AsSFXiate

[Sean Waters]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

If the gate were "properly bolted"' date=' we'd be playing GURPS Supers 1st Ed, with every power tied to a fixed special effect save in cases of explicit GM intervention. That has its advantages, but it's not a system I find particularly appealing.[/quote']

 

No, we wouldn't.

[Sean Waters]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

....and another thing....

 

Whilst I can appreciate the desire to protect the virgin genericness of the system, I firmly believe that once to translate the character creation process into an actual game, there should be ground rules and there is nothing wrong with defining them otherwise you'll wind up with the generic when you want the specific. Part of that definition could well be in terms of the expected side effects and special effects of powers.

 

The difference between Hero and other game systems is not where we end up - I'm sure we are all capable of enjoying a well run game in almost any game system (note the almost: there are some beyond redemption) - but how we get there. To me, Hero is all about the journey. You can build it so that it runs like GURPS (pretty much) or WOD, or DnD if you want or your own finely crafted gaming experience. The point is with Hero that the choice is yours - it has not been made by a game designer on your behalf.

 

However, by the time you get down to actual play, you really should have made the choice, bolted the gate, nailed your colours to the mast, and committed to something. Even if you have decided not to decide, you should still make the choice.

[OddHat]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

No' date=' we wouldn't.[/quote']

 

You oversimplify, I oversimplify. It's the way of the world.

[zornwil]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

To be meaningful' date=' any contract has to be defined, or the control of it inevitably goes to the one with greater bargaining power, in this case the GM. For a true 'social contract' to work, there has to be some points of appropriate reference. That is what I'm talking about. I really don't understand the hostility to the idea.[/quote']

The "hostility" (speaking for myself, not for the others, though I think RDU N. and OH and GA and I are more or less aligned) is to a codification of specific SFX as opposed to a codification of how SFX shouild be handled - two different things. I believe that you raise the issue well, as evidenced by the response, and I think what the disagreement with you here is in regard to the methodology of managing SFX, not that they shouldn't be explicitly handled. I think there is a broad agreement among many of us with you that the issue needs a "contract" (rules), but I think that making those rules/that contract based on some sort of explicit categorization of SFX makes a mistake at odds with the nature of HERO by pointing people down particular simuilation experiences as opposed to enforcing an understanding of the lmiitations and appropriate uses of SFX. The latter we need; the former is an intrusion to play experience that at worst makes HERO become less open-ended and customizable to the group's needs and at best creates a layer of detail that becomes too much compared to the essential need (to ensure SFX are fairly applied and consistent with the mechanical underpinnings of the system).

[SpydirShellX]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

Hmmm... I'm just going to add in here, that the two SFX limit per power is not neccessarily the case. You can break SFX down even further.

 

Ex. A fencing sword and a gun are both weapons. They both use kinetic energy to penetrate their opponent's defenses. A fencing sword and a bullet pierces. However a bullet is powered by chemical energy, while the sword is powered by muscle. Guns leave behind bullets as evidence of their use. Swords tend to leave only the injury.

 

Basically, you can actually increase SFX to quite a few more than two. What happens if you have a power that weakens metal... your sword my rust, but your plastic gun (must be hunting Magneto) would be unaffected. A character that uses magic which suppresses the affects of science around him.... suddenly that gunpowder is a useless bunch of dust. You might have armor like chain mail where the bullet might be too large to pentrate and the point of the blade might go through without hinderance.

 

I agree that the two SFX is a good idea for generalites, but I want to point out that there are so many ways a power's SFX can be broken down that there's no way to totally enumerate them all.

[RDU Neil]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

To be meaningful' date=' any contract has to be defined, or the control of it inevitably goes to the one with greater bargaining power, in this case the GM. For a true 'social contract' to work, there has to be some points of appropriate reference. That is what I'm talking about. I really don't understand the hostility to the idea.[/quote']

 

I didn't mean to be hostile... I just think your steps toward definition go too far. As for social contract, it is often undefined but mostly can be summed up as "GM makes the final call... as long as it makes sense to the group as a whole. It may not be to the benefit or liking of any one player, but it should make sense for the context of play."

 

To me, the definition is what I wrote.

 

"SFX have an impact in play of the game. It is important to understand that this is different than the impact of the power mechanic. The impact of the SFX is an environmental effect whose impact is determined by the GM. Such determinations should be consistent and generally neutral over the course of play... meaning sometimes the SFX are a benefit to the PCs and other times a detriment... as long as it makes sense for the circumstances of play."

 

There... done. Don't have to say more than that, but give a variety of examples (Interpreting lightning powers in water, say... or the Golden Goose description from above would be great.)

 

 

This provides direction and definition without defining a specific play experience.

[RDU Neil]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

 

When someone assigns special effects to a power at character creation they are not just putting on a little window dressing. They are letting everyone know what makes them interested in playing this character. Special effects written up at character creation imply some very important things about how the player would like their character to function in the story everyone is working together to tell.

 

 

 

This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped.

 

This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins.

 

Here is my thought process on this:

 

1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters.

 

2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case.

 

3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw.

 

4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX.

 

5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation.

 

These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player."

 

That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

Hmmm... I'm just going to add in here, that the two SFX limit per power is not neccessarily the case. You can break SFX down even further.

 

Ex. A fencing sword and a gun are both weapons. They both use kinetic energy to penetrate their opponent's defenses. A fencing sword and a bullet pierces. However a bullet is powered by chemical energy, while the sword is powered by muscle. Guns leave behind bullets as evidence of their use. Swords tend to leave only the injury.

 

Basically, you can actually increase SFX to quite a few more than two. What happens if you have a power that weakens metal... your sword my rust, but your plastic gun (must be hunting Magneto) would be unaffected. A character that uses magic which suppresses the affects of science around him.... suddenly that gunpowder is a useless bunch of dust. You might have armor like chain mail where the bullet might be too large to pentrate and the point of the blade might go through without hinderance.

 

I agree that the two SFX is a good idea for generalites, but I want to point out that there are so many ways a power's SFX can be broken down that there's no way to totally enumerate them all.

 

I don't think anyone's advocated limiting the number of SFX - especially not to two. We may be doing so in conversation to keep it simple.

 

What we are advocating (I'm pretty sure everyone is in alignment here) is that there are Two Types of SFX: The Source and the Effect.

 

Take the Bullet, it's Effect is "The Bullet" and whatever connotations that has in the game: forensic evidence, kinetic damage, uses metals.

 

Now, take the Source:

Most common is, naturally, The Gun used to shoot it.

Or, a Telekinetic who can hyper accelerate the bullet to normal bullet velocities and "shoot" it at you.

 

Suddenly - it may be come very important Where the Bullet came from, not just that a Bullet was shot at you.

 

That's the "two" I think you're picking up on.

 

As for all the other stuff, others have done a good job of explaining where I (and they) sit on this.

 

I don't think any kind of quantification needs to be done. You don't need to worry about a +/- 1/4 of Benefit/Detriment for SFX.

 

But you should keep in mind how the SFX in question affects the world around it. Sure the fire may light the barrel of oil - but then what? Does it spread? sit in the barrel and burn? explode? Can it be controlled? What other consquences occur? Does the smoke start causing problems for people to see and breathe in the area?

 

These are all questions that need to be answered, either quickly in game or by the GM and Players discussing major points of their SFX and the world around them.

 

I think somewhere in Hero there is room for a discussion that goes over looking at the consequences of SFX from a dramatic, common sense and practical point view. But not a numerical one.

[zornwil]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped.

 

This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins.

 

Here is my thought process on this:

 

1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters.

 

2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case.

 

3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw.

 

4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX.

 

5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation.

 

These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player."

 

That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.

Which is a pity, because I firmly believe that this approach requires very little in the way of number of pages/verbiage while it eliminates the need for many extremely nuanced rules.

[zornwil]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

I want to expand a bit, too, in regard to SFX management and might take long enough I don't want it to be missed for being an edit.

 

I am the type of GM who lets a lot slide mechanically, in terms of how a structure might be defined versus the mechanic it's based on, and allowing for various perhaps-questionable ways to allow a character to pay for something. What I do not let slide are SFX; I try to understand the SFX, and I denote wherever it seems questionable as to my take on it. I take an active control over that in my games. I find players quite responsive - and where they disagree, then I know we need to go deeper and resolve it before play starts. Not to say I always get it right on this account, but I think I do a reasonable job, and it results in almost zero arguments over the last several years of play when I've said "your magic doesn't work that way" or "your target is unaffected." When I say those things, the players generally trust me, and where they are questioning about a judgement call I can almost always answer them satisfactorily in a sentence because we have a good mutual grasp of how the powers work, regardless of the mechanical underpinnings. I think that's one of the big reasons behind why Lemming once referred to my games as the "most balanced unbalanced games" or something to that affect, meaning that while there may be on the surface disconnects in that some people may have more raw power or may be technically exploiting mechanical opportunities, I use SFX and environmental interaction with these to ensure some form of balance in resulting impact that the PCs have on their world.

[Sean Waters]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

This is an absolutely critical point. Bold highlights are mine. Repped.

 

This is where I think the "abuse" issue begins.

 

Here is my thought process on this:

 

1) A core implication of Hero (stemming from flexibility of character creation) is that the player defines all things about their characters.

 

2) The system assumption is that the mechanics are there (setting point and AP and DC lims included) to provide a consistent and "balanced" playing field that implies that "any characters built within these guidelines... no matter the intent of the player... will work together." The system HEAVILY implies this... though anyone playing for any length of time knows that is not to be the case.

 

3) What Hero... as an old school system... fails to address is that such character creation most often means characters have no context. They are piles of points that reflect ONE PERSON'S (the player's) assumptions and intent... without thought to "what do those points mean in context of the game and in conjunction with other characters?" The game explicitly stayes away from discussing this... and this is its greatest flaw.

 

4) The mechanics at least give a measuring stick to see if the assumptions are remotely within the same ballpark... but there are no mechanics for SFX.

 

5) No mechanics is actually a blessing... because it allows for design space to create a definition like I indicatd above. That kind of "design intent" statement provides guidelines for "in play decisions" without trying to micro-manage every possible situation.

 

These design intents were implied in many earlier editions... actively avoided in 5th... but they are key to understanding what is happening in play. Essentially... the player ASSUMES control (incorrectly) over the SFX of their character because the game supports player control in almost every other aspect of character creation. Then the player assumes a certain in play functionality (again incorrectly) that is not their's to assume. One simple definition as I stated above would take care of that... a definition of "In the end, the GM and what 'makes sense' for the game decides how your PC's SFX work... not you the player."

 

That needs to be specifically stated, IMO... though I doubt we'll ever see that.

 

I think this is a very interesting analysis (and rep would be forthcoming if you hadn't made so much sense recently), and it has helped to clarify my own thoughts somewhat.

 

In the design process I see no problem with the player having complete control over the character and how it works, what sfx apply and how they can be expected to operate. Then, however, once the PC enters the game world, the character 'sets' and is largely defined and under the control of the GM as far as the environment goes (which can include the inanimate, NPCs and also the effects and sfx of their own actions and powers).

 

Just as the players need definition of environmental effects to be able to take meaningful decisions about play, so both player and GM need to know where they stand on sfx as that is part of the environment, as much as gravity is or the DEF of certain common objects.

 

Now let us not get this out of proportion - Hero has survived a long time without a 'SFX Bible'. I'm not saying that it is essential to the core of the system, or that the game is not playable without it. That would be daft. I DO think that some more discussion over what I see as a quite central but reletively neglected area would be beneficial.

 

Now to take things a step further, let me say this: I don't particularly mind if sfx have an enormous effect on play so long as the effect has defined limits and applications. I don't mind whether those limits are rigidly defined or just discussed so that everyone will be starting at roughly the same spot, but I do think we need more than we have at present.

 

Moreover it would be nice to see discussion of sfx in different games - point but what you CAN do with what could be a very useful mechanic.

 

For example, anyone remember Villains and Vigilantes? They had defined powers and a table that showed how each attack and defence interact. the combat system was a sort of DnD 'Armour Class' system, and depending on what attack you were using and what defence was being employed, you had a different 'to hit' number.

 

In Hero you would need a set of 'campaign acceptable' SFX that lpayers would ahve to chose from to set up this sort of 'attack/defence interaction'.

 

Now I am not suggesting this is how Hero SHOULD work, I'm saying it would be nice in a trulu generic system to have the option for those who want to run it that way. One advantage of this sort of approach is that it reduces the 'homogenous' nature of some campaigns where all attacks and defences are at similar levels near campaign maxima: if an acid spray and a rubber bullet both do 10d6 damage but the former is at a penalty against force field sfx (not force field power) tehn the 'same attack' mechanically will have quite different effects in game.

 

Just to stress, I'm not saying this is how 'Core Hero' should work, but it would be nice to have a reference approach to allow you to build a game as carefully and with as much detail as you can currently build a character. This is NOT meant to constrain the system, but to allow coherent expansion in new directions IF that is what the individual players and GMs want.

[Sean Waters]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

I want to expand a bit, too, in regard to SFX management and might take long enough I don't want it to be missed for being an edit.

 

I am the type of GM who lets a lot slide mechanically, in terms of how a structure might be defined versus the mechanic it's based on, and allowing for various perhaps-questionable ways to allow a character to pay for something. What I do not let slide are SFX; I try to understand the SFX, and I denote wherever it seems questionable as to my take on it. I take an active control over that in my games. I find players quite responsive - and where they disagree, then I know we need to go deeper and resolve it before play starts. Not to say I always get it right on this account, but I think I do a reasonable job, and it results in almost zero arguments over the last several years of play when I've said "your magic doesn't work that way" or "your target is unaffected." When I say those things, the players generally trust me, and where they are questioning about a judgement call I can almost always answer them satisfactorily in a sentence because we have a good mutual grasp of how the powers work, regardless of the mechanical underpinnings. I think that's one of the big reasons behind why Lemming once referred to my games as the "most balanced unbalanced games" or something to that affect, meaning that while there may be on the surface disconnects in that some people may have more raw power or may be technically exploiting mechanical opportunities, I use SFX and environmental interaction with these to ensure some form of balance in resulting impact that the PCs have on their world.

 

 

I think that your approach is adirable and I applaud you for being able to keep balance in what can be an extremely chaotic game. To be honmest event he point balancing of Hero does not really acheive balance in a lot of cases - some powers are disproportionately cheap or expensive anyway. I am not trying to increase the rules count for Hero, I'm trying to increase the options count. I think that might well make it a more attractive game to a wider range of players.

[zornwil]

Re: AsSFXiate

 

Thanks, Sean, enjoy these conversations with you.