Making the math easier

[Robyn]

The fractions make things complicated.

 

To avoid this complication, I'm considering simply multiplying the initial cost of all powers by 4. Also the values of each Advantage and Limitation.

 

Since the Active Points must be calculated separately from the Real cost, this may come out differently due to rounding.

 

I don't think it would be more than a point or two in the end, though.

 

To avoid having to also multiply the effects of Adjustment powers, I would divide by 4 after calculating the "whole number" cost. This additional step of rounding, though, may further diverge from the usual point total.

 

AP limits in a campaign, likewise, may be multiplied by 4 to preserve their utility.

 

Does anyone foresee a major problem with this?

[Patriot]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Where it is going to break down is you need to give them 4 times the staring Xp.

Are you going to charge 4 x the amount for disads?

 

An easier solution.....go to the corner drug store, spend 2 bucks on a cheap calculator

[Robyn]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Where it is going to break down is you need to give them 4 times the staring Xp.

Are you going to charge 4 x the amount for disads?

 

See "dividing by 4 after calculating the whole-number cost"

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Primary problem I see is anything that requires the active point cost after character creation. This is addressed in the divide by 4. However, this method ends up still doing the same amount math. You just do it after the calculation.

 

It also causes problems by a couple points due to the rounding that occurs during calculation.

 

Admittedly, I uses this somewhat on my own when designing characters; I note advantages and limitations as 4x their listed value (saves 2 characters of space) - will probably get me in the end if I ever mix up the two different ways of writing it.

[transmetahuman]

Re: Making the math easier

 

So, a 60 point power with a +1/4 advantage becomes a 240 point power with a +1 advantage? You're going from:

 

60 points becomes 75 points (125%)

 

to

 

240 points becomes 480 points (200%)

 

Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're doing here.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Making the math easier

 

This doesn't look any less complex or more intuitive. The comments above seem to bear that perception out.

 

I second the motion to buy a calculator - or use a calculator function onthe computer you're accessing the boards with.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Making the math easier

 

The fractions make things complicated.

 

To avoid this complication, I'm considering simply multiplying the initial cost of all powers by 4. Also the values of each Advantage and Limitation.

 

Since the Active Points must be calculated separately from the Real cost, this may come out differently due to rounding.

 

I don't think it would be more than a point or two in the end, though.

 

To avoid having to also multiply the effects of Adjustment powers, I would divide by 4 after calculating the "whole number" cost. This additional step of rounding, though, may further diverge from the usual point total.

 

AP limits in a campaign, likewise, may be multiplied by 4 to preserve their utility.

 

Does anyone foresee a major problem with this?

 

I think transmetahuman has pointed out a flaw in the math here. Things don't add up the same. The fractions are there to add a certain fraction of the base cost to the total AP of the Power. If you increase these values, you eliminate the possibility of adding anything less than the full base cost for any Advantage, regardless of how you modify the base cost. All you end up doing is changing the values of the Advantages.

[Funksaw]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Or to put it another way, a +1/4 advantage is really a +25% advantage.

 

Personally, I think that it would be simpler if HERO used percentage points INSTEAD of fractions which represent those percentage points, but HERO was first developed in the days when RPGs were just crawling out of the primordial ooze, and some legacy things have stayed in.

[Vondy]

Re: Making the math easier

 

NOTE: I have run no numbers to back this theory up.

 

Using decimal values (only the first decimal point: .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, etc.) to a base of 1 could actually make the costing more granular while avoiding those furtive looking fractions along the way.

 

So:

 

Base 1 + Some Advantage .3 + Some Advantage .4 = Cost X1.7

 

It might change the equation a bit with limitations; but it shouldn't be manageable.

 

Base 1 - Some Limitation .4 = Cost X.6

 

You just need to be careful about precedence. Insofar as you do one calculation for advantages, and a second one for lims, it should work with reasonable variances.

 

And for lims that take you beneath 0:

 

Base 1 - Some Limitation 1.1 = -.1

 

Base 1 - (Base X .1) = Cost

[Dust Raven]

Re: Making the math easier

 

NOTE: I have run no numbers to back this theory up.

 

Using decimal values (only the first decimal point: .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, etc.) to a base of 1 could actually make the costing more granular while avoiding those furtive looking fractions along the way.

 

So:

 

Base 1 + Some Advantage .3 + Some Advantage .4 = Cost X1.7

 

It might change the equation a bit with limitations; but it shouldn't be manageable.

 

Base 1 - Some Limitation .4 = Cost X.6

 

You just need to be careful about precedence. Insofar as you do one calculation for advantages, and a second one for lims, it should work with reasonable variances.

 

And for lims that take you beneath 0:

 

Base 1 - Some Limitation 1.1 = -.1

 

Base 1 - (Base X .1) = Cost

 

That option's been mentioned many many times, and there are a number of player who like and use it. I'm not one of them. I think 1/4 or 25% increments is granular enough. Then again, I tend to run lower AP games, where a higher degree of granularity wouldn't actually make a difference in real cost.

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Personally, I'd prefer the doubling over a decimal based system... doubling makes sense... and I don't really see the need from more grandularity in the system.

 

As I mentioned earlier I use a similar system for my notekeeping.

You don't affect the powers cost.

 

Your

1d6 RKA (15 base) with 0 END(+1/2) OAF(-1) Range based on Strength (-1/4)

15 * (1 + 0.5) = 22 / (1 + 1 + 0.25) = 10

or using the my shorthand method.

15 * (4 + 2) = 90 / (4 + 4 + 1) = 10

 

Since both the advantanges and limitations are multiplied by 4 neither the base cost nor the real cost have any change (except that caused by rounding). The main issue occurs when the active cost is needed for something.

[Robyn]

Re: Making the math easier

 

This doesn't look any less complex or more intuitive. The comments above seem to bear that perception out.

 

Let's see if an example will help out:

 

Any power, 10 points. Assume no Limitations, just one Advantage worth 1/4.

 

HERO tells us to calculate the Active Points with this formula:

 

Active Point Cost = Base Cost x (1 + total value of all Advantages)

 

With my proposal, the formula would actually be:

 

Active Point Cost = Base Cost x (4 + quadrupled value for all Advantages)

 

This would give us "AP = 10 x (4 + 1)", or AP of 50. Since we have no Limitations to apply, we go to the final step of dividing by 4, to yield 12.5 (the same result we would have had from taking 10 and 1/4, but without all those confusing fractions).

 

The example poorly shows the potential confusion, of course, but you're welcome to take 5 or more Advantages of varying values, and 5 or more Limitations of varying values, and note the amount of fractions entering each equation.

 

One problem I do foresee (but which I haven't done the math to confirm, yet) is that people with lots of powers might see a larger variation in their total costs (for all powers) than people who are only using this formula for a few powers.

[Robyn]

Re: Making the math easier

 

The main issue occurs when the active cost is needed for something.

 

Exactly, and the only reason I could think of for wanting the AP cost was to measure it against the AP limits in the campaign, so I suggested multiplying the AP limits by 4 as well. The AP limits aren't needed for anything else (they don't interact with the rest of the system), so this shouldn't generate more problems later on.

[schir1964]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Exactly' date=' and the only reason I could think of for wanting the AP cost was to measure it against the AP limits in the campaign, so I suggested multiplying the AP limits by 4 as well. The AP limits aren't needed for anything else (they don't interact with the rest of the system), so this shouldn't generate more problems later on.[/quote']

Actualy, Active Points affect the game a lot more than that.

 

1) Endurance usage is calculated based on Active Points

2) Adjustment Powers affect Active Points with Characteristics being the exception.

3) Frameworks are governed by Active Points

4) Multiform/Duplication also use Active Points for a comparison

 

Just Some Info

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: Making the math easier

 

This would give us "AP = 10 x (4 + 1)", or AP of 50. Since we have no Limitations to apply, we go to the final step of dividing by 4, to yield 12.5 (the same result we would have had from taking 10 and 1/4, but without all those confusing fractions).

 

So basically you're doing to same math, but using "big" numbers and division instead of using fractions, essentially doing more math steps, but "easier" math equations.

[Patriot]

Re: Making the math easier

 

See "dividing by 4 after calculating the whole-number cost"

 

I understood that part , I was talking about Character disads, not power disads

A total code against killing would need to be worth 80 points.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Making the math easier

 

It's an interesting premise, and I can see the simplification when working numbers out by hand. However, considering that almost everyone these days works the HERO numbers via either chargen software, spreadsheets (like the ones in Free Stuff), or just using a calculator, I don't see it as filling a pressing need. Just remembering what fractions equate to as percentages lets you go to town.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Making the math easier

 

The fractions make things complicated.

 

No, they don't.

 

And I'm saddened to see that statement even uttered by anyone higher than the third grade.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Making the math easier

 

When on holiday I work out foreign currency in my head by applying the appropriate advantage or limitiation to it. For instance, to convert Euros back to Sterling, apply a -1/2 limtiation, so 10E is about £6.70

 

Have I been playing Hero too long?

[gojira]

Re: Making the math easier

 

The answer.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Making the math easier

 

So, in order to make it "easier", I have to multiply the value of each advantage and limitation by 4, add each total to 4 rather than to 1, then divide the ultimate result by 4.

 

I also need to divide the AP by 4 to determine END cost, and either multiply all adjuistment power effects by 4 or divide the power's AP by 4 to determine the effect of adjustment powers.

 

Nope, doesn't look any simpler from where I sit.

[Robyn]

Re: Making the math easier

 

Actualy' date=' Active Points affect the game a lot more than that.[/quote']

 

1) END is optional; 2) I forgot about that one; 3) I haven't gotten to Frameworks yet; 4) what?

 

Time to go back and read them again

 

So basically you're doing to same math' date=' but using "big" numbers and division instead of using fractions, essentially doing more math steps, but "easier" math equations.[/quote']

 

That's the basic idea, yes

 

I understood that part , I was talking about Character disads, not power disads

A total code against killing would need to be worth 80 points.

 

I understood what you meant by "Disads" (there is no such thing as "power disads", by the way, you may be thinking of Limitations). If you had understood what I meant by "divide by 4 after calculating the whole-number cost", why would you think that character XP or the value of Disadvantages would need to be increased too?

 

If you're still certain you know what I meant, I recommend checking SpydirShellX's explanation.

 

No, they don't.

 

And I'm saddened to see that statement even uttered by anyone higher than the third grade.

 

Because third grade is when they do brain surgery to correct the deficient minds of children who happen to suck at math?

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Making the math easier

 

If you have brand new players, this might work OK. Otherwise, they're gonna be more confused than just using the values as they are.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Making the math easier

 

As usual, Robyn posts something left field, and I read the posts... digest the concept, and step away asking myself: "Where does he get such wonderful drugs?"

 

Dude, as we've dicsussed multiple times, you are doing "it" again. You're taking something fairly straightforward (in this particular case, HERO powers write ups) and complicating it, in the name of (urk) uncomplicating it, when in fact, it didn't need clarification to begin with. I work with numbers for a living, so I grasp the concept of what you're doing. I just don't see any sort of pratical application.

 

At the end of the day, a +1/4 advantage is still a 1.25 multiplier; it's just a question of how big the number you're applying it to is. If we make them really big, we can just start shuffling decimal points until we're all blue in the face, but I don't see how this expands the rules, clarifies them, or forwards them for n00bz.

 

If you tell your n00b, for example (everyone has a n00b - I'm looking at you, Liaden - make sure you feed it twice a day, at least) "Okay, n00b, now what we're going to do is take your Desolid, which is 40 points according to the book, but it's really 160 - because that's simpler to grasp." "But wait!" cries n00b, "WTF aren't we just using the values in the damn book? That's what they're there for! I read the book for that reason!" "Forget the book!" you cry in contempt! "The book is overly complicated! Here, use my method, it's simpler! I thought of it yesterday!"

 

You can see where I'm going with this. You have an entire text devoted to giving you (without exaggerating) hundreds of examples of how this stuff works - why would you muddy it with not only reinventing the wheel, but deciding that it needs corners and edges?

[Robyn]

Re: Making the math easier

 

So' date=' in order to make it "easier", I have to multiply the value of each advantage and limitation by 4, add each total to 4 rather than to 1, then divide the ultimate result by 4.[/quote']

 

But at least then we're only in danger of facing the dreaded fraction once (per power), when we divide at the end.

 

I also need to divide the AP by 4 to determine END cost' date='[/quote']

 

I suspect I wasn't the only one to flunk 3rd-grade math

 

The key to this is "simplifying". Just as we don't need to divide our circle into 6 parts make a pie chart for 4/6ths, when we can factor out "4 over 6" to get "2 times 2 over 2 times 3", and eliminate the two from above and below, leaving "2 over 3"; so, too, can we look at the "1 point of END for every X AP" and simplify this to "1 point of END for every X times 4 AP". I haven't done the math for this (using a thorough range of possible values for X), but logically it would still come out right.

 

and either multiply all adjuistment power effects by 4 or divide the power's AP by 4 to determine the effect of adjustment powers.

 

Adjustment powers would be tricky, yes. I wonder how this compares to the "statting out of objects in advance", though; sure, there are some GM's who would criticize us for starting games without knowing the stats of everything our PC's might conceivably interact with, in as much detail as there is even the most remote possibility it could matter - but how much criticism would it invite to "keep track of the x4 AP's" and "only divide by 4 during play when needed"?

 

Nope' date=' doesn't look any simpler from where I sit.[/quote']

 

Sit with the normal mortals, then, where arithmetic comes easily to everyone. Pity our mathematical inadequacy and warn us about needlessly making things excessively complicated in the quest to reduce them to a manageable level of complexity. Remember that such anti-simplification, though it run counter to the obvious, will occur; our mathematical inferiority dooms us to achieving only the reverse of our goals should we at any time try to make the difficult more accessible (or otherwise close the gap between us and our betters).

 

__________________

This postscript should have a note about my not having been utterly serious (above).

But the last time I tried that, I was accused of trying to be "clever" and "witty".

So just take this as an FYI, and remember: "honesty" and "forthrightness" may be a lost cause.