Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

[Dauntless]

For some reason, I just don't like the way the Side Effects limitation is implemented. It can handle general case situations, but wouldn't there be a more direct way of doing this for specific cases?

 

For example, let's say I want to build a super-steroid as an Aid that boosts your STR, SPD ,CON and PD, but simultaneously drains your BODY and EGO. Instead of saying it's a -1/2 or -1 limitation, why don't you actually build the Drain for BODY and EGO, and directly subtract it from the point cost of the power?

 

In other words, I see a "Side Effect" as less of a limitation...which only reduces the cost of a power....and more of a disadvantage.

 

If you create an Energy Blast that affects you just as much as your opponent, should you even pay any points for it? In fact, it might be worse...you could miss your target but the feedback will always hit you.

 

Now, this could be abused. In the above example, someone might have enough Power Defense to avoid the Drain, thus negating the Side Effect. But in some ways this makes sense, at least in the example above, because the Steroid Pill is not intrinsic to the character.

 

Any other advantages/pitfalls to making certain Side Effects as subtracting points from a power (perhaps even giving points like a disadvantage) rather than multiplying the cost of the power by a fraction as in a limitation?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

An interesting notion.

 

I tend to 'mentally define' the difference between disadvantages and limtiations in terms of broadness of effect: limtiations effect single powers, whereas disadvantages effect the whole character.

 

There is not a great deal of balance at present between teh two if we care to examine them: Powers only work on women AS A DISADVANTAGE is worth, at very best, 25 points, whereas it would be worth more than that (in effect) as a limitation on a 12d6 flash.

 

I'm not sure that you can really ship from one to the other directly: they even have different game effects (which perhaps explains the balance imbalance) - disads grant you more points, whereas limits make the most of the ones you have (a fine distinction sometimes).

 

However, your suggestion may be we do the accounting 'in-power' i.e. 12d6 flash = 60 points, 'only works on women is 25 poitns as a disad, total cost = 60-25=35 points.

 

The trouble with that approach is that it does not scale well: the same 'disadvantage value' would apply to a 2d6 flash or a 20d6 flash.

 

Mind you you are talking about side effects specifically and I have broadened the discussion, so let us narrow it again.

 

4d6 ranged drain that has an automatic full effect side effect on you.

 

OK, as a power that would be 60 points and -2 limitation (always effects at full power - and you get no defence) so it is 'worth 40 points as a lim, leaving the power costing 20.

 

Your approach would say that the side effect was equal to the power, so 60-60=0 points.

 

What if the power had a limitation (say only effects women -1) then (assuming the character is a woman) it would be worth 30-60 i.e. it would GAIN you points. I don't think that can be right.

 

Even a power that effects you fully has some utility, so I don't think it can ever zero sum.

 

Perhaps I'm just approaching this all wrong, but I don't think it will fly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

To add to Sean's point, if "Not vs Women" is a -20, a -30 or whatever, why not buy enough dice of Flash "not vs women" to offset the cost reduction? You can flash anyone else and it cost no points.

 

For your example of aiding some stats while draining others, what about a Susceptibility rather than a limitation?

[Dauntless]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

Well, I was thinking more of circumstances in which the use of a power directly affects the character. Maybe "affects" is the wrong word. It should impose some kind of harmful change on the character. "Does not affect women" restricts how the power works, but it doesn't make the power itself have any deleterious affects.

 

I was thinking of specific cases in which the use of one power triggers another power that directly affects the character. In effect, it's like saying, "useable only on self" and "linked". Normally you don't want to EB or RKA or Drain yourself, but as I understand the rules, there's no way to do this. And yet there are many cases in fiction or real life in which this happens. Drug effects is a real life one, and many super-heroes suffer some kind of feedback if they use the power in a certain manner (like the Molecular Man or Firestorm).

 

The reason I don't like side effects always as a limitation is because I think it's possible that you could have a "power" that's more of a disadvantage than an advantage, but limitations can never make the cost of something negative.

 

So I would propose a new category of Disadvantages....maybe call it a Curse (or something, so not to confuse it with the Side Effects limitation). The Disadvantage would be defined as a power with the automatic limitations of "useable only on self" and "linked" applied to it...but those limitations would not be applied to the cost of the power.

 

The major drawback I see to this approach is that you could define a "Curse" disadvantage that doesn't really create a drawback. For example, let's say I define a 10d6 EB, with a 2d6EB as feedback. Trouble is, if you have 12 or more ED or PD, then effectively, the feedback doesn't harm you at all. I would therefore suggest that if you define such a disadvantage, you either have ZERO defenses against the side effect power, or you must calculate the "average damage" versus the defense to determine how harmful the side effect is.

 

In my first example about the Super Steroid pill, let's say a character has enough Power Defense of 10, and the Drain is defined as a 3d6 BODY and EGO. Half the time, this Drain is useless, and therefore the 3d6 Drain should have a -1 limitation applied to the cost. But calculating how "effective" a side effect is can get tricky.

 

Ohh, I forgot to add...some may ask, "why not just make it a 'susceptibility' disadv"? Because you may want specific affects, like Adjustment powers to various powers or characteristics that isn't handled by a "Suceptibility to own power use". The Side Effect Limitation can handle things for which the side effect could be useful sometimes...say for example a power that Transports you randomnly everytime you use it (it could help or hurt.....badly). But I think there are more specific cases that could be modeled by a better implementation. I don't see how saying that applying a Drain, EB, or RKA against yourself is ever helpful.

[Frenchman]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

Well' date=' I was thinking more of circumstances in which the use of a power directly affects the character. Maybe "affects" is the wrong word. It should impose some kind of harmful change on the character. "Does not affect women" restricts how the power works, but it doesn't make the power itself have any deleterious affects.[/quote']

 

The point Sean & Hugh were tryiing to make was that a power, such as a 6d6 Drain EGO (Not vs Women, -1) could earn the character who purchases it points if it also has a 6d6 Drain side effect. The power costs 30, but the side effect 'costs' 60, so the character gains 30 points.

 

The reason I don't like side effects always as a limitation is because I think it's possible that you could have a "power" that's more of a disadvantage than an advantage' date=' but limitations can never make the cost of something negative.[/quote']

 

No power can be more of a limitation than a benefit, unless the activation of said power cannot be controlled. Even a 1d6 KA (Side Effect: 4d6 KA) is a beneficial power to have (though not very) because the character chooses when to use it - that would be when 1d6 KA is going to help him/hurt his opponent more than 4d6 KA will hurt him. If it doesn't have a net benefit, he doesn't use it - why would he?

 

So I would propose a new category of Disadvantages....maybe call it a Curse (or something' date=' so not to confuse it with the Side Effects limitation). The Disadvantage would be defined as a power with the automatic limitations of "useable only on self" and "linked" applied to it...but those limitations would not be applied to the cost of the power. [/quote']

 

This sounds a lot like a susceptability to me... I do agree that susceptabilities should scale to more than 30 AP (I think thats the limit), but a side effect, or disadvantage representing one, would never be worth what the power build is, because the character can always choose not to suffer it - it's worth something, just not as much.

 

The major drawback I see to this approach is that you could define a "Curse" disadvantage that doesn't really create a drawback. For example' date=' let's say I define a 10d6 EB, with a 2d6EB as feedback. Trouble is, if you have 12 or more ED or PD, then effectively, the feedback doesn't harm you at all. I would therefore suggest that if you define such a disadvantage, you either have ZERO defenses against the side effect power, or you must calculate the "average damage" versus the defense to determine how harmful the side effect is. [/quote']

 

In general, damage from disadvantages and side effects is NND damage or enough damage to always get signifigant amounts through the characters defenses. Otherwise, as you are aware of, there is not point. The old corralary "A disadvantage (or limitation) that isn't disadvantageous isn't worth any points!"

 

In my first example about the Super Steroid pill' date=' let's say a character has enough Power Defense of 10, and the Drain is defined as a 3d6 BODY and EGO. Half the time, this Drain is useless, and therefore the 3d6 Drain should have a -1 limitation applied to the cost. But calculating how "effective" a side effect is can get tricky.[/quote']

 

This would be a good way of getting around the 'earning points' aspect. If the 'Negative Power' automatically recieved a limitation equal in value to all the limitations on the power, plus a limitation which varies with the defense the character recieves against the power, plus (possibly) linked, then the 'cost' of the power could never exceed the absolute value of the power it applies to, as long as it had the same or fewer AP than that power.

 

Ohh' date=' I forgot to add...some may ask, "why not just make it a 'susceptibility' disadv"? Because you may want specific affects, like Adjustment powers to various powers or characteristics that isn't handled by a "Suceptibility to own power use". The Side Effect Limitation can handle things for which the side effect could be useful sometimes...say for example a power that Transports you randomnly everytime you use it (it could help or hurt.....badly). But I think there are more specific cases that could be modeled by a better implementation. I don't see how saying that applying a Drain, EB, or RKA against yourself is ever helpful.[/quote']

 

Susceptability can do things to a character other than just damage. I've had characters who had drains from a susceptability, and I saw a character who began to float off of the ground (helpless, since they couldn't fly) higher and higher the more they used their power. We defined that with susceptability.

[Dauntless]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

Just because something has more disadvantages that advantages doesn't mean someone can't or won't use it. Just ask a druggie. However, I do agree this can be abused.

 

Sometimes you may be willing to put up with a penalty in order to get a gain. What if you have a pill that grants you massive powers for a short time, but slowly kills you? Depending on how heroic you are, you may be willing to take that risk in order to do the greater good. Or what about that random teleportation thing? Maybe you absolutely have to get out of the way and are willing to trade the damage it does for something that might be worse (like a bolt from Dr. Destroyer).

 

I suppose one way to eliminate the "get free points by never using the side effected power" is to simply say that you can't get free points. At best, it can reduce the Power's cost to zero. But like I said in the example above, I do think there are situations where everytime you use your power, something worse than the power itself happens (or perhaps cumulatively adds up to something "really bad"....like Spawn using his power).

 

In fact, as I see it, there's no way to model the Spawn. Every time he uses his power, in essence he is killing himself (again). I don't see a way to create an Achillean type of character that burns twice as bright but half as long. Another example would be trying to model a Juicer character from the Rifts setting.

 

I'm open to suggestions on how to model these kinds of characters.....

[casualplayer]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

I've often given characters Susceptabilities to their own powers. Multiforms that cause STUN when activated, EBs that "burn" the character, big guns that do KB to the character (Double KB EB when fired.) This may cover what you are trying to emulate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

The point Sean & Hugh were tryiing to make was that a power' date=' such as a 6d6 Drain EGO (Not vs Women, -1) could earn the character who purchases it points if it also has a 6d6 Drain side effect. The power costs 30, but the side effect 'costs' 60, so the character gains 30 points.[/quote']

 

1 pip RKA, no range - 3 points

10d6 KA Side Effect minus 150 points

Taking dozens of such powers and using the net proceeds to buy your 50 + 50 character the abilities of Dr. Destroyer: Priceless

 

This sounds a lot like a susceptability to me... I do agree that susceptabilities should scale to more than 30 AP (I think thats the limit)' date=' but a side effect, or disadvantage representing one, would never be worth what the power build is, because the character can always choose not to suffer it - it's worth something, just not as much.[/quote']

 

I agree susceptibility works fine in such circumstances. Scaling upwards may be viable, but once it hits the point that using a power once neutralizes the character, that's as high as it can reasonably go.

 

Nothing wrong with building Susc as a drain or a cumulative mental power or transform either.

[Dauntless]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

One problem I'm seeing with modeling this as a Susceptibility that can do more than just damage is in converting the points. A 2d6 Drain has 20 Active Points, and a 2d6 Transform is 30 compared to a 2d6 EB's Active Point cost of only 10. Obviously that's not fair.

 

Furthermore, how would you define the condition's rarity? That's up to the character's control, not external factors. Moreover, what if the points per disadvantage category is not high enough to allow the power?

 

The biggest problems I'm seeing with just declaring this as a subtraction against a power's cost is 1) what happens if the side effects are worse than the main power, 2) building defenses to counter the side effects and 3) calculating how dehabilitating the side effect really is.

 

How exactly would you calculate the disadvantage cost of a power that blinds your character's visual senses if he buys another Targeting sense to compensate? How would you calculate the cost of a power that triggers a random teleportation (it could be good or bad)?

 

I'm still not seeing a way to model how to build Spawn or a Juicer. Would it be a cumulative Transform into a dead person (which you specifically can not do with Transform)? It can't be defined as a cumulative Killing attack either, because any offensive power with cumulative has to be applied against a defense (not to mention that the damage will heal over time). Susceptibility doesn't cut it either because 1) in a juicer or Spawn's case, the damage is hidden...it's a cumulative type effect and 2) the damage incurred by susceptibility will heal.

[Dauntless]

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"?

 

Actually, a thought occurred to me for a way to simulate a Juicer or Spawn type of Side Effect. I'm not sure if this is legal though.

 

You can define the "Susceptibility" as a Drain on BODY with the advantages of Cumulative, Delayed Effect and Trigger. There are actually two triggers...one each time the power(s) is used, and one for when a cumulative threshold is released. Each time a power is used, the trigger is activated and has its cumulative affect applied. The Delayed Effect means that this Cumulative damage is "stored" until the second trigger is reached...when the cumulative effect is greater than BODY (at which point the character will die due to having -BODY).

 

By storing the Drain in this manner through the Delayed Effect, accumulating all the uses via Cumulative and defining the Triggers, you essentially make a ticking time bomb against the character.