New Mechanic: Forms Framework

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Since the pool cost is gone' date=' are the framework modifiers just an artifact of having had it or do they actually apply somehow?[/quote']

Oops. You're right. There's no reason to have a "Pool" section for modifiers. I'll remove it and move the modifiers to the Slots section.

 

A strong potential' date=' if it can be balanced correctly, is to have Multiform write-ups that inhabit one character sheet and don't read like a laundry list of VPP possibilities. Not that you can really eliminate the latter completely. It also could eliminate the scale-up problems with MF (the +5, x2 forms thing), although that "problem" is also itself a reasonable enough one, as the +5 x2 thing is well established throughout and is at its core logical enough. Anyway, I wouldn't get hung up on the MPA thing, the current MPA rules are new enough and loose enough in intent that I don't think it's worth a ton of worry on that account.[/quote']

My thoughts as well.

 

As a costing comparison' date=' I would look at what it costs to have a VPP that has a limitation of possessing one power (or compound power) only at all times, and has Variable SFX on any/every power built in it. In fact, that's where I've stumbled on this (I've been reading throughout), in that I'm not sure this is any different than that in essence. I think it's probably simpler to simply have a series of basically VPPs instead - you can allow MPAs easily then (it's between pools).[/quote']

You still have the restriction of no Linked Slots going with this, which is one of the things I wanted to allow to simplify things, same with MPA.

 

But if a GM were to handwave away these restrictions from the current Frameworks then it is possible to create this with a VPP. However, if a GM is going handwave these then one might as well create a new mechanic to make it cleaner. No one has been able to give a good argument as to why haveing a huge list of exceptions to the official rules (with thier implications on other mechanics) is cleaner than having few new mechanics with the same. Sorry, just had to get that out. (8^D)

 

The problem I have is that the shapeshifter and multiform PCs in my campaign would take a while to write up like this and I haven't felt like it.

You mean for the Forms Framework?

I know you are busy. (8^D)

 

Shape Shift would still have to be a separate ability' date=' since if you just want to arbitrarily shift shapes around without changing anything else, this wouldn't really speak to that.[/quote']

Well, I've been thinking about this and I believe there's a lot of confusion created by how the system treats SFX.

 

SFX is how the power is perceived by the senses. And a single SFX is given away for free. It costs no points to change into some other form, as long as you have a single extra power that you can activate. And not only is this SFX allow you appear different in some way, it is and actual change in itself, since there is actually something there in the SFX instead of just "fooling the senses" into thinking something is there.

 

So technically, if you had a single point of COM purchased as power, you can change into any single other form you want. You would have to define it at purchase and it couldn't be changed, but technically, the current system allows for this. (This presumes that your viewpoint that mechanics are 100% divorced from mechanics, otherwise, the person could change to any other Human form that was considered base COM + 1).

 

Then you have the Variable SFX mechanic, which says that you can change you current SFX into Limited Group SFX (+1/4), or Any SFX (+1/2).

 

So if we slap the +1/2 onto our +1 COM Power (Sight Group), any form can be obtained and no one will be able to detect it, just like Shapeshift (Sight Group).

 

As far a fooling senses, Absolute Sense Fooling = SFX Activation, then you don't need Shapeshift at all, just a power with the Variable SFX Advantage. Everything else is covered by Images. Invisibility, and Disguise.

 

I see this as most likely useful where multiple forms/shapes have a somehwat to moderately high overlap of abilities (especially the types where there's no knowledge loss between forms)...

Yes, which is how this started out.

 

However' date=' it would be interesting to see if it could eliminate MF outright. Given that we have long established that simply turning on "hero ID" grants all sorts of new identity abilities and many use VPPs alone to model MFs/ShapeShifters, I can see replacing MF. Where I am less sanguine is that it seems rather likely that the laundry list effect doesn't get altered and is no less confusing. To wit, a PC might have 10 slots with all 10 slots vary dramatically in purpose for each form.[/quote']

Hmmmm...

 

Where this breaks down against MF is in the application of Disads' date=' potentially, although it's also fairly easy to just substitute Disads - but at that point the traditional MF and multiple character sheets works better.[/quote']

Yes, which is why I consider it an altenative for those concepts it would make sense for.

 

It may be this construct really applies only to MF where the forms are all tied to the same unchanging consciousness. When "true personal identity" changes' date=' then we need a new character sheet. When it does not, we can and probably should stick with one character sheet. This approach might then satisfy, although I am back to wondering if it really is an improvement over multiple VPPs as described earlier in ths post.[/quote']

I would agree with that.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

You still have the restriction of no Linked Slots going with this' date=' which is one of the things I wanted to allow to simplify things, same with MPA.[/quote']

 

I'm confused by this statement. Do you mean that, under your proposed framework, I could take two Slots, say a 60 and 40 point slot, then make them Linked (-1/2 limitation on one of them) such that the 40 point Slot can only be used in tandem with the 60 point Slot?

 

Basically, I get a discount on the one slot by requiring both slots (whatever powers they may hold) be used at the same time?

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Another thought. If we accept' date=' for the moment, that this alternate structure is truly a valuable addition and provides options a build under the current rule cannot, and we assume the pricing issue is resolved so the abilities are neither overpriced nor underpriced, why should it be restricted to the SFX of shapechanging?[/quote']

It's not. Current Shapeshifting only grants Absolute Sense Fooling, it doesn't grant you any other abilities. The Forms Framework is a consistent way to build around a concept of someone who actually changes forms and all that implies.

 

Side Note: Just another way to look at SFX and Shapeshifting. Techinically, every power you purchase has at least One Different SFX shapechange built into it for free. If you want additional SFX shapechanges, you need the Variable SFX Advantage.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

I'm confused by this statement. Do you mean that' date=' under your proposed framework, I could take two Slots, say a 60 and 40 point slot, then make them Linked (-1/2 limitation on one of them) such that the 40 point Slot can only be used in tandem with the 60 point Slot?[/quote']

Yeah, I think I clearly stated that. And clarified when discussing the differences between the other Frameworks and this one.

 

Basically' date=' I get a discount on the one slot by requiring both slots (whatever powers they may hold) be used at the same time?[/quote']

Yep. Don't know why this is confusing.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Yep. Don't know why this is confusing.

 

Not so much confusing as a seeming freebie. Link all your other slots to one "primary" slot. That primary slot can use any power you choose (within your SFX). Now you get a discount on as many other slots as you purchase solely by designating which slot gets used first.

 

Add this to Cannot MAP (-1 1/2) as an automatic limitation on all Forms Framework builds - now the framework slot costs 2/3 what a straight power would have cost

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Not so much confusing as a seeming freebie. Link all your other slots to one "primary" slot. That primary slot can use any power you choose (within your SFX). Now you get a discount on as many other slots as you purchase solely by designating which slot gets used first.

Thanks, I should have clarified further.

 

Linking two slots together requires that there be powers assigned before those slots can be used. Otherwise, it wouldn't make a lot sense.

 

Add this to Cannot MAP (-1 1/2) as an automatic limitation on all Forms Framework builds - now the framework slot costs 2/3 what a straight power would have cost

And based on you own comments, adding an advantage for the current frameworks would be All Slots MPA +1/4.

 

See, I can do that too. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Thanks, I should have clarified further.

 

Linking two slots together requires that there be powers assigned before those slots can be used. Otherwise, it wouldn't make a lot sense.

 

Does this mean the Linked limitation itself cannot be placed on the slots, reducing their cost? I assume so. That is, I can take a 60 point SSF (Shape Shift Framework) [or a 5 point SSF], then buy a 40 point SSF Linked to it. In order to assign a power to the 40 point Framework, I must have a power assigned to the 60 [or 5] point Framework. The power in the 60 [or 5] point framework must be used in order to use the power in the 40 point framework.

 

And based on you own comments' date=' adding an advantage for the current frameworks would be All Slots MPA +1/4. [/quote']

 

I would not charge MORE than +1/4. In my view, the restriction against MPA's using powers in the same framework is a bad rule. There's no compelling reason that a Multipower with sufficient AP, or flexible slots, can't have two or more attacks used as an MPA. Technically, as the rule is written, a single slot with two linked attacks (say a Thunderclap that does damage and Flashes hearing) should not be legal, since the two attacks, used together, constitute a multiple power attack. This gets us back to the old pre 5e argument concern that Linked, a limitation, is permitting powers to do things they could not do if they were not limited.

 

Neither do I see any reason a VPP should not eb allowed to MPA, but with a limit that the total AP of all atacks used in the MPA cannot exceed the VPP's pool.

 

When I first read the MPA rules, my first thought was "Good - a bonus for a character who puts his attacks in an EC rather than a Swiss Army Multipower." Then I groaned when I read the "Can't use more than one slot from the same EC in an MPA" rule.

 

Oh, one caveat - the one good reason I can see is the view that MPA's are overpowered, in which case they should not be permitted AT ALL. Certainly, any campaign ground rule regarding MPA's should be enforced against all types of MPA's.

 

While my gripes against the MPA are somewhat outside the scope of this thread, the bottom line is that I don't consider removing the ability to MPA a -1 1/2 limitation, nor do I consider allowing a framework to MPA to carry the value of a +1 1/2 advantage.

 

In any case, since your structure contemplates multiple frameworks, each holding only a single power at a time, they are capable of being used in an MPA with each other framework under the rules as listed, so this is neither an Advantage nor a differentiating factor.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Does this mean the Linked limitation itself cannot be placed on the slots' date=' reducing their cost? I assume so. That is, I can take a 60 point SSF (Shape Shift Framework) [or a 5 point SSF'], then buy a 40 point SSF Linked to it. In order to assign a power to the 40 point Framework, I must have a power assigned to the 60 [or 5] point Framework. The power in the 60 [or 5] point framework must be used in order to use the power in the 40 point framework.

Okay, I'll try once more.

 

If you want to link two Slots (not powers), you can, but that means the powers that are assigned to those slots will automatically be linked and you won't be able to use either of those slots until they are both assigned. You get a price break for this since you are limiting the Slots.

 

You can put any limitation onto a power and still place it into the Slot, but you get no price break for these limitations since you've never purchase those powers to start with. Or more precisely, the points you pre-spent on the Slot define what enforced restrictions there are.

 

Therefore, if you wanted to have a Slot with multiple limitations on it, you can, and it will reduce the cost of the Slot, but you are actually restricting what powers can actually fit into the Slot via the enforced Limitations.

 

I won't bother with MPA thing, since we will never agree with it.

 

Couple of notes on the Advantage and Limitation Value thing:

1) You used Cost END and Reduced END (Zero END) as support for what you believe, but your example doesn't qualify for what I said. They are not inverses of one another, or more precisely, one does not negate the other. Costs END has the additional limitation of Visible, while Reduced END (Zero END) does not have the IPE (Full) built into it.

2) I did your the term "generally" which means that in most cases the Advantage is twice the value of the Limitation, but there are exceptions. But again, this rule only applies if the Advantage and Limitation actually negate each other. If they don't, then the rule doesn't apply.

 

You can choose to think what you want. This is what I think, and you shown no evidence that would disprove it so far. If you can, fine.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Couple of notes on the Advantage and Limitation Value thing:

1) You used Cost END and Reduced END (Zero END) as support for what you believe, but your example doesn't qualify for what I said. They are not inverses of one another, or more precisely, one does not negate the other. Costs END has the additional limitation of Visible, while Reduced END (Zero END) does not have the IPE (Full) built into it.

 

Some of the issues arise from evolution. We never had Persistent in the past, so when it was added, Costs END became more limiting. Based on ECV is far less expensive than LOS range, AVLD, Invisilble to two sense groups.

 

But Range and No Range have been 1/2 advantages and limitations since the Dawn of Time (ie 1st Ed). This is one of the few reciprocal pairs.

 

2) I did your the term "generally" which means that in most cases the Advantage is twice the value of the Limitation' date=' but there are exceptions. But again, this rule only applies if the Advantage and Limitation actually negate each other. If they don't, then the rule doesn't apply.[/quote']

 

Very few do. AP and Hardened aren't perfect offsets since Hardened blocks other things. Non-Persistent has to be -1/4 since -1/2 would make it the same as Costs END (maybe Costs END should be grossed up for making the power both Visible and Non-Persistent). Visible is -1/4, but full IPE is +1. I don't think your generality is common enough to be a general rule.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Some of the issues arise from evolution. We never had Persistent in the past' date=' so when it was added, Costs END became more limiting. Based on ECV is far less expensive than LOS range, AVLD, Invisilble to two sense groups.[/quote']

But these aren't inverses of each other, so it doesn't apply.

 

But Range and No Range have been 1/2 advantages and limitations since the Dawn of Time (ie 1st Ed). This is one of the few reciprocal pairs.

One of the few exceptions, and also is questionable as to whether the value is acurate for comparisons.

 

Either the actual value of the Ranged Limitation should be +3/4. (Grant Range to Power and Beam Advantage)

Or the actual value of No Range should be -1/4. (Since Affected By Range Penalties is -1/4 and built into the No Range Limitation)

 

Very few do. AP and Hardened aren't perfect offsets since Hardened blocks other things.

Not an accurate statement. It would be true if Hardened protected against other things simultaneously, but it doesn't. One level of Hardened may undo one level Armor Piercing or one level of Penetrating, but not both simultaneously.

 

The point is, these were specfically designed to negate each other, and as such should be the baseline for comparison.

 

Non-Persistent has to be -1/4 since -1/2 would make it the same as Costs END (maybe Costs END should be grossed up for making the power both Visible and Non-Persistent). Visible is -1/4' date=' but full IPE is +1. I don't think your generality is common enough to be a general rule.[/quote']

You've pointed out quite clearly here that Cost END, and Cost No END weren't designed to negate each other. Since that is established, the current values really don't mean anything.

 

But you could try to rectify this by changing the values and changing the definition to try to make them true inverses of each other.

 

Of course the few discrepancies could be accounted for by the notion that Defenses are supposed to cheaper than Attacks, but everything else should be the same, but it would be hard to prove that. Plus, there is also the fact that you don't have much granularity with values to begin with (1/4,1/2,3/4,1) and it seems that the breakdown of certain utilites do not combine to equal a packaged combination of the utilites also. Could go either way.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

As a costing comparison' date=' I would look at what it costs to have a VPP that has a limitation of possessing one power (or compound power) only at all times, and has Variable SFX on any/every power built in it. In fact, that's where I've stumbled on this (I've been reading throughout), in that I'm not sure this is any different than that in essence. I think it's probably simpler to simply have a series of basically VPPs instead - you can allow MPAs easily then (it's between pools).[/quote']

 

You still have the restriction of no Linked Slots going with this, which is one of the things I wanted to allow to simplify things, same with MPA.

 

But if a GM were to handwave away these restrictions from the current Frameworks then it is possible to create this with a VPP. However, if a GM is going handwave these then one might as well create a new mechanic to make it cleaner. No one has been able to give a good argument as to why haveing a huge list of exceptions to the official rules (with thier implications on other mechanics) is cleaner than having few new mechanics with the same. Sorry, just had to get that out. (8^D)

 

I realized that my point must not have been made as I was thinking later you might come back to it but have not. I am saying each slot you are employing is essentially identical to an individual VPP that is limited to one single power at a time (and END is similarly required). There is no MPA limitation among multiple VPPs - each is its own framework.

 

And that's why I'm not sure what this "framework" (I think it's a brand new mechanic as it is a collection of slots with no control, unlike any existing framework) has over creating a series of VPPs, each with one slot only, and the control cost suitably limited. I would use that at the least as a starting cost comparison, since it's legal and even relatively easy. To wit:

 

Animal Guy

 

VPP A: Offensive Powers, 60 AP

- control cost 30 w/limitation "only for animal attack effects" and "only one power at a time"; I'm not sure what values people are generally using here without researching and it's a bit cumbersome at the moment...

 

- questionable as to how to apply END cost (though I'm not really sure why you're requiring END burn even if a lower power is used) - either put in a generic limit that applies to the control cost and try to ignore on the slots (which in essence you've done in that there is no sort of costing or such for the slots on this, it's just a flat rule "must use full END") or try to work into the slots themselves, though if you did the latter you could pre-determine the sliding scale of the Limitation of Increased END (and wouldn't have to for slots you'd use non-END powers in generally); I'd say inventing a new Limitation for these is hardly out of line

 

VPP B: Senses, 60 AP

- much the same

 

And so on...or you could not limit the VPPs of course if there's no SFX variation.

 

Given each VPP will consist of just a title and modifiers, it's hardly less elegant than the slots approached proposed. Even the slots approach you mention requires writing lists of powers that will go into those slots, so that doesn't change.

 

PS - now I am realizing the problem re Linked, got it. Although as a costing basis, this would still be valuable, with the assumption that Linked creates a somewhat lower value.

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

To add on, rather than keep editing, I think that having to add Linked to the various slots is going to clutter up the write-up as well - I understand the desire to use Linked to represent what belongs in a form or collection of forms, but I think that's pretty tricky/messy. I was thinking the slots would be useful with each as a standalone indicating the types of abilties that might go in it and each as independent from the other, which would be much cleaner.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Either the actual value of the Ranged Limitation should be +3/4. (Grant Range to Power and Beam Advantage)

Or the actual value of No Range should be -1/4. (Since Affected By Range Penalties is -1/4 and built into the No Range Limitation)

 

Affected by Range Penalties is not built into No Range. Normal ranged attacks suffer from range penalties by default. You raise a good point that powers like mental attacks which have a further advamntage (LOS) built into their range should logically receive a greater limitation for No range since they lose more utility.

 

Not an accurate statement. It would be true if Hardened protected against other things simultaneously' date=' but it doesn't. One level of Hardened may undo one level Armor Piercing or one level of Penetrating, but not both simultaneously.[/quote']

 

It also protects against Indirect, be it the +1/4, +1/2 or +1 level of Indirect.

 

The point is' date=' these were specfically designed to negate each other, and as such should be the baseline for comparison.[/quote']

 

They were not "specifically designed to negate one another". In 1st Ed, we had Armor Piercing. There was no defense. In 2nd Ed, we received Hardened, because (from an article by the designers) AP lacked any defense, and this was contrary to the system. The defense was added, at half the cost of the attack advantage to maintain consistency with the "defense is cheaper than attack" meta-rule.

 

In Champions III (IIRC - that's in around 2nd or 3rd edition), Penetrating was added, and Hardened defined as the defense for Penetrating. I believe the "only one level per 1 Hardened" was added at that time; it was already in place for AP.

 

I think Indirect came along in 4th Ed, but I'm not sure Hardened became the defense for it until 5e.

 

At some point, Hardened was also defined as blocking teleportation. This was dropped by 5th with the addition of the +1/4 "cannot be escaped by teleportation" advantage, likely because Hardeneing an entangle made little intuitive sense.

 

To say these were designed as counters ignores the fact they were designed separately over numerous editions.

 

You've pointed out quite clearly here that Cost END' date=' and Cost No END weren't designed to negate each other. Since that is established, the current values really don't mean anything.[/quote']

 

Again, these have had considerable evolution. The addition of Persistent and Visible changed the playing field. Why take Armor that Costs END? Buy it as Visible and Nonpersistent for the same -1/2 limitation and it doesn't cost END.

 

Of course the few discrepancies

 

In my opinion, the discrepancies outnumber the supporting examples. IPE costs +1 for all senses, yet Visible adds 3 sense groups for only -1/4. How does this fit into your theory?

 

In any case, I still don't see how you can value "can't use in a Multiple power attack" as equivalent to, say, No Range, Act 11-.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

I realized that my point must not have been made as I was thinking later you might come back to it but have not. I am saying each slot you are employing is essentially identical to an individual VPP that is limited to one single power at a time (and END is similarly required). There is no MPA limitation among multiple VPPs - each is its own framework.

 

And that's why I'm not sure what this "framework" (I think it's a brand new mechanic as it is a collection of slots with no control, unlike any existing framework) has over creating a series of VPPs, each with one slot only, and the control cost suitably limited. I would use that at the least as a starting cost comparison, since it's legal and even relatively easy.

 

I agree. I've said it repeatedly. I'm not sure why it's not registering, but Ive seen no objective reason to use this new framework rather than simply purchasing multiple VPP's.

 

To wit:

 

Animal Guy

 

VPP A: Offensive Powers, 60 AP

- control cost 30 w/limitation "only for animal attack effects" and "only one power at a time"; I'm not sure what values people are generally using here without researching and it's a bit cumbersome at the moment...

 

- questionable as to how to apply END cost (though I'm not really sure why you're requiring END burn even if a lower power is used) - either put in a generic limit that applies to the control cost and try to ignore on the slots (which in essence you've done in that there is no sort of costing or such for the slots on this, it's just a flat rule "must use full END") or try to work into the slots themselves, though if you did the latter you could pre-determine the sliding scale of the Limitation of Increased END (and wouldn't have to for slots you'd use non-END powers in generally); I'd say inventing a new Limitation for these is hardly out of line

 

As I read the theory, I have to pay END to hold the slot available, separate and apart from END for using the slot. For example, if my 60 point slot is to hold a 4d6 HKA, I must pay 6 END per phase just to maintain those claws and fangs. If I choose to USE the KA, I would pay another 6 END. Based on this, I could buy a 2 1/2d6 0 END HKA instead. I'd still pay 6 END per phase for maintaining the form which allows the KA, but the actual attack would have no END cost. I put the "costs END to keep slot active" limitation at -1/2, since it's basically the same as applying Costs END to an ability that normally costs no END.

 

As another example, if I used my slot to pick up Water breathing gills, I'd pay 1 END per phase for maintaining the shape that has gills, but no further END to use them, since Life Support costs no END to begin with.

 

Christopher, is that about right? Also, are special powers permitted by default in the Forms framework - another departure from the general rule for frameworks? Many enhanced senses, life support and Flash Defense from nictating membranes seem to fit formshifting very well. Or do these follow the standard rule that GM permission is required to include them in a framework? [Not a big issue to me, since I've never been a fan of a general ban on "special powers" from frameworks anyway.]

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Hugh, perhaps it's matter of how we're saying it - I misread your earlier statements as well to mean something like 1 or a couple VPPs instead of one VPP suitably limited in place of each of the Forms Framework's slots (though when I posted this I realized you must have been saying that).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Hugh' date=' perhaps it's matter of how we're saying it - I misread your earlier statements as well to mean something like 1 or a couple VPPs instead of one VPP suitably limited in place of each of the Forms Framework's slots (though when I posted this I realized you must have been saying that).[/quote']

 

My simple mind sees each slot as its own little VPP, with "no skill roll" and "1/2 phase to change", limited to powers of the appropriate SFX, costing END to maintain an active power and restructed to only one power at a time. The SFX limitation may be hard to value, but we have that issue with VPP's already. "Only one power" probably has a variable cost - it's more limiting the larger the VPP gets. A 5 point VPP won't often have multiple powers anyway, but a 75 point VPP often would. OTOH, "only one power" also eliminates the ability to access multiple max AP powers by applying limitations, so it does create at least some restrictions at any level.

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

My simple mind sees each slot as its own little VPP' date=' with "no skill roll" and "1/2 phase to change", limited to powers of the appropriate SFX, costing END to maintain an active power and restructed to only one power at a time. The SFX limitation may be hard to value, but we have that issue with VPP's already. "Only one power" probably has a variable cost - it's more limiting the larger the VPP gets. A 5 point VPP won't often have multiple powers anyway, but a 75 point VPP often would. OTOH, "only one power" also eliminates the ability to access multiple max AP powers by applying limitations, so it does create at least some restrictions at any level.[/quote']

If we really look at it, I think very many of the Modifiers should have variable costs... But I also was reading back on the evolutionary issues of HERO and it makes me shudder a bit, would be nice to get a sort of consolidation and reworking in 6th. It may not even be changing Mods so much as at least explaining scale issues better and the interplay better (of course, elsewhere I've documented my belief that the whole Modifier thing should be better explained as to the governing metarules and how to construct and cost them as needed).

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Summation And Responses

I'll summarize what I consider the pertinent points and respond.

 

Slot As VPP: I mentioned in a post that I also was noticing how each Forms Framework Slot was acting similar to an independent VPP. So I agree that the VPP examples given are very close to what the Forms Framework does minus the Linked ability. I'll back off of the MPA and not discuss it. I have personal issues with MPA and no doubt they are having a negative effect on this discussion.

 

Forms Framework Usage: Hugh has it down pretty much. I envisioned the default state to be sumething the character must maintain to keep their form. They can make it Zeno END and Persistent if they wish.

 

Pool: I eliminated the Pool simply because it did not serve any function beyond being an additional cost to be paid. The other Framework Pools serve as a Restriction or Threshold for the Slots. Now I could add the Pool back in and have it serve a different function perhaps. This would allow for the use of Advantages/Limitations to easily be applied to the entire Framework then.

 

Linked Slots: I spelled out the rules with how this would work for the Slots, and I don't think it is any more complex than how Linked works with Slots in other Frameworks currently. However, I could simply drop these rules an it would have not effect as far as functionlity. One could use take two powers and link them and put them into the Forms Framework, nothing about this Framework ever prevented that. The only decision to make would be to allow the two powers be assigned to one slot, two slots, or have the option to do either during game time.

 

Cost Escalation: One of the more subtle differences between using the Forms Framework and the more conventional VPP method presented, is the cost escalation that occurs as more slots are added. The Forms Framework has a more linear cost increase as each slot is added. However, the VPP method requires purchase of a Pool and Contol for every Power Slot added.

 

Complexity: If I have a Forms Framework with 10 Slots, which may not be all that uncommon due the concepts this mechanic is geared towards, the equivalent VPP structures become ungainley for reference and analysis by the GM.

 

More Managable: I believe the Forms Framework is more manageable during game play when doing on the fly forms. Again, this is the only thing that really matters when it comes to using VPP or the Forms Framework. If a GM is going to require that every Form conceivable form be pregenerated and then picked from, then it doesn't matter, but then that kind of bypasses the whole reason for having a VPP or Forms Framework to begin with, to be able to have the fexibility to change as the situation demands, not from a pregenerated list (unless that was concept of course).

 

Well, all I can say is now that I kind of beaten down.

Give me your suggestions on changes and I'll try to make them.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Cost Escalation: One of the more subtle differences between using the Forms Framework and the more conventional VPP method presented' date=' is the cost escalation that occurs as more slots are added. The Forms Framework has a more linear cost increase as each slot is added. However, the VPP method requires purchase of a Pool and Contol for every Power Slot added.[/quote']

 

I think the costing has to be comparatively settled, to see what the real differences are. I'm sort of thinking that this is more expensive than limited VPPs individually, though some that is unavoidably noise around Lim values. VPPs will tend to benefit from limitations on control cost, whereas this structure is innately more expensive even before that (at 2:1 versus an effective 3:2 (1:1 pool, 1:2 control cost). The VPP also gets a cost break for the unique limitations on it re END and 1-slot only useage. So I think this ends up substantially more expensive, though recosting to 3:2 or such may achieve some parity. Consider also that the VPPs have full simultaneous change advantage already in their structure.

 

Complexity: If I have a Forms Framework with 10 Slots, which may not be all that uncommon due the concepts this mechanic is geared towards, the equivalent VPP structures become ungainley for reference and analysis by the GM.

 

Can you write up some sort of example, not costed even?

 

Because I think it looks like:

 

List - Form Framework

Slot A - "Defensive Animal Stuff" X AP

Slot B - "Offensive Animal Stuff" Y AP

Slot C - "English Kings Motifs" Z AP

Slot D - "Movement Animal Stuff" Y AP

Slot E - "Animal Senses" Z AP

Slot F - "French Revolutionary Era Figures Powers" X AP

Slot G - "Royal Animals Unique Abilities" Y AP

Slot H - "Cold Powers" Z AP

Slot I - "Hot Powers" W AP

Slot J - "Deep Space Powers" Z AP

 

List - Various Form VPPs (if you can stick a VPP in a List with Shared Lims this gets better)

VPP A - "Defensive Animal Stuff" X AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP B - "Offensive Animal Stuff" Y AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP C - "English Kings Motifs" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP D - "Movement Animal Stuff" Y AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP E - "Animal Senses" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP F - "French Revolutionary Era Figures Powers" X AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP G - "Royal Animals Unique Abilities" Y AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP H - "Cold Powers" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP I - "Hot Powers" W AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP J - "Deep Space Powers" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

 

Of course, I would have greater flexibility by not limiting SFX and by simply paying END for whatever power level I actually use and want to maintain (I believe that to keep the VPP power operating unless Persistent or such you have to pay anyway, and I don't really agree with the idea of making people pay for END for APs not used; I would change the Forms Framework this way, anyway, in which case it looks a lot more like VPPs, albeit still with the single power per.) But the latter way opens up more flexibility in terms of eschewing limitations required by the Forms Framework, including having more than one slot, so that if you want to have "Collection of Senses" it gets a lot more manageable in those kinds of examples; in the Forms Framework we have to either create Linked Slots for the Collection (which means we have to have in mind already and do some mathematical study to create the right balance of Slots) or just have lots of little Slots.

 

More Managable: I believe the Forms Framework is more manageable during game play when doing on the fly forms. Again, this is the only thing that really matters when it comes to using VPP or the Forms Framework. If a GM is going to require that every Form conceivable form be pregenerated and then picked from, then it doesn't matter, but then that kind of bypasses the whole reason for having a VPP or Forms Framework to begin with, to be able to have the fexibility to change as the situation demands, not from a pregenerated list (unless that was concept of course).

 

Well, all I can say is now that I kind of beaten down.

Give me your suggestions on changes and I'll try to make them.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

How would an undefined slot be more manageable than an undefined VPP that can only have one power in it? As I was writing up the dummy example above, it does seem that to plan the Slots gets more problematic than planning a few VPPs that are flexible.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

Slot As VPP: I mentioned in a post that I also was noticing how each Forms Framework Slot was acting similar to an independent VPP. So I agree that the VPP examples given are very close to what the Forms Framework does minus the Linked ability. I'll back off of the MPA and not discuss it. I have personal issues with MPA and no doubt they are having a negative effect on this discussion.

 

I remain unclear on the purpose/benefits of the whole "Linked" ability. Let's say I have a 60 AP slot and a 40 AP slot Linked to it. For whatever reason, all I need right now is a single 40 AP power. I can:

 

- put something in the 60 AP slot so I can use the 40 AP slot. Since my 60 AP slot can hold anything up to a 60 AP power, I can pick a 5 AP power to fill the 60 AP slot, OR

 

- since my 60 AP slot can hold anything up to a 60 AP power, I can pick the 40 AP power I wanted in the first place to go in there, and leave the 40 AP slot idle.

 

The first approach costs me 1 more END, but will enable me to just shift that slot should I need the current 40 point power PLUS something in the 60 AP slot. Neither one, however, seems nearly as limiting as Linked is when used on two fixed powers. This is why you generaly can't Link to./from a framework in the first place.

 

Forms Framework Usage: Hugh has it down pretty much. I envisioned the default state to be sumething the character must maintain to keep their form. They can make it Zero END and Persistent if they wish.

 

Now we're up to 240 points for a single 60 AP slot, however. Given you envision the character having 10 slots, that seems very pricy to me.

 

Linked Slots: I spelled out the rules with how this would work for the Slots' date=' and I don't think it is any more complex than how Linked works with Slots in other Frameworks currently.[/quote']

 

Slots in other frameworks are a single fixed power. "Slots" in this framework are not. This comes back to my concern that the use of the term "slot" in this manner confuses the issue considerably. To use terminology in the same fashion as the current frameworks, a 60 AP Shapeshift has a 60 AP pool. Each power which could be taken within that pool is a slot.

 

However' date=' I could simply drop these rules an it would have not effect as far as functionlity. One could use take two powers and link them and put them into the Forms Framework, nothing about this Framework ever prevented that. The only decision to make would be to allow the two powers be assigned to one slot, two slots, or have the option to do either during game time.[/quote']

 

Up until now, the description has consistently indicated that only one power could be used in a single slot. Have we now backed off from that? Does this mean my 60 point Slot can hold:

 

(a) a 2d6 HKA and +10/+10 Armor, each independent of the other?

 

( a 2d6 HKA and +10/+10 Armor, but only if one is Linked to the other (presumably, the HKA being linked to the Armor)

 

© Only one power - a 2d6 HKA or +10/+10 Armor would be legal (though below the maximum provided by the 60 AP slot), but you can't have both in a single slot.

 

Note that (a) moves us even closer to a sraight VPP, as the "only one power" restriction is removed. ( may as well be (a), since I get to change the two powers by changing the slot, so I can just change both of them and Link the new ones. © was the manner I thought this was being pitched as working, but your comments above indicate that's not correct.

 

Cost Escalation: One of the more subtle differences between using the Forms Framework and the more conventional VPP method presented' date=' is the cost escalation that occurs as more slots are added. The Forms Framework has a more linear cost increase as each slot is added. However, the VPP method requires purchase of a Pool and Contol for every Power Slot added.[/quote']

 

Adding another Forms Slot or another VPP should have more or less the same cost given they have more or less the same game effects. The only thing that makes one more costly than the other is you setting the price of one higher than the other.

 

Complexity: If I have a Forms Framework with 10 Slots' date=' which may not be all that uncommon due the concepts this mechanic is geared towards, the equivalent VPP structures become ungainley for reference and analysis by the GM.[/quote']

 

I don't see how either is any more complex when both serve exactly the same purpose. I would generally just use a single, larger VPP to hold all my Animal Powers anyway. The ability to have a variety of AP combinations has considerable value in such characters. Another option might be two VPP's if I wanted to also have access to an MPA (scorpion tail KA plus NND venom, for example).

 

More Managable: I believe the Forms Framework is more manageable during game play when doing on the fly forms. Again' date=' this is the only thing that really matters when it comes to using VPP or the Forms Framework. If a GM is going to require that every Form conceivable form be pregenerated and then picked from, then it doesn't matter, but then that kind of bypasses the whole reason for having a VPP or Forms Framework to begin with, to be able to have the fexibility to change as the situation demands, not from a pregenerated list (unless that was concept of course).[/quote']

 

How is creating a power on the fly for a 60 AP Forms Framework any more (or less) complex than creating a power on the fly for a 60 AP VPP? I suppose if the VPP power also needs limitations to fit it into the pool, but using a series of VPP's which can each hold only a single power eliminates that issue.

 

I remain of the opinion that this aproach can be readily accomplished with a VPP, and does not need a new framework cluttering up the landscape.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

I think the costing has to be comparatively settled' date=' to see what the real differences are. I'm sort of thinking that this is more expensive than limited VPPs individually, though some that is unavoidably noise around Lim values. VPPs will tend to benefit from limitations on control cost, whereas this structure is innately more expensive even before that (at 2:1 versus an effective 3:2 (1:1 pool, 1:2 control cost). The VPP also gets a cost break for the unique limitations on it re END and 1-slot only useage. So I think this ends up substantially more expensive, though recosting to 3:2 or such may achieve some parity.[/quote']

 

While I agree it should be possible to achieve cost parity by comparison with an equivalent VPP structure, why then bother creating a new mechanic? It doesn't accomplish anything that cannot be accomplished as easily with that series of VPP's, and I don't find it any easier to work with, in actual play, than that same series of VPP's. We don't need this any more than we need a new power called "Armor Piercing Penetrating Killing attack - 30 points per 1d6". We already have all the tools necessary to construct it, so we don't need a new mechanic to do so.

 

Consider also that the VPPs have full simultaneous change advantage already in their structure.

 

Yes and no. If you go the full way with a series of VPP's, each requiring 1/2 phase to change, wouldn;t each separate VP require 1/2 phase to change? If you aren't hung up on this "one that has 60 AP, one that has 40 and one that has 30" structure and just buy a 130 point VPP, however, you can change the whole thing at once, and avoid that added complexity.

 

Can you write up some sort of example, not costed even?

 

Because I think it looks like:

 

List - Form Framework

Slot A - "Defensive Animal Stuff" X AP

Slot B - "Offensive Animal Stuff" Y AP

Slot C - "English Kings Motifs" Z AP

Slot D - "Movement Animal Stuff" Y AP

Slot E - "Animal Senses" Z AP

Slot F - "French Revolutionary Era Figures Powers" X AP

Slot G - "Royal Animals Unique Abilities" Y AP

Slot H - "Cold Powers" Z AP

Slot I - "Hot Powers" W AP

Slot J - "Deep Space Powers" Z AP

 

List - Various Form VPPs (if you can stick a VPP in a List with Shared Lims this gets better)

VPP A - "Defensive Animal Stuff" X AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP B - "Offensive Animal Stuff" Y AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP C - "English Kings Motifs" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP D - "Movement Animal Stuff" Y AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP E - "Animal Senses" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP F - "French Revolutionary Era Figures Powers" X AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP G - "Royal Animals Unique Abilities" Y AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP H - "Cold Powers" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP I - "Hot Powers" W AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

VPP J - "Deep Space Powers" Z AP, -l Certain SFX Lim, -m 1 Slot Only, -n END Restricted

 

Of course, I would have greater flexibility by not limiting SFX and by simply paying END for whatever power level I actually use and want to maintain (I believe that to keep the VPP power operating unless Persistent or such you have to pay anyway, and I don't really agree with the idea of making people pay for END for APs not used; I would change the Forms Framework this way, anyway, in which case it looks a lot more like VPPs, albeit still with the single power per.) But the latter way opens up more flexibility in terms of eschewing limitations required by the Forms Framework, including having more than one slot, so that if you want to have "Collection of Senses" it gets a lot more manageable in those kinds of examples; in the Forms Framework we have to either create Linked Slots for the Collection (which means we have to have in mind already and do some mathematical study to create the right balance of Slots) or just have lots of little Slots.

 

I've been asking for an example of a character that actually needs this sructure for quite a while. I doubt we'll be seeing any examples any time son.

 

The above hasn't really lead me to reconsider my theory that this approach is not less combersome or less complex.

 

How would an undefined slot be more manageable than an undefined VPP that can only have one power in it? As I was writing up the dummy example above' date=' it does seem that to plan the Slots gets more problematic than planning a few VPPs that are flexible.[/quote']

 

The answer to this to date seems to be that it just is - and I agree with your point that no, actually, it isn't.

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

I'm pretty much through with trying to defend this. I just don't care anymore. This construct here was mainly for Zornwil, to see if he might see it as useful or not.

 

As for the more manageable aspect, I'll try one more time to get the idea across. Then you can reject it, accept it, or ignore it. I don't care anymore.

 

VPP:

1) Must figure out how many powers are needed for the SFX (form change).

2) Must figure out appropriate Advantages that should be applied to each power for SFX and keep it under the Pool Restriction for Active Points or remove an Advantage.

3) Must figure out appropriate Limitations that should be applied to each power and calculate the real cost for later total.

4) Must total real cost of all powers and compare it to the Pool Restriction.

5) If real cost exceeds Pool Restriction, then you must choose to eliminate Powers from list to reduce cost, or place additional Limitations on powers to reduce cost below Pool Restriction. Repeat this step until Pool Restriction is reach.

6) Utilize new form and abide by all Limitations/Restrictions applied.

 

Forms Framework:

1) Choose which powers you might need for the SFX and if there aren't enough slots, choose which powers to drop.

2) Must figure out appropriate Advantages that should be applied to each power for SFX and place them in the most suitable slot. If no suitable slot is available then remove an Advantage.

3) Must figure out appropriate Limitations that should be applied to each power.

4) Utilize new form and abide by all Limitations/Restrictions applied.

 

Seems fairly obvious to me that the Forms Frameswork is much simpler to figure out on the fly than the VPP, especially if the Linked Slot idea is dropped as suggested.

 

If no one agrees with this, I don't see any reason to continue with this.

 

Zornwil, if you want, let me know what changes you want, and I'll update the post.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

While I agree it should be possible to achieve cost parity by comparison with an equivalent VPP structure' date=' why then bother creating a new mechanic? It doesn't accomplish anything that cannot be accomplished as easily with that series of VPP's, and I don't find it any easier to work with, in actual play, than that same series of VPP's. We don't need this any more than we need a new power called "Armor Piercing Penetrating Killing attack - 30 points per 1d6". We already have all the tools necessary to construct it, so we don't need a new mechanic to do so.[/quote']

 

I'm saying to cost it under the assumption we identify a driver for the mechanic, that's all.

 

Yes and no. If you go the full way with a series of VPP's, each requiring 1/2 phase to change, wouldn;t each separate VP require 1/2 phase to change? If you aren't hung up on this "one that has 60 AP, one that has 40 and one that has 30" structure and just buy a 130 point VPP, however, you can change the whole thing at once, and avoid that added complexity.

 

Of course, nothing stops having one large VPP. I could imagine multi-VPPs in some form to replace MPs, I guess in that case you could just hand-wave that they sequentially "trigger." Then again, I think exploring the core notion (mechanics aside) begs too many issues to see a slots or multi-VPP solution as really getting any solid efficiencies worth trying to manage them.

 

I've been asking for an example of a character that actually needs this sructure for quite a while. I doubt we'll be seeing any examples any time son.

 

The above hasn't really lead me to reconsider my theory that this approach is not less combersome or less complex.

 

The answer to this to date seems to be that it just is - and I agree with your point that no, actually, it isn't.

[zornwil]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

I'm pretty much through with trying to defend this. I just don't care anymore. This construct here was mainly for Zornwil, to see if he might see it as useful or not.

 

As for the more manageable aspect, I'll try one more time to get the idea across. Then you can reject it, accept it, or ignore it. I don't care anymore.

 

VPP:

1) Must figure out how many powers are needed for the SFX (form change).

2) Must figure out appropriate Advantages that should be applied to each power for SFX and keep it under the Pool Restriction for Active Points or remove an Advantage.

3) Must figure out appropriate Limitations that should be applied to each power and calculate the real cost for later total.

4) Must total real cost of all powers and compare it to the Pool Restriction.

5) If real cost exceeds Pool Restriction, then you must choose to eliminate Powers from list to reduce cost, or place additional Limitations on powers to reduce cost below Pool Restriction. Repeat this step until Pool Restriction is reach.

6) Utilize new form and abide by all Limitations/Restrictions applied.

 

Forms Framework:

1) Choose which powers you might need for the SFX and if there aren't enough slots, choose which powers to drop.

2) Must figure out appropriate Advantages that should be applied to each power for SFX and place them in the most suitable slot. If no suitable slot is available then remove an Advantage.

3) Must figure out appropriate Limitations that should be applied to each power.

4) Utilize new form and abide by all Limitations/Restrictions applied.

 

Seems fairly obvious to me that the Forms Frameswork is much simpler to figure out on the fly than the VPP, especially if the Linked Slot idea is dropped as suggested.

 

If no one agrees with this, I don't see any reason to continue with this.

 

Zornwil, if you want, let me know what changes you want, and I'll update the post.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate it. Just the discussion doesn't seem to bear out it would work as well as I might think. I wouldn't do more unless/until I play around with it, unless you have an interest of your own. I'd prefer to take the core idea you have and think about it at this point. The issue I see is that any MF-replacement/multi-Shape Shifter type still has to write this stuff up in advance, in any format. I"m thinking more of a way to combine it onto one sheet and make it simpler, too, mechanically. I didn't mean to cause you work!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Mechanic: Forms Framework

 

VPP:

1) Must figure out how many powers are needed for the SFX (form change).

2) Must figure out appropriate Advantages that should be applied to each power for SFX and keep it under the Pool Restriction for Active Points or remove an Advantage.

3) Must figure out appropriate Limitations that should be applied to each power and calculate the real cost for later total.

4) Must total real cost of all powers and compare it to the Pool Restriction.

5) If real cost exceeds Pool Restriction, then you must choose to eliminate Powers from list to reduce cost, or place additional Limitations on powers to reduce cost below Pool Restriction. Repeat this step until Pool Restriction is reach.

6) Utilize new form and abide by all Limitations/Restrictions applied.

 

Forms Framework:

1) Choose which powers you might need for the SFX and if there aren't enough slots, choose which powers to drop.

2) Must figure out appropriate Advantages that should be applied to each power for SFX and place them in the most suitable slot. If no suitable slot is available then remove an Advantage.

3) Must figure out appropriate Limitations that should be applied to each power.

4) Utilize new form and abide by all Limitations/Restrictions applied.

 

Seems fairly obvious to me that the Forms Frameswork is much simpler to figure out on the fly than the VPP, especially if the Linked Slot idea is dropped as suggested.

 

First, if you use the series of VPP's which can only hold a single power each, the issue of limitations also goes away in the VPP, since you can still only have one power, capped at the AP of the VPP, regardless of how much you reduce its real points. That restriction removes any ease of play advantage enjoyed by the forms framework.

 

Second, that ease of use is a tradeoff - you lose flexibility. If I have three forms slots (and, given your costing approach, I don't see ten slots as being viable in most games' point levels), I can have only three powers in any given form. A VPP can allow me to have more than three powers if they're either smaller than the AP cap(s) or highly limited, if I ditch that "one pool, one power" limitation. Having that extra option means my Crab form can have its claws, armor and enhanced arc of vision, but still have Swimming and bonus Running - only backwards, even though another form might have only three powers, at higher levels.

 

In a nutshell, if you prefer flexibility, the VPP is superior. If you prize the added simplicity, it can be done equally well with the series of VPP's. At best, the forms framework comes up equal. In the absence of a significant improvement, I don't see any reason to change the system.