System cap on creativity

[Sean Waters]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Surely creativity is most needed when restriction is greatest?

 

If so Hero does cap creativity by giving so many options, but given sufficient points there is very little that you can not do or at elast get close enough to for government work.

 

The problem is that there is a perception that Hero can do anything you can imagine, and I often have to say to new players: well it can, pretty much, it is just that your character is not experienced enough to fill the Supreme Being role just yet...

[stmichaeldet]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Well, no system worth playing is going to be able to do everything well; hell, Godel proved that long before anyone even thought of running a role playing game. HERO's mechanics produce highly defined and detailed descriptions of a characters powers and abilities. Therefore, open-ended concepts (like a shapeshifter who can change into virtually anything and take on all the abilities of the form) or the vague, subjective effects of a magical realism setting are going to be impractical, at best, to implement, and some exceptional circumstances that seem sensible in practice (like our stretching character with two targets in the discussion above) will turn out to be just beyond the scope of the rules-as-written. On the other hand, a less detailed and more open-ended system (like, say, FUDGE) deals with those things quite well, but won't give you any help if you need to nail down the specifics on someone's power and make it stick, and won't give you the granularity to make every power and effect unique in their implementation.

 

I think it's just something you have to learn to live with - ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice. In my case, I try to figure out what sort of tone I'm going for in a campaign, and choose my system accordingly. Then, I just hope my players are wise enough to put some effort into syncing their concepts with the strengths and limitations of the system, and save the concept that would need extensive shoehorning for another campaign with a more compatible tone. (Doesn't always work out that way, though.)

[BoneDaddy]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

The arrow trick is a power trick requiring a held action. Robyn's archer would target the other arrow (a focus) and the opposing archer. It could be modeled as a sweep, but suffice it to say it would take one hell of a good shot. It happens to do the same thing as missle deflection, but I'm guessing it will be a rare enough occurence that it doesn't really need to be statted out. Additionally, it isn't like she can do this trick with any other form of missile except maybe rotten fruit. Unless her archer's stage act goes horribly awry I don't see it as too much of an issue, and it's cinematic as all get out, so I'd find a way to let her try it if I was the GM. We're here to have fun, remember.

 

As for the general nature of the original topic, there are some things Hero does not do well, and for those things there is Transform. I usually find transform to be the last refuge of the creative power idea. I have wanted for years to come up with a better way to hex an opponent with a little unluck (or even a lot of it) than transform, but so far, no dice. The best way I can come up with to model it requires a lot of bookkeeping for the GM, and vigorous use of transform.

[Sean Waters]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Well, no system worth playing is going to be able to do everything well; hell, Godel proved that long before anyone even thought of running a role playing game. HERO's mechanics produce highly defined and detailed descriptions of a characters powers and abilities. Therefore, open-ended concepts (like a shapeshifter who can change into virtually anything and take on all the abilities of the form) or the vague, subjective effects of a magical realism setting are going to be impractical, at best, to implement, and some exceptional circumstances that seem sensible in practice (like our stretching character with two targets in the discussion above) will turn out to be just beyond the scope of the rules-as-written. On the other hand, a less detailed and more open-ended system (like, say, FUDGE) deals with those things quite well, but won't give you any help if you need to nail down the specifics on someone's power and make it stick, and won't give you the granularity to make every power and effect unique in their implementation.

 

I think it's just something you have to learn to live with - ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice. In my case, I try to figure out what sort of tone I'm going for in a campaign, and choose my system accordingly. Then, I just hope my players are wise enough to put some effort into syncing their concepts with the strengths and limitations of the system, and save the concept that would need extensive shoehorning for another campaign with a more compatible tone. (Doesn't always work out that way, though.)

 

I agree with this but would argue that the system has the ability to shore up its own shortcomings - it just does not advertise that it can. The point (or at least one major point) about Hero is an attempt at balance. If that is not important in your game, or if you have decided to broaden the definition, then Hero has the ability to do an awful lot.

 

For instance, if you want to be able to stretch to both sides of your radius of stretching and attack two targets (or the 'hit an arrow in flight AND the archer' thing), we have the Power Skill: I'd like to see an awful lot more made of this. Personally I'd require anyone who wanted to do 'power tricks' to have the skill, and do so for either each power, or each group of powers linked by a close sfx (with additional levels costing 2 points or 1 point for a SINGLE power). I would not base it on any characteristic, but make it a base 11-, and I might, for some games, allow a familiarity as an everyman skill.

 

The other thing you can do (as I was reminded on anther thread by Doc Democracy), is set camapign rules: so for instance you can have a very open ended magic system, if you want - perhaps (as Bone Daddy suggests) you base the entire thing on transform.

 

Here's a very quick and open magic system off the top of my head:

 

All magic is considered a transform, and you buy it as such. All transform (magic) powers have to be bought as RSR (Requires Skill Roll) and the skill depends on the effect you are after: you have to buy one or more skills with types of magic: attacks, protection, mind constrol, whatever.

 

The GM will determine the 'Body' of the effect you are trying to achaive and you need to acheive that effect as a single ongoing action (so, for instance, if you have an effect like 'create magical barrier, that the GM decides will take 12 BODY to erect, you need to either roll that 12 BODY in one go or on consecutive phases - you can not stop and do soemthing else or the magic does not work).

 

For damaging spells, which would normally be build with EB or RKA, assume that each 1 BODY of effect = 1 DC of damage as a guideline, and for defensive spells, each 1 BODY = 2 resistant or 1 normal defence. For other effects, 1 BODY generally equals about 5 active points of power.

 

The GM can set limits on the power of any one spell or on the total power of spells running at one time (for example you cannot attempt a spell where the RSR roll is less than 11-, or have more than 30 points of transform in effect at one time).

 

The GM may waive the requirement that transform cannot be used to affect the user, but you can never use a spell to increase your own magical power or that of another EXCEPT if you use a spell to transfer magical power to another.

 

You can buy your transform at the 5, 10 or 15 point level. generally attack and damage spells can be created with a 10 point (minor) transform, illusions with a 5 point transform and other effects at the GM's discretion.

 

You cannot buy magic transform in any kind of framework.

 

There you go. Arguably that is not Hero at all BUT it uses the basic framework of power balancing, allows effects on the fly with a consistent mechanic, also in-system - and still tastes like Hero to me. Absolutely wrong for a lot of campaigns, but for the right one - magic being powerful and pervasive - it sounds about right.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Just remembered another thing that Hero won't allow you to do with the current rules, even though you may see it in the source material.

 

Character tunnels through a large monster.

 

The curent rules specifically forbids a character from using the Power Tunneling to affect a non-object target.

 

And if the character is supposed to be a non-attack type character and only is supposed to have a tunneling ability (but source material shows they can use it as an attack vs large creatures), then it becomes difficult to build without some odd advantages or limitations.

 

- Chrstopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

But rules are optional, and the player could model "tunneling through a monster" with a proper attack power.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

But rules are optional

This is a philosophical viewpoint. There are those that say that the core rules are not optional, and that additional optional rules are applied on top of these. So your premise is based on a viewpoint and will not be viable for those that hold the other viewpoint.

 

Just as Robyn views custom Limitations as part of core rules as opposed to custom Advantages that Robyn views as not part of core rules. If someone who has the viewpoint that Advantages are part of core rules and tries to prove that the core rules handles a situation with a custom Advantage will fail to convince Robyn, who doesn't have the same viewpoint.

 

' date=' and the player could model "tunneling through a monster" with a proper attack power.[/quote']

But this doesn't address the point. The rules don't allow for Tunneling to be used on a non-object target, even if the use of power does no damage on the target by SFX definition. The rule fobids it, so you can't use Tunneling.

 

You are addressing SFX that would entail doing damage to the target. Although this may be the more common of the SFX, there are others where no damage is done the target. So the system still has trouble with these specific types of effects.

 

Does this mean the GM can't get around this restriction? No.

Does this mean the rules can't be used in an indirect/convoluted manner to get somethng close to what the SFX requires? No.

 

Just that the most obvious and simple build (Tunneling) isn't available due to a specific restriction defined by the rules.

 

But for the most common SFX, tunneling through a monster would usually suggest damage being done to the creature and thus the character would have to be built with an attack anyway, but since attacks occur after movement in the rules, simulating this becomes clunky for an attack power by itself. Tunneling linked to an Attack would be the most legal build. But if you already doing damage to create a hole, then there is no reason to have the Tunneling Power anyway.

 

Optional Solution: [thread=49683]Tunneling Maneuver[/thread]

This is less clunky than an Attack by itself, yet doesn't suffer the oddities of Tunneling when used on a non-object target.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

This is a philosophical viewpoint. There are those that say that the core rules are not optional, and that additional optional rules are applied on top of these.

 

But this doesn't address the point. The rules don't allow for Tunneling to be used on a non-object target, even if the use of power does no damage on the target by SFX definition. The rule fobids it, so you can't use Tunneling.

 

You are addressing SFX that would entail doing damage to the target. Although this may be the more common of the SFX, there are others where no damage is done the target. So the system still has trouble with these specific types of effects.

 

 

I'm sorry, I thought the fact that HERO is a "toolkit" meant exactly like that? Was I mistaken? (No sarcasm here, sincere question).

 

I would say that your second and third paragraphs, especially the final sentence of the third paragraph, contradict. Is the point that the rules impose limitations because of balance, and thus parts of the system cannot do certain things? Or is the point that the system can't create certain effects easily? Because if the goal is to create a desired effect, then my proposed solution does exactly that. Simply put, I wasn't addressing SFX, I was addressing the effect itself. Although this is getting close to semantics.... and I'm not being my most.... comprehensible, I'm sure. Haha, you could almost call the constructs we use to model things in HERO system to be SFX for effects we which to achieve. Some "SFX" are more appropriate.

 

Overall, I think I'm addressing the idea of "Character is temporarily occupying a space WITHIN target," which is best represented by an Attack rather than a nondamage Tunneling.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

I'm sorry' date=' I thought the fact that HERO is a "toolkit" meant exactly like that? Was I mistaken? (No sarcasm here, sincere question).[/quote']

Well, to you, that is what it means. I was pointing out that other people don't think that it means that. As far as I know, Steve Long hasn't stated any specific definitions or restrictions on what "Ultimate Toolkit" is suppose to infer. It is left to the reader to figure out what that means. You infer one meaning, others infer something else. That is why there are so many debates on these boards over the rules. Not everyone agrees on meaning.

 

[thread=51544]Game Philosophies[/thread]

 

I would say that your second and third paragraphs' date=' especially the final sentence of the third paragraph, contradict.[/quote']

They only contradict if you believe there is only one true view as to how the rules can be inferred.

 

I pointed out that there are specific SFX that would suggest that one should use the Tunneling power, but the rules forbid that particular use.

 

Then I pointed out that there are other SFX that would suggest that an Attack or Attack/Tunneling combination (book legal) should be used even if somewhat clunky.

 

Then I pointed out a possible optional mechanic (Book Legal or Not Book Legal depending on one's viewpoint) that may be more consistent in application for the SFX you proposed (better than Tunneling or an Attack in my opinion). But whether it is considered Book Legal will depend on the reader's own viewpoint on what "toolkit" actually means.

 

Overall' date=' I think I'm addressing the idea of "Character is temporarily occupying a space WITHIN target," which is best represented by an Attack rather than a nondamage Tunneling.[/quote']

Actually, Tunneling is the better at the effect of "Temporarily occupying a space within a target that causes no damage" than an Attack which causes damage. You seemed to gloss over the specific effect I was talking about even though I addressed both yours and mine.

 

It would seem to agree with me then that if the effect causes damage then an Attack power would seem to fit better. But you still haven't addressed the effect that causes no damage while tunneling through a creature. Which was my original point (which I obviously poorly expressed).

 

- Christopher Mullins

[radioKAOS]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Couple of fixes:

 

1. For the original problem, archer shooting at you you fire back destroying his arrow and hitting him:

 

Missile deflection is an attack action and so I can see no reason you cannot sweep MPA targetting the arrow and the archer: basically the MPA allows you to use both the Missile Deflection and a RKA simultaneously and the sweep allows you multiple targets. Now this is OK and works fine if you have a held action. If you don't then you can't really do it without a little handwaving and a ranged MD targetted at the point of origin of the attack (i.e. the archer) with a triggered one hex aoe accurate RKA (to hit the archer). You need triggered to get around the problem of circumventing the rule about not doing damage with an abort action. I would be wary of allowing it but it is perfectly rules legal.

 

Ok, so you can't actually do this with missile Deflection, and pardon my not reading the thread that originated this question, but it seems to me that you could MPA sweep with a Dispel to get rid of the attack, no?

[radioKAOS]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

It would seem to agree with me then that if the effect causes damage then an Attack power would seem to fit better. But you still haven't addressed the effect that causes no damage while tunneling through a creature. Which was my original point (which I obviously poorly expressed).

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

You can tunnel through a creature without doing damage??? Wow.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

I've read this complete thread and all I can say is this. It is all a matter of how one looks at the basic rule-set. If your GM allows it....it is legal.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

You can tunnel through a creature without doing damage??? Wow.

Perhaps you missed the original question that started this thread. Just because you haven't thought of a "creative" way to Tunnel through something without damage doesn't mean someone hasn't or won't. The question was what things (creative ideas) does the system not allow.

 

Sorry if the idea I brought forth is not within the realm of your campaigns, but it might be anothers, so it is a valid concept.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

I've read this complete thread and all I can say is this. It is all a matter of how one looks at the basic rule-set. If your GM allows it....it is legal.

Pretty much what I said in a previous post.

 

If the GM allows it, it is legal.

If the GM does not allow it, it is illegal.

 

Both are valid.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[radioKAOS]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Perhaps you missed the original question that started this thread. Just because you haven't thought of a "creative" way to Tunnel through something without damage doesn't mean someone hasn't or won't. The question was what things (creative ideas) does the system not allow.

 

Sorry if the idea I brought forth is not within the realm of your campaigns, but it might be anothers, so it is a valid concept.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Well then.

 

It all depends on what you're trying to achieve. I haven't found a concept that I couldn't model yet. Even if I thought it silly.

 

A transform can easily make the monster have a hole in it.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Well then.

 

It all depends on what you're trying to achieve. I haven't found a concept that I couldn't model yet. Even if I thought it silly.

 

A transform can easily make the monster have a hole in it.

Which goes right back to the GM and his viewpoint on the system.

If the Gm allows Transform to be used in this unconventional way, then the system supports it.

If the GM allows Transform to not be used in this unconventional way, then the system does not support it.

 

And the question becomes, should a simple non-damaging tunnel concept require the use of a Stop Sign power?

 

But that is more a system design question.

 

- Christopher Mullilns

[radioKAOS]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Which goes right back to the GM and his viewpoint on the system.

If the Gm allows Transform to be used in this unconventional way, then the system supports it.

If the GM allows Transform to not be used in this unconventional way, then the system does not support it.

 

And the question becomes, should a simple non-damaging tunnel concept require the use of a Stop Sign power?

 

But that is more a system design question.

 

- Christopher Mullilns

 

Ok, but what are you trying to do with this effect? Tunneling is a movement power, it is not a 'create a tunnel' power. It has that effect, yes, but it is used to move through the ground. If you are trying to create a hole in an otherwise normal monster, then I'd rule that as a transform. If you are just trying to move through a monster without hurting it, desolid might be the way to go.

 

Just my 2AP.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Ok, but what are you trying to do with this effect? Tunneling is a movement power, it is not a 'create a tunnel' power. It has that effect, yes, but it is used to move through the ground. If you are trying to create a hole in an otherwise normal monster, then I'd rule that as a transform. If you are just trying to move through a monster without hurting it, desolid might be the way to go.

 

Just my 2AP.

I'm not trying to do anything with this effect.

 

As far Desolid goes, it doesn't fit the effect, since I never said that character who is tunneling is immune to any damage nor unable to attack while tunneling. So Desolid doesn't fit the effect at all.

 

Robyn asked for ideas that the system would by design tend to inhibit from being created. I was simply pointing out one concept that could be easily built with Tunneling but may not be built with Tunneling (due to specific prohibition against it). So one would have to figure out some odd unconventional way to do it.

 

And based on comments on his own viewpoint concerning the rules, this would probably be one of the things that the system would tend to work against being built (based on his viewpoint on the rules).

 

That's all. Nothing earthshattering. Not trying to imply that the GM can't overcome anything that would be "difficult" to build. Just that the current rules in this situation forbids an optimal way to build something. The GM can easily ignore that restriction, but that isn't what Robyn was asking for.

 

I'll leave it to Robyn to ultimately decide if this concept is "difficult" with the current rules or not.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Here another concept that caused me to create a thread about creating a mechanic to fill the need of that concept. I'm not sure the concept was common enough to warrant an inclusion of a new mechanic but nothing in the rules quite fit what the poster was wanting.

 

[thread=29801]Adjustment Reserve[/thread]

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

If the Gm allows Transform to be used in this unconventional way, then the system supports it.

If the GM allows Transform to not be used in this unconventional way, then the system does not support it.

 

 

Hm... this seems to imply that the system supports it, it's a question of whether or not the GM supports it. Therefore, the limitation lies within the GM, not the system. Which is fine.

 

Not trying to imply that the GM can't overcome anything that would be "difficult" to build. Just that the current rules in this situation forbids an optimal way to build something. The GM can easily ignore that restriction, but that isn't what Robyn was asking for.

 

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Using your earlier point, I think this argument is negated. The rules don't forbid an optimal way of building something: it's the GM. Which, might be the best call in the name of game balance.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Hm... this seems to imply that the system supports it' date=' it's a question of whether or not the GM supports it. Therefore, the limitation lies within the GM, not the system. Which is fine.[/quote']

No, this simply shows that the GM has the power to trump any rule even if the rules say that the GM may not trump the rules.

 

A GM is not prevented from using a game that has rules designed for a Western Genre game in order to run a Science Fiction or Mystic Alien World game.

 

Does this mean the Western Genre game supports Science Fiction or Mystic Alien World games? Of course not, but you seem to have jumped to that conclusion with my two statements.

 

Your logic doesn't follow.

 

Using your earlier point' date=' I think this argument is negated. The rules don't forbid an optimal way of building something: it's the GM. Which, might be the best call in the name of game balance.[/quote']

Game balance is in the control of the GM in spite of the rules. There are GMs who allow Desolid characters to use STR normally and still run a balanced game, in spite of the rules.

 

And you are incorrect, the GM didn't forbid the use of Tunneling against characters, the core rules did, and they didn't give any standard option or adder/advantage to overcome that restriction. And since the GM would have to either have to add an Adder/Advantage or simply overrule the definition of Tunneling, Robyn will probably not consider those as part of the core rules.

 

I am not trying to convince anybody of anything here. I'm offering up possible concepts that Robyn asked for. It is Robyn who must decide whether these are considered "not supported" by the rules or they are considered "supported" by the rules.

 

If you want to discuss the merits of different viewpoints considering the rules, you should discuss it with Robyn who created this thread.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

No, this simply shows that the GM has the power to trump any rule even if the rules say that the GM may not trump the rules.

 

 

Your logic doesn't follow.

 

 

Game balance is in the control of the GM in spite of the rules.

 

 

Except the rules specifically state that the GM holds the power to trump the rules. Always.

 

Actually, my logic does follow. Yours is self-contradicting. You posit a situation in which the variable was the GM, not the system, and then identified the system as the cause of the different results. The system did not change between the examples, the GM did. Therefore, it couldn't be the system. The logical conclusion is that the GM is what led to the different results, and thus the GM is the source of the issue. Which is fine.

 

The third quoted part ties back up to my first repsone: game balance is in control of the GM BECAUSE of the rules. That is essentially the role of the GM, when you boil it down. Some sort of neutral arbiter who helps facilitate everyone's fun.

[schir1964]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Except the rules specifically state that the GM holds the power to trump the rules. Always.

Except when the GM says it doesn't. It still holds true. (8^D)

And besides, the rules also state that GM may create any new mechanic (whole cloth if needed) in order to fill any gaps or get a certain feel for the game they want. But I don't see many on these boards supporting that, in fact, many seem to discourage such attempts.

 

But this is all completely outside the original posters request. It has be clarified that wants of examples for situations where the rules (that are actually written in the pages, not made up ones by the GM) would inhibit certain builds. And he has also stated the he sees Limitations an exception to the "made up" rules by the GM.

 

I don't know why you are arguing with Robyn when he hasn't even responded to your questions.

 

Actually' date=' my logic does follow. Yours is self-contradicting.[/quote']

Feel free to try to convince that is true, but I don't know why you are even bothering with line of discussion. You haven't presented anything to support your statements above.

 

You posit a situation in which the variable was the GM' date=' not the system, and then identified the system as the cause of the different results.[/quote']

Again, you've either forgotten where this discussion came from or don't know the context of that post in totality. I didn't posit anything. I was responding someone elses "positing" of using Transform instead of the more appropriate designed power Tunneling. If you wish to skew this into something else, then there is nothing to talk about. All you are doing is trying to change the focus of my post that was made for Robyns benefit, not yours.

 

The system did not change between the examples' date=' the GM did.[/quote']

Only if you presume the dicussion was about Transform, which it wasn't, it was about Tunneling. Feel free to continue this line of though by yourself.

 

Therefore...

The rest of paragraph was made moot by my clarification above. No point in discussing it.

 

The third quoted part ties back up to my first repsone: game balance is in control of the GM BECAUSE of the rules. That is essentially the role of the GM' date=' when you boil it down. Some sort of neutral arbiter who helps facilitate everyone's fun.[/quote']

Only if you presume that the rules can create balance when used as written by themselves, which of course is absurd.

 

The GM on the other hand can create balance regardless of the rules. But if that is what you believe, that's fine.

 

Good Gaming

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Manic Typist]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

Have I done something to offend you, Schir1964? If so, please inform me. I am getting an impression of hostility and well... perhaps condescendcion... and I would like to know what I have done to earn such enimity (if it exists. I might be misreading the situation entirely).

 

 

Except when the GM says it doesn't. It still holds true. (8^D)

 

 

I don't know why you are arguing with Robyn when he hasn't even responded to your questions.

 

 

Feel free to try to convince that is true, but I don't know why you are even bothering with line of discussion. You haven't presented anything to support your statements above.

 

 

All you are doing is trying to change the focus of my post that was made for Robyns benefit, not yours.

 

The system did not change between the examples' date=' the GM did.[/quote']

Only if you presume the dicussion was about Transform, which it wasn't, it was about Tunneling. Feel free to continue this line of though by yourself.

 

 

 

Only if you presume that the rules can create balance when used as written by themselves, which of course is absurd.

 

The GM on the other hand can create balance regardless of the rules. But if that is what you believe, that's fine.

 

It is of course the prerogative of a GM to make his game less flexible if he so chooses. That is fine, of course. Maybe the players and GM are more comfortable with a more strict, less.... fluid/nebulous framework.

 

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, and anyone else who would care to contribute as well.

 

Actually, I did. I referenced your statement "If the Gm allows Transform to be used in this unconventional way, then the system supports it.

If the GM allows Transform to not be used in this unconventional way, then the system does not support it." You chose to interpret that as applying only to Transform, when I had applied it to the system as a whole. Basically, your statement isn't true for just Transform- it's true for the entire system. If the GM chooses to allow Tunneling in such an unusual manner, then the system is fine with it. If he chooses not to, then it's not. If he chooses to use EB, or Knockback, or whatever... etc et al and ad infinitum. Again, you (to my perception, perhaps it is a flawed perception) take the position that the system does limit creativity. Yet your words identify that the limitation stems from the GM, not the system.

 

All I was doing was pointing out that at least some of what you were saying was actually contradicting, not supporting, your other arguments. Also, sayin that the post was "for Robyn" contributes nothing to the conversation and just acts as a dismissal with a false basis. If you meant it was "for Robyn's benefit and no one else's," then you would have PMed him. Since you put this on a public forum, you were offering it for consideration by all. So, I have as much of a right to speak in regards to the issue and examples as Robyn.

 

Of course it's absurd. That's why the HERO system has this built into it. To encourage the creation of such balance.

 

Please, please don't try to make it appear that I am supporting a position that I am not, especially when I clearly indicate that I favor the opposite position. I believe that the GM is crucial to creating game balance. In some systems, the GM must create balance in spite of the rules. In some games, the GM actually has very little official control over the rules. I agree with you there. However, I contend that HERO is not one of those systems. HERO encourages the GM to establish this balance.

[Shike019]

Re: System cap on creativity

 

I've only found one group of concepts that the current rules do not allow and as far as I know, no GM has overruled, even on these boards.

 

Concept:

Character can shoot an ice blast (narrow beam) and a fire blast (narrow beam). Character aims at two different targets (one on the left at long range and one on the right at long range) simultaneously. Both targets are within range of the two attacks he possesses.

 

You can change the description of the powers in questions, but as long as the properties ot those attacks are the same and situation is the same, it is basically the same concept regardless of description. Two different attacks, two different targets, simultaneous attack.

 

This kind of thing happens in the source material, but the current rules do not allow for this kind of event. It allows for two attacks on the same target and allows for one attack against multiple targets.

 

Now you also claim that the system doesn't allow for Absolute Defense vs SFX, but then you have to define exactly what Absolute Defense actually means and if that definition can be achieved for a specific campaign.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Ahem ... What about the Two Weapon Fighting (ranged) Skill?