a setting where the reduction takes it below infrequent in occurence, thus making it no longer worth points but simply a matter of SFX?

Again, just as with power defense, i was not saying that universally every possible conception of "stone guy" would have to have or have the same "heavy form" issues... just that barring some other acceptable and reasonable trait added in, they would likely share similar drawbacks within a given universe.

Do note as a Gm with a little experience, the more frequently a player strains to come up with excsuses for why "my character doesn't suffer the drawbacks one would expect from this power's sfx and justification" the less likely the character is to be accepted or even more to the point, the player accepted. Just as a side note I know i have had more problems over the years in gaming from the "not me, that doesn't apply to me" types than from the "yeah, that makes sense if my powers work from that" types.

My purely subjective observation is that it has seemed with the players i have actually played with, as player and GM, that as a group (indivudla exceptions obviously) its very common for the "not doesn't apply to me i dont have that drawback" to be also possessed of the "must'nt let Gm have an opening" lack of trust issue more often than those who go down the opposite approach, and i think that miight be why i have seen more problems with them than the latter. But again, that is totally subjective and based on the individuals i have gamed with over the years. its certainly not meant to be any sort of universally applicable observation.

I'm usually happy for my characters to have the weaknesses I see them as reasonably having, and they're usually extrapolations of how I see their powers working - but while sometimes someone else might catch something I missed, it's possible they'll hit something I found and discarded as unwanted.

Sometimes, you want to play the guy who is immune to all sorts of weird and funky **** - but can, sadly, be punched out by your average good brawler.

('Apparently I diluted the power of the Wish I was granted when I applied my legal training to creating something with no loopholes...')

tesuji · July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Why not say at the outset "Power defense is more expensive in this game. Pay 3 points for each point of power defense. If you limit your Power Defense to a single SFX, this allows a -2 limitation. If you limit it to two SFX, that's a -1 limitation" and so on?

Ok to repeat myself...

the vast majority of characters with power defense in suh a game would have the LIMITED version because the universal SFX if so hard to justify for my games.

If i go my way, with limited as the default, then the majority of character bought with power defense would be buying the "as is" variiety, writing simplky +X power defense with the SFX as per the character or the name of the power. The very few with cosmic defense or ctyorrak turnip defense would have the slightly more complex write up of applying an advantage.

If i go your way, the few and far between with ctyorrkahili turnip defense vs everything would write just plain power defense and the rest would have to go to figuring, writing lims and so forth.

Its a simple premise really... define the most oft used case/level as your baseline and let the rarer cases have the funkier writeups. its a user friendly kind of thing.

A side benefit, from learning the game sort of thing, if you ask at outset someone as a course of the power to think about what it applies to, get across its not universal but a specific effect kind of thing in the mechanics, that perception stays at the forefront.

Or you could leave the cost at 1/1 without impacting the SFX, but allow the same limitation and stress that you will require good justification for popwer defense affecting multiple or all SFX.

so let good excuse earn "more widely effective" instead of "paid more pts"? If i went that route, i would not use the points at all since they are supposed to be linked to effectiveness.

Unless the player knows what SFX he'll be up against, it's hard to judge the fairness of aprice for a defense against only one specific SFX. OTOH, I know my Energy Blast will have an impact, regardless of the SFX I select, unless a character is specifically designed to be ultra-resistant to my SFX.

Actually, its more like he defines the scope of his power and adjustment powers that clash with that get affected while those that don't don't.

As for how difficult it is to guess ahead of time how frequently a given SFX will appear, well, maybe in your games this is some insurmountable conundrum, but the HERo system expects such decisions routinely with things like vulnerability and susceptability and limited power and so forth. I figure most other Gms running HERo have figured out how that works by now, I know i have, and work with their players if they have issues.

Do you really have that hard a time with it? Haven't you been doin' this a while now? Did you just toss out all those other things that run off of frequency of SFX occurance cuz you found it to be too "hard to judge" for your players and was causing trouble?

Just curious.

tesuji · July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

None of which requires altering the rules.

i agree. the notion of reasoning from effect isn't a rules issue at all. i just address it as it comes up.

Perhaps. Wouldn't be so for the versions of Hulk

what does the hulk have to do with the SFX of "natural state of equilibrium"? I would tend to think he is the poster boy for "unnatural state" and "non-state-of-equilibrium"

Wait... its a specifc named comics hero... never mind.

And by the book, this is how things already work and should be done. No house rules required, no 'no Universal Power Defense is not allowed' required, no nothing.

never said univeral power defense not allowed.

said the default baseline is reset by house rule to the most oft used/allowed level.

So why is this important to note? It's not like this a change from the default rules...

its good to have the player and Gm and the character write ups all on the same page in terms of the limited scope of a character trait. otherwise, any differences in our views on the "universality" of a given power come out in play, which is usually more of an issue than having it come out before hand.

The context is all possible game worlds, since we're talking about basic game design and rules structure.

no rule (of a specific nature) makes any sense or has any meaning in the context of all possible game worlds.

I am amazed that you feel the statement you made "It can be 'resistant to all harmful changes', which makes as much sense as any other superpower" is applicable in the context of "all possible game worlds." Or that any statement of "makes as much sense as... " can be made reasonably in such a non-defined context.

Neither is strictly realistic. Indeed, ultradense boy walking a tightrope may be more reasonable in regards to real physics than speedster boy.

not sure where you get me thinking about strictly realistic or real physics... my context is the game and its genre/setting. I am pretty sure i have never seen a speedster burn his joints up "in a strict realistic" sense but am pretty sure i have seen heavy guys have trouble with crashing thru floors and their weight in the comics i try and emulate to some degree... so i am pretty comfortable working as such in my games.

maybe you read different books

Exactly. That is why the -/+0 modifiers rule and the Limited Power Limitation exist. Because you can't say whether a power can exist with particular restrictions.

same can be said of advantaged.

But just because he might not be approved doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible - or easy - for him to be statted up for a game he could be approved for.

no argument... which is why i suggest the mechanic for allowing more broader defenses bought with advantages. As for which should be "easier" IMo the more common.

But it requires the exact same level of detail to write:

'Power Defense versus Physical Harm'

as

'Power Defense, Only versus Physical Harm'

but one requires math figuring for lims and the other doesn't... so i want the most commonly used on, which in my games would be the limited version" to be the "little math required, just buy the base power."

and one option requires no modification to the rules - which is inherently a plus.

we disagree on that altogether. i don't consider a published rule to have any intrinsic superiority to the house rules in a game. I have house rules for every game I have ever run. For me theri is NO inherent plus to being able to claim "i use the book rules."

its what the ruloes do for me and my game that matter, that give them value, not where they came from.

Those two statements are not equivalent. Most characters won't have power defense at all.

Whether more would have limited or unlimited is entirely debateable and contingent - which is why I come down on the side of 'don't change the rules as written, there's nothing provably broken'.

but, in the context of "my games" its not debatable. in the context of "all possible game worlds" its also not debatable as there is no reference from which to draw conclusions as to frequency.

It's two to three extra words, but requires playtest to make sure any functional changes don't unbalance the game, requires retraining experienced players, and there's no proof most characters who would buy power defense would NOT be unlimited or close to it.

your apparent fear of house rules is showing.

In my experience, moving experienced players from one Gm to another and even one world to another often requires retraining, to the extent of figuring out all the particular "ways this Gm does things" and "what are the frequencies under this guy, in this setting, etc." In some cases settings, the GM takes a look at costs of powers and makes the necessary adjustments to the rules to adequately reflect5 the setting.

All this without doom and gloom and decades of playtest to tweaks to rarely occuring traits.

the sky wont necessarily fall, no matter how loudly Cl hollers.

Even if it's in a setting where the reduction takes it below infrequent in occurence, thus making it no longer worth points but simply a matter of SFX?

it would reduce the frequency... possibly moving it to "not worth a disad" which would then move it into the realm of those SFX issues which come up on occasion. It might remove the "points" entirely but not the issue.

I'm usually happy for my characters to have the weaknesses I see them as reasonably having, and they're usually extrapolations of how I see their powers working - but while sometimes someone else might catch something I missed, it's possible they'll hit something I found and discarded as unwanted.

which is why the discussion between Gm and player at chargen working this out is important.

Sometimes, you want to play the guy who is immune to all sorts of weird and funky **** - but can, sadly, be punched out by your average good brawler.

and sometimes what you want might be considered inapprppriate for a given specific campaign.

Frenchman · July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Ahh... I should always type out my full and complete thoughts - because I agree with all of your points in your post, and the only reason we seem at odds is my poor wording.

Steel Self +15 PD - the character tenses his muscles - "Go ahead and hit me". Sounds like PD someone with a corporeal body can shut off.

I thought of that exact same special effect for some PD and almost posted it, but I thought it was obvious that I meant only the PD and ED which are gained from base characteristics. I have also been convinced that you can turn that off - hey, if Steve says so, then it must be. Now I just need to think of how one would go about that. :confused:

Also' date=' if I acept your logic, resistant PD (armor or Damage Resistance) should similarly be something not intrinsic to the corporeal body (not everyone has it) and should similarly switch on and off.[/quote']

I never said that other powers cannot be "something that is intrinsically tied to having a corporeal body," or made any other comment about them, except that I indirectly said that not every character has them, while every character does have some PD and ED (though I may have been wrong about the PD, and I suppose you could sell them back)

Finally' date=' if PD and ED are intrinsic in corporealoty, why are there animals with low STR that have 0 PD, and why can it be Drained or Suppressed to nil?[/quote']

I thought (haven't looked for or found anything to back me up) that even with a STR of 0 or less, one still had 1 point of PD. Of course they can be drained or suppressed to zero - intrinsic (with a lowercase i) is not the same as Inherant (+1/4).

Iquote=Hugh Neilson]If the specific SFX implies this, then they should have been purchased as "Nonpersistent". I think most of us would allow the character attacked from surprise by a scorpion in his shoe the benefits of both his Unlimited PD (resistant or otherwise) and his Unlimited power defense.

I said some sFX imply this, and most of them should use the nonpersistant limitation. And the scorpion example is a poor one, as poisons are built as NND attacks (As much as I hate that and never do it as a player or GM) - but I agree with your premise. It would be as silly to deny someone their power defense because of surprise as it would be to deny them their PD.

IMO' date=' there's a substantial difference between "he can turn it off" and "he can turn it on". Extending the logic, where does it say PD or ED cannot be turned off (as opposed to "what would possess you to WANT to turn it off)?[/quote']

I agree, there is a big difference...but I don't see your point. I never typed anything about turning them on or implied that they couldn't - that I can see. And it never does say PD or ED can be turned off, I was just stating that base PD and ED gained from STR and CON probably can't be (I was wrong, Steve said as much in a recent question) because I couldn't think of a way how someone could do that in real life - but I guess letting someone stab you in the eyeball would be sufficient. I'm pretty sure my eyeball has zero pd/ed.

In short - you're right, and we never really disagreed except over the one overblown point, in which I was wrong.

Frenchman · July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

Its a simple premise really... define the most oft used case/level as your baseline and let the rarer cases have the funkier writeups. its a user friendly kind of thing.

So are you saying that, in heroic games at least, killing attacks should have OAF, Zero END, STR Min, Required Hands, Real Weapon, etc... figured into them as the base, and force characters with claws to buy Not A Focus (+1), No STR Minimum (+1/2)...etc?

Premise doesn't seem so simple anymore.

The HERO system, as written, sets the baseline (for the VAST majority of powers) at the broadest effect, not at the "most oft used" effect - which varies from game to game and genre to genre.

The approach you suggest doesn't seem very user friendly at all, as it makes a player sit down at creation and think up every single last possible sFX of adjustment powers in the game, and decide whether his character would be immune to them. Since thats not possible, and takes a relatively long time, most characters will only buy one or two forms of power defense, even if plenty of others are appropriate to their character.

Example: Fire Dude buys power defense vs. Fire/Heat based adjustments, cuz he's made of fire, dude, and also vs. Ice/Cold based ones, because it melts before it can affect him. He gets, say, 15 character points worth of each. During the game, the GM whips out a villain, The Flesh-Melter, and he uses a drain with the sFX "Your muscles turn to putty." Fire Dude doesn't have muscles, but because he failed to consider Flesh Melting as a sFX, the GM is faced with a few options:

1- Fire Dude is screwed, 'cuz he didn't buy the right version of power defense.

2- Let Fire Dude buy the power defense on the spot - course he might not have 15 character points laying around to buy it up to the level he should have it at (all his Power Def is of equal amount)

3- Handwave it, and say that Flesh-Melter's powers don't work on him, cuz, well, they shouldn't, dude. Now Fire Dude has power defense vs. his attacks for free.

None of these seem like very palatable options - Does anyone else have any? I'm sure I missed a lot of them, including "GM laughs evilly and taunts Fire Dude's player as he writhes in incongruent stupor and GM Lightning Bolts him for good measure," But I'm not really interested in non-serious ones like that.

nexus · July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

If your players are all cool with it' date=' great. If not, consider what you are forcing on them. That's all.[/quote']

I'm not forcing anything on them any more than any other House rule meant to portray a particular setting. I don't let players get unfocused innate Flight in my street level vigilante Dark Champions game either because it doesn't fit the "reality" of the Universe I want to create. If a player is bound and determined to play a character that can fly unaided. Its not going to work in that settinng.

Universal Power Defense just is extremely rare IN MY OPINION, IN MY GAMES ONLY. This goes for PC and NPCs. Adjustment powers aren't that common either. This goes for PCs and NPCs. I make this clear from the onset of the campaign. If the player is bound and determined that his character must have Power Defense that affects everything imaginable because he's "really tough" or "has mastered his body through chi" then he'll either have to bend to the setting (that sort of character doeesn't exist in this world) or find another game to play in. I see no reason why I should have alter my entire game world to suit one player's concept. And I've never had anyone walk out of a game because of it.

July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

i agree. the notion of reasoning from effect isn't a rules issue at all. i just address it as it comes up.

what does the hulk have to do with the SFX of "natural state of equilibrium"? I would tend to think he is the poster boy for "unnatural state" and "non-state-of-equilibrium"

Wait... its a specifc named comics hero... never mind.

Restorative regeneration returns you to your 'natural state'.

never said univeral power defense not allowed.

said the default baseline is reset by house rule to the most oft used/allowed level.

Why on earth would you house rule that?

House Rules are at _best_ a necessary evil. Having one says that you think there is a flaw in the game as written that prevents you from playing the game you want to.

Because otherwise, you are fixing what isn't broken... and that is by definition a bad idea.

its good to have the player and Gm and the character write ups all on the same page in terms of the limited scope of a character trait. otherwise, any differences in our views on the "universality" of a given power come out in play, which is usually more of an issue than having it come out before hand.

no rule (of a specific nature) makes any sense or has any meaning in the context of all possible game worlds.

I am amazed that you feel the statement you made "It can be 'resistant to all harmful changes', which makes as much sense as any other superpower" is applicable in the context of "all possible game worlds." Or that any statement of "makes as much sense as... " can be made reasonably in such a non-defined context.

There are possible powers which don't make logical sense.

There are possible powers which only make sense in a very tiny, specific subset of possible games.

Then there are the ones that can fit a broad spectrum. Like the one mentioned.

not sure where you get me thinking about strictly realistic or real physics... my context is the game and its genre/setting. I am pretty sure i have never seen a speedster burn his joints up "in a strict realistic" sense but am pretty sure i have seen heavy guys have trouble with crashing thru floors and their weight in the comics i try and emulate to some degree... so i am pretty comfortable working as such in my games.

maybe you read different books

You were claiming it's unrealistic or implausible for 'I'm really tough' to defend against everything power defense does.

Well, guess what? There's a lot of really unrealistic and implausible stuff, and if speedsters not killing themselves is genre - then really tough guys shrugging off everything because they're really tough and badass is equally genre.

same can be said of advantaged.

no argument... which is why i suggest the mechanic for allowing more broader defenses bought with advantages. As for which should be "easier" IMo the more common.

but one requires math figuring for lims and the other doesn't... so i want the most commonly used on, which in my games would be the limited version" to be the "little math required, just buy the base power."

Both ways require math figuring. And in creating arbitrary advantages, you step outside the list of explicitly allowed GM enforceable tweaks and begin to be playing a game that is not Hero.

we disagree on that altogether. i don't consider a published rule to have any intrinsic superiority to the house rules in a game. I have house rules for every game I have ever run. For me theri is NO inherent plus to being able to claim "i use the book rules."

Common point of reference, makes it easier to give advice and suggestions to fellow gamers, had more playtesters than your tweaks, likely had reasons that you don't actually know... the list goes on.

Plus, if you don't tell someone about signfiicant house rules to a game, it can be a bit of a bait and switch.

its what the ruloes do for me and my game that matter, that give them value, not where they came from.

but, in the context of "my games" its not debatable. in the context of "all possible game worlds" its also not debatable as there is no reference from which to draw conclusions as to frequency.

The latter is _precisely_ my point. As a system default, neither is more common, so the simpler, less arbitrary system is superior. Having to buy it based on SFX as a default is more confusing, more subject to arbitrary GMs being a dick, and so forth.

(Honestly, given what Hero specifically empowers a GM to do, I think it's just lazy to then change the rules - you could get the same effect without any changes - and if it is acceptable for a good GM to make changes, there's no way to stop a dickhead of a GM making stupid changes - they can point to the divine right of GMs).

your apparent fear of house rules is showing.

In my experience, moving experienced players from one Gm to another and even one world to another often requires retraining, to the extent of figuring out all the particular "ways this Gm does things" and "what are the frequencies under this guy, in this setting, etc." In some cases settings, the GM takes a look at costs of powers and makes the necessary adjustments to the rules to adequately reflect5 the setting.

And making the problem _worse_ then becomes a good thing?

All this without doom and gloom and decades of playtest to tweaks to rarely occuring traits.

the sky wont necessarily fall, no matter how loudly Cl hollers.

it would reduce the frequency... possibly moving it to "not worth a disad" which would then move it into the realm of those SFX issues which come up on occasion. It might remove the "points" entirely but not the issue.

which is why the discussion between Gm and player at chargen working this out is important.

and sometimes what you want might be considered inapprppriate for a given specific campaign.

Then why the heck am I playing in said campaign?

What is the _point_ of using Hero if you can't use it to play the character you want?

If you end up playing something else, might as well play basic D&D by the rules.

July 2, 2006

Re: Power Defense

i agree. the notion of reasoning from effect isn't a rules issue at all. i just address it as it comes up.

what does the hulk have to do with the SFX of "natural state of equilibrium"? I would tend to think he is the poster boy for "unnatural state" and "non-state-of-equilibrium"

Wait... its a specifc named comics hero... never mind.

Restorative regeneration returns you to your 'natural state'.

never said univeral power defense not allowed.

said the default baseline is reset by house rule to the most oft used/allowed level.

Why on earth would you house rule that?

House Rules are at _best_ a necessary evil. Having one says that you think there is a flaw in the game as written that prevents you from playing the game you want to.

Because otherwise, you are fixing what isn't broken... and that is by definition a bad idea.

its good to have the player and Gm and the character write ups all on the same page in terms of the limited scope of a character trait. otherwise, any differences in our views on the "universality" of a given power come out in play, which is usually more of an issue than having it come out before hand.

no rule (of a specific nature) makes any sense or has any meaning in the context of all possible game worlds.

I am amazed that you feel the statement you made "It can be 'resistant to all harmful changes', which makes as much sense as any other superpower" is applicable in the context of "all possible game worlds." Or that any statement of "makes as much sense as... " can be made reasonably in such a non-defined context.

There are possible powers which don't make logical sense.

There are possible powers which only make sense in a very tiny, specific subset of possible games.

Then there are the ones that can fit a broad spectrum. Like the one mentioned.

not sure where you get me thinking about strictly realistic or real physics... my context is the game and its genre/setting. I am pretty sure i have never seen a speedster burn his joints up "in a strict realistic" sense but am pretty sure i have seen heavy guys have trouble with crashing thru floors and their weight in the comics i try and emulate to some degree... so i am pretty comfortable working as such in my games.

maybe you read different books

You were claiming it's unrealistic or implausible for 'I'm really tough' to defend against everything power defense does.

Well, guess what? There's a lot of really unrealistic and implausible stuff, and if speedsters not killing themselves is genre - then really tough guys shrugging off everything because they're really tough and badass is equally genre.

same can be said of advantaged.

no argument... which is why i suggest the mechanic for allowing more broader defenses bought with advantages. As for which should be "easier" IMo the more common.

but one requires math figuring for lims and the other doesn't... so i want the most commonly used on, which in my games would be the limited version" to be the "little math required, just buy the base power."

Both ways require math figuring. And in creating arbitrary advantages, you step outside the list of explicitly allowed GM enforceable tweaks and begin to be playing a game that is not Hero.

we disagree on that altogether. i don't consider a published rule to have any intrinsic superiority to the house rules in a game. I have house rules for every game I have ever run. For me theri is NO inherent plus to being able to claim "i use the book rules."

Common point of reference, makes it easier to give advice and suggestions to fellow gamers, had more playtesters than your tweaks, likely had reasons that you don't actually know... the list goes on.

Plus, if you don't tell someone about signfiicant house rules to a game, it can be a bit of a bait and switch.

its what the ruloes do for me and my game that matter, that give them value, not where they came from.

but, in the context of "my games" its not debatable. in the context of "all possible game worlds" its also not debatable as there is no reference from which to draw conclusions as to frequency.

The latter is _precisely_ my point. As a system default, neither is more common, so the simpler, less arbitrary system is superior. Having to buy it based on SFX as a default is more confusing, more subject to arbitrary GMs being a dick, and so forth.

(Honestly, given what Hero specifically empowers a GM to do, I think it's just lazy to then change the rules - you could get the same effect without any changes - and if it is acceptable for a good GM to make changes, there's no way to stop a dickhead of a GM making stupid changes - they can point to the divine right of GMs).

your apparent fear of house rules is showing.

In my experience, moving experienced players from one Gm to another and even one world to another often requires retraining, to the extent of figuring out all the particular "ways this Gm does things" and "what are the frequencies under this guy, in this setting, etc." In some cases settings, the GM takes a look at costs of powers and makes the necessary adjustments to the rules to adequately reflect5 the setting.

And making the problem _worse_ then becomes a good thing?

All this without doom and gloom and decades of playtest to tweaks to rarely occuring traits.

the sky wont necessarily fall, no matter how loudly Cl hollers.

it would reduce the frequency... possibly moving it to "not worth a disad" which would then move it into the realm of those SFX issues which come up on occasion. It might remove the "points" entirely but not the issue.

which is why the discussion between Gm and player at chargen working this out is important.

and sometimes what you want might be considered inapprppriate for a given specific campaign.

Then why the heck am I playing in said campaign?

What is the _point_ of using Hero if you can't use it to play the character you want?

If you end up playing something else, might as well play basic D&D by the rules.

July 2, 2006