Game Play Concept: No Limitations

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

I know it's not the root of contention among those arguing/debating' date=' but a possible compromise should it be a point of contention between a GM wanting to use this method and players that resist could be to drop all base stats to zero and give everyone 125 more points to build characters with (the amount of points required to get primary stats up to 10).[/quote']

 

To me, this highlights the whole sellback issue. Rep to SS.

 

 

If we change the arbitrary baseline from 10 to 0, and give players an extra 125 points so they can have exactly the same stats, we have no sellbacks.

 

If we assume a baseline of 5 per stat is free (make it 4 for COM due to rounding) and give the players an extra 63 points, we have far less sellbacks, and they should require GM permission (given sellback to lower than 5 requires GM permission anyway).

 

We could assume a baseline of 8 (you start as a normal, average human) and give them 25 extra base points, also markedly reducing sellbacks.

 

It's only the fact that characteristics (and a very few other abilities - running and swimming, for example) are arbitrarily pre-assigned to characters, rather than having to be purchased from nil, that makes a "sellback" any different from a "decision not to purchase more".

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

sounds like what i heard.. .again i dont have FH5 but what i understood as one of their option, one seeming to get faily common acceptance or maybe be the one chosen for their fantasy settings.. not sure... was to just divide magic costs by 3-5.

 

IMX back in 4e the best (played balanced and was fun for players) magic system i used was to have a few "serious" lims attached to spells for "style of magic" yet allow multipowers as the main method for purchasing spells. This made the "up front cost" for "magical might" fairly noteworthy but left the price for "each spell" very very cheap. This managed to simulate the mage who can know a lot of spells but not know how to do a lot of other things and keep costs reasonable. By the last Fh game, i had it distilled down to "magical ranks" and "schools" fairly well and so the design work for mages was kept low, since the game was for quite a few newbies.

 

but the new idea amuses me somewhat, especially hen discussion of how pivotal real points are to balance comes into play... buy +3" running for 6 cp or buy a "feet dont fail me now" spell granting +9" for 6 cp, assuming no lims on either? but i may not be understanding it fully not having the book and all.

Bear in mind it's one idea among many, to be fair. I think FH is quite a good book, actually, strangely enough my favorite among the genra books even though I don't really run Fantasy (but the ideas in FH were quite applicable to many magic situations and Urban Fantasy).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

I think this divide by 3-5 thing is in reference to an option for magic' date=' specifically, where that is not open to all characters and magic-users will tend to be less effective compared to others given their lack of usefulness with traditional combat skills. Unless of course you're referring to something else.[/quote']

 

sounds like what i heard.. .again i dont have FH5 but what i understood as one of their option, one seeming to get faily common acceptance or maybe be the one chosen for their fantasy settings.. not sure... was to just divide magic costs by 3-5.

 

IMX back in 4e the best (played balanced and was fun for players) magic system i used was to have a few "serious" lims attached to spells for "style of magic" yet allow multipowers as the main method for purchasing spells. This made the "up front cost" for "magical might" fairly noteworthy but left the price for "each spell" very very cheap. This managed to simulate the mage who can know a lot of spells but not know how to do a lot of other things and keep costs reasonable. By the last Fh game, i had it distilled down to "magical ranks" and "schools" fairly well and so the design work for mages was kept low, since the game was for quite a few newbies.

 

In large part, the "divide by 3" approach appears to me to have been adopted in lieu of allowing wizards to buy their spells in frameworks. The two do have similar results (providing a magic using character the opportunity to have a reasonable variety of spells). However, from what I've seen (and it's limited) it has different results in play.

 

The divide by three approach better encourages spells of varying AP totals. If I have a 60 AP multipower, why take a 6d6 Flash instead of a 12d6 Flash? I'm not saving any points to speak of. If, instead, I divide the real cost by three, a wide array of AP totals becomes more viable.

 

For those so inclined, the divide by three approach also facilitates high AP, low utility spells (that powerful spell that requires munerous expendable rare components, can only be cast on the Summer Equinox, requires three days' work to prepare and cast, needs a dozen lesser mages to contribute, etc.) which are virtually impossible under an MP system because no MP has that kind of AP number.

 

but the new idea amuses me somewhat' date=' especially when discussion of how pivotal real points are to balance comes into play... buy +3" running for 6 cp or buy a "feet dont fail me now" spell granting +9" for 6 cp, assuming no lims on either? but i may not be understanding it fully not having the book and all.[/quote']

 

This is one issue where I'd be interested in hearing from playtesters. One concern raised has been that wizards get to lower their costs of "special abilities", but warriors' special weapon skills don't get a price break, for example.

 

I think one reason this may work better in a fantasy game than in other genres is the prevelance of a single SFX - Magic. Once you make it a spell, any Dispel Magic, Supress Magic or Drain Magic power works on it - so a lot of characters will have the ability to adjustmagic. No single SFX is that prevelant in the Supers genre, or in most other genre that springs to mind (maybe cybernetics in a cyberpunk game?).

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

In large part, the "divide by 3" approach appears to me to have been adopted in lieu of allowing wizards to buy their spells in frameworks. The two do have similar results (providing a magic using character the opportunity to have a reasonable variety of spells). However, from what I've seen (and it's limited) it has different results in play.

 

The divide by three approach better encourages spells of varying AP totals. If I have a 60 AP multipower, why take a 6d6 Flash instead of a 12d6 Flash? I'm not saving any points to speak of. If, instead, I divide the real cost by three, a wide array of AP totals becomes more viable.

 

For those so inclined, the divide by three approach also facilitates high AP, low utility spells (that powerful spell that requires munerous expendable rare components, can only be cast on the Summer Equinox, requires three days' work to prepare and cast, needs a dozen lesser mages to contribute, etc.) which are virtually impossible under an MP system because no MP has that kind of AP number.

 

 

 

This is one issue where I'd be interested in hearing from playtesters. One concern raised has been that wizards get to lower their costs of "special abilities", but warriors' special weapon skills don't get a price break, for example.

 

I think one reason this may work better in a fantasy game than in other genres is the prevelance of a single SFX - Magic. Once you make it a spell, any Dispel Magic, Supress Magic or Drain Magic power works on it - so a lot of characters will have the ability to adjustmagic. No single SFX is that prevelant in the Supers genre, or in most other genre that springs to mind (maybe cybernetics in a cyberpunk game?).

I suspect but don't know that a lot of the balance should be fine if the warrior types are regularly getting special gear as ongoing equipment booty.

 

Now totally off topic, but maybe an easy thing would be to use Resource Points as presented in Dark Champions and vary the amount by character "class" (of course, this assumes a somewhat D&D-ish fantasy game - but that's so common and IMHO the "divide by 3" thing is more for those kinds of games, so it might work).

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

Bear in mind it's one idea among many' date=' to be fair. I think FH is quite a good book, actually, strangely enough my favorite among the genra books even though I don't really run Fantasy (but the ideas in FH were quite applicable to many magic situations and Urban Fantasy).[/quote']

 

thatsdefinitely a recommendation and it does keep lulling me towards a buy, but the other two genre books and repeated comments about "you bought the wrong thing silly" made me swear off them.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

thatsdefinitely a recommendation and it does keep lulling me towards a buy' date=' but the other two genre books and repeated comments about "you bought the wrong thing silly" made me swear off them.[/quote']

Ah, I can understand. Feel free if/when you like to PM or email and ask any questions about FH and I will be glad to answer to help figure out if it's really what you want (in general I think the genre books are tricky buys; I like all I've read to one degree or another, but the content varies and I can definitely see where some of those books don't match to what people have expected).

 

I saw you mentioned Star Hero - so SH and what was the other one, if you don't mind? Just curious.

[tesuji]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

the supers one...champions iirc the name.

[zornwil]

Re: Game Play Concept: No Limitations

 

the supers one...champions iirc the name.

Ah, okay, thanks.

 

PS - while I liked both of those books okay, I do think FH is a definite cut above and generally much more useful in mechanical options and character build input