(Rant) Reasoning from effect

[JmOz]

Okay this is a rant

 

Basicaly I am getting tired of something, when we gather to talk about the rules we tend to start thinking in mechanics not in effect

 

An example of what I am talking about is the idea that Foci can not be used in variable limitations without risking your powers being taken away. Well should that not in some small (Actualy huge part) be based on the F/X of the power in question, not a "this mechanic is wrong"

 

For instance if I was asked to point up a version of the X-Men Cyclops then I would perfer to use a Variable Limitaion (-1/4, requires -1/2)

 

the list that would go with it is: always on, Side Effects: Blind, OIF: Visor, or IAF: Sunglasses. Now this is from looking at the desired effect and basing the power build on it instead.

 

We all fall into this trap, mechanics should be there to help define the effect, not rigidly lock them in

[ghost-angel]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

That's a good build.

 

I often forget about Variable Limitation and making it work for me to create Effects.

 

Personally, I look at Mechanics as the tool to get me what I want. If it's not what I want I have used the Mechanics incorrectly and must adjust accordingly.

 

I do not, however, decide that my Effects must line up to the Mechanic I'm using. The Mechanic must line up to the Effect I desire.

 

Which is why I believe that in a Game you should define certain Effects with a Mechanic so players and GM alike have not only a common base to work from but that when they go to achieve an Effect the Mechanics line up to achieve the Effect desired.

[ghost-angel]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Now this has got me thinking, because sometimes there is miscommunication and misunderstandings when talking Effect and Mechanics.

 

To take the recent thread of making the invisible visible.

 

There are two major talking points. Invisibility as a Power and Invisibility as an Effect.

 

Working from the idea that Invisibility Power needs to be negated, then we are at a Mechanic level and Effect has little meaning.

 

Working from the idea that Invisibility Effect needs to be negated, well, we can come up with a dozen Effects to achieve this, but must first step up to the Mechanic/Power level to accomplish it.

 

First, we must know how the Invisibility Effect is being modeled Mechanically. Is it using Invisibility Power (and obvious, but not necessarily the correct or only, choice), or some other Power?

 

To determine the Mechanic we must turn to the GM and ask, "I wish to create an Effect that will help me see, or otherwise negate, someone who has become invisible to sight. I have an idea of ways to do this, but first I must know how the Invisibility Effect is being modeled."

 

The GM then must, for the effect of cohesion, make his Game transparent to his Players (a good idea for cooperation) or create the build, then tell Player the cost, "Write down, Fairy Dust Spell on your character, it costs X points." and other pertinent information.

[JmOz]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

That touches on my point, Why do drains effect a power instead of an effect at base level?

 

If I make a power that sees invisibility then it should work vs +10 stealth or Invisibility the power, etc...

 

If the rules need bending to get the stated effect then so be it

[Nolgroth]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Reasoning from effect is a wonderful tool, but it does spark my OCD something fierce. This is especially true of using HERO to model another game system. During the early days of Gemini Ascendant, I reasoned from the Star Frontiers rules that all energy weapons would be ran from END Reserves as opposed to Charges. Practical play did not justify this cumbersome build and I ended up switching to Charges at a later time.

 

I'm not saying that Reasoning from Effect is bad. In fact, it is the most valuable advice one can get. For me anyway, I have to be real careful not to become obsessed with the process.

 

And to ghost-angel, go ahead and put the Armageddon spell on your character sheet. It's a 0 point ability. (Funny only if you are familiar with the old Ultima series of games. )

[ghost-angel]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

That touches on my point, Why do drains effect a power instead of an effect at base level?

 

If I make a power that sees invisibility then it should work vs +10 stealth or Invisibility the power, etc...

 

If the rules need bending to get the stated effect then so be it

 

Dispel does work against any Effect.

 

Note: 5ER p149 sidebar example: Dispel Magic.

 

It happens to be a +1/4 Advantage on Dispel. Effectively, Any Power of a given Effect, one at a time.

 

Whether switching from One Power, Any Effect to One Effect, Any Power is a +1/4 Advantage or not us up to you. It may very well not be.

 

(Nolgroth, Vas Kal An Mani In Corp Hur Tym and I'll need some Blackrock)

(edit: Oh, and does this mean I have to change my name to Zog?)

[JmOz]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Dispel does work against any Effect.

 

Note: 5ER p149 sidebar example: Dispel Magic.

 

It happens to be a +1/4 Advantage on Dispel. Effectively, Any Power of a given Effect, one at a time.

 

Whether switching from One Power, Any Effect to One Effect, Any Power is a +1/4 Advantage or not us up to you. It may very well not be.

 

(Nolgroth, Vas Kal An Mani In Corp Hur Tym and I'll need some Blackrock)

(edit: Oh, and does this mean I have to change my name to Zog?)

 

thus the comment "base level", meaning no advantages

[Rapier]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

I often forget about Variable Limitation and making it work for me to create Effects.

 

I fall into the same category. I ROUTINELY forget about Variable (Advantage and Limitation). There are a number of builds where a single Variable would be more appropriate than an MP or something similar.

 

Hopefully, this will force Variable to the front of my mind so I'm a little more diligent in its use.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Variable Limitation has some serious down sides in that some lim options taken inside it can effectively be negated by circumstance and thus never be very limiting (or at all).

 

If the player can't control which Lim is currently in effect on the other hand its much more limiting and basically works.

 

And Cyclops is, IMO, best modeled with a Partially Limited Buyoff on the Always On Limitation as demonstrated in the sidebar of Champions on page 18 ("Uncontrollable Eye Beams").

[ghost-angel]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

I would say if the Variable Limitation is mostly dictated by circumstance that should put it enough in the GMs hands to warrant a good portion of them useful.

 

For instance: Incantations & Gestures, Extra END, Expendable Focus.

You have to choose one. I&G may not be the best choice for discreet uses, ExtraEND would be. Expendable Focus could make it both easy and sneaky but that item might be rare and harder to acquire.

 

I would say that there are indeed times where the Limitations possible with Variable Limitation are not worth as many points were they strait Limitations.

 

Of course, you're also getting half the cost break on the possible limitation. Incantations & Gestures are worth -1/2 together, put into a Variable Limitation and you're only getting -1/4, basically the price break for one of them but you have to take both.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Considering the number of times I've seen Steve Long bend his own default rule mechanics in published 5E builds to model an interesting and appropriate effect, I don't feel too bad about doing it for my own games. In fact my upcoming Digital Hero article contains three such instances, although like Steve I note where the construct departs from orthodoxy, so people can change it for their own games if they prefer.

[JmOz]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

this really is not about VarLim, but rather mechanic before effect thinking, VarLim is just one example, the fact that I need to put a +1/4 on adjustment powers to be useable vs Fireblasts, because Fireblasts could be EB or RKA is another, there is alot of others...

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

I would say if the Variable Limitation is mostly dictated by circumstance that should put it enough in the GMs hands to warrant a good portion of them useful.

 

For instance: Incantations & Gestures, Extra END, Expendable Focus.

You have to choose one. I&G may not be the best choice for discreet uses, ExtraEND would be. Expendable Focus could make it both easy and sneaky but that item might be rare and harder to acquire.

 

I would say that there are indeed times where the Limitations possible with Variable Limitation are not worth as many points were they strait Limitations.

 

Of course, you're also getting half the cost break on the possible limitation. Incantations & Gestures are worth -1/2 together, put into a Variable Limitation and you're only getting -1/4, basically the price break for one of them but you have to take both.

But consider, Incantations & Gestures are mostly limiting because you can be restrained and prevented from using them, and also occasionally they will inconvenience you (such as if you have your hands full, or if talking would be ill advised), and also offer a clear indication that you are doing "something".

 

If you have the ability to opt to just pay extra END whenever any of those situations are true, did it really truly limit you in a significant fashion?

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I've used Variable Lim myself from time to time, but I try to remember that a Limitation that isn't limiting isn't worth any thing when I do so and make sure that whatever combination is being used is actually limiting.

[JmOz]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

But consider, Incantations & Gestures are mostly limiting because you can be restrained and prevented from using them, and also occasionally they will inconvenience you (such as if you have your hands full, or if talking would be ill advised), and also offer a clear indication that you are doing "something".

 

If you have the ability to opt to just pay extra END whenever any of those situations are true, did it really truly limit you in a significant fashion?

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I've used Variable Lim myself from time to time, but I try to remember that a Limitation that isn't limiting isn't worth any thing when I do so and make sure that whatever combination is being used is actually limiting.

 

In a hurry, somewhat scatter random thoughts

 

I think a big problem here is that the build is not following the effect.

 

The reason the limitation value is halved is because you do have said choise, because it will not be limiting nearly as much because of said choise

 

Limited buy off is a complicated way to build something, simpler is usualy better (I should follow this myself)

 

Problem with VarLim is that people don't have a strong effect in mind with it

 

Using cyclops again (I know, not your prefered build for). The F/X is uncontroled eyeblasts the player thinks about it (BTW: Accuratly done and 100% legal Cycs would not be allowed always on, the eye blasts feed off a solar END Reserve that can be emptied, but I digress) and decides base power is:

 

8d6 EB, at first he thinks well he will use a visor to control it, but without visor he can't help but shoot it. Thinking some more he decides that if he closes his eyes he can stop, also he should have something a little less conspicous than his combat visor

 

He could build a monster of a limited buy off, or he could use a custom lim (Works the way I want it to), or he can use var lim. The effect was first, the lims help to define it.

 

Var Lim can be taken advantage of if you look at it from a mechanical view instead of a effect view...

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Yes, it does have a use, and yes it can be "fair" and balanced in its use. Like pretty much any thing else if the GM and player can agree on what it means, and the player doesn't try to wring it for utility over concept, then balance can be maintained and so on and so forth.

 

On the other hand a player that approaches the game from a tactical, squeeze as much advantage as I can direction can take that same build and loophole around the intended effect.

 

That's why GM's get leary about things like this, not because of the best case scenario where a player models a cool concept and self-regulates within the idea vice what they technically can get away with. Rather, its due to the worst case scenario where when the chips are down and a character is in a jam the player throws concept out the window and starts powergaming the mechanics that technically give them an out even though its outside the bounds of the originally agreed upon intent.

 

In the case of VarLim itself, the larger the Lim value the more likely it is to be actually limiting. It's the -1/4 (min 1/2 Lim)'s that I tend to step carefully around as the diminishment of the inner lim value is relatively small yet can be quite marked in lessening detrimental aspects of the lims available.

[Gideon]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Sometimes working effect first works.

 

When I build a character I always make sure it works RAW.

 

But, considering that there are custome limitations in the game, RAW gives alot of leway.

 

For example, I just build a sonic projector/ manipulator character for a game I am supposed to start playing in soon.

 

When I built the character I broke down the powers in the character's multipower into two catagories: "manipulation powers" and "attack powers". Maniipulation powers include powers like Sound Images and a CE, while the attack powers include an EB and a Hearing Flash.

 

I made the catagories because I decided that the character needs to screem to use the EB and Flash, but not the Images or CE. I looked around to find an apropriate limitation to represent "I can't use my sonic screem EB if my mouth is held shut".

 

The first limitation that stood out to me was Incantations. Incantations seems like it should be the exact limitation I want to represent the effect, but it isn't. Incantation says that the character must start incanting at the begining of the phase regardles of the character's DEX. That doesn't work for the effect I am rying to achieve, and since Incantations starts at -1/4 I couldn't take a less powerful version of the limitation.

 

So I looked again. And I found the limitation I wanted: Restrainable. It grants the effect I want: mouth held shut = can't use EB, but it doesn't have the added drawback Incantations has. The thing is it seemed like an unconventional use of the limitation, but I asked the GM and he said no problem.

[JmOz]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Yes, it does have a use, and yes it can be "fair" and balanced in its use. Like pretty much any thing else if the GM and player can agree on what it means, and the player doesn't try to wring it for utility over concept, then balance can be maintained and so on and so forth.

 

On the other hand a player that approaches the game from a tactical, squeeze as much advantage as I can direction can take that same build and loophole around the intended effect.

 

That's why GM's get leary about things like this, not because of the best case scenario where a player models a cool concept and self-regulates within the idea vice what they technically can get away with. Rather, its due to the worst case scenario where when the chips are down and a character is in a jam the player throws concept out the window and starts powergaming the mechanics that technically give them an out even though its outside the bounds of the originally agreed upon intent.

 

In the case of VarLim itself, the larger the Lim value the more likely it is to be actually limiting. It's the -1/4 (min 1/2 Lim)'s that I tend to step carefully around as the diminishment of the inner lim value is relatively small yet can be quite marked in lessening detrimental aspects of the lims available.

 

Well first off I always kind of look at -1/4 lims as flavor more than really limiting (OIHID, IIF, randomly works 95% of the time, does not work in magnetic fields backs me up on it IMHO)

 

But Ironicaly what you are saying comes back to my main point, The system works best when you look at the effect you want to achieve and then build accordingly. To use your terms, we need to get to (I wanted to say back to, but suspect it never was) more concept over utility

[Killer Shrike]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

Sure, a system that allowed two or more people to completely understand and agree on the concrete effects of an abstract concept that did only what was understood, no more, and no less would be fantastic.

 

 

Unfortunately when you move from an abstract to a concrete you do so via an implementation, typically via some combination of "framework", "template", and "custom" expression.

 

 

Unless the medium of expression is precise enough to implement your concept exactly, with no discrepancies, and no ambiguity there will be opportunity for the implementation to not match the concept.

 

 

All in all I think that the HERO System comes close to offering that ideal of a expression medium for concrete implementations of extremely diverse concepts. It is not entirely precise, and has room for ambiguity and discrepancies between concept and implementation, and it relies heavily on a human compiler in the form of the GM to weed out bugs at both compile and run time, but it still comes closer than any other system I've ever played.

 

Personally, I find in the HERO System that it's best to go with a mix of concept and implementation when designing characters. If you have a cool concept but its implemented poorly, then the concept suffers. If you have no concept and just a pile of mechanics then the mechanics suffer. If you pair a cool concept with a good implementation that uses the mechanics "efficiently" then the concept shows through and the build is capable. The pairing of the two and knowing where to draw the line about where to change the build to fit the concept and where to change the concept to leverage the mechanics is where the magic is.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

[side topic]

 

I looked around to find an apropriate limitation to represent "I can't use my sonic screem EB if my mouth is held shut".

 

The first limitation that stood out to me was Incantations. Incantations seems like it should be the exact limitation I want to represent the effect, but it isn't. Incantation says that the character must start incanting at the begining of the phase regardles of the character's DEX. That doesn't work for the effect I am rying to achieve, and since Incantations starts at -1/4 I couldn't take a less powerful version of the limitation.

(Note: all references are to Fifth Edition Revised)

 

I think Incantations does what you want. Looking at the description on page 297, I see no mention of starting Incantations at the beginning of a Phase - where does this come from? The only other mention in the index is page 193, which mentions how it affects Invisibility.

 

Even if this is the case, it still works: a character's Phase begins on his DEX on a Segment in which he acts (page 356, third paragraph under PHASE). I think you're confusing the beginning of a Segment (second) with the beginning of a Phase (when a character acts duing that second).

 

[/side topic]

[Lord Liaden]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

OTOH, Fifth Edition has specified that every Power has to have a defined point of origin, e.g. a part of the body; and that Special Effect may give specific benefits and drawbacks. If a Sonic Blast is defined as coming from the mouth, then deliberately holding the character's mouth closed may neutralize it as a default. (Personally, to do that I would require a successful Grab with Hit Location penalty for the head/mouth, but YMMV.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

OTOH' date=' Fifth Edition has specified that every Power has to have a defined point of origin, e.g. a part of the body; and that Special Effect may give specific benefits and drawbacks. If a Sonic Blast is defined as coming from the mouth, then deliberately holding the character's mouth closed may neutralize it as a default. (Personally, to do that I would require a successful Grab with Hit Location penalty for the head/mouth, but YMMV.)[/quote']

 

This is how I would treat it.

 

No Limitation, as it would require some amount of effort to stop you from screaming. And probably wouldn't come into play often enough to warrant even a -1/4 Limitation.

[Gideon]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

OTOH' date=' Fifth Edition has specified that every Power has to have a defined point of origin, e.g. a part of the body; and that Special Effect may give specific benefits and drawbacks. If a Sonic Blast is defined as coming from the mouth, then deliberately holding the character's mouth closed may neutralize it as a default. (Personally, to do that I would require a successful Grab with Hit Location penalty for the head/mouth, but YMMV.)[/quote']

 

you are right about the point of origin, but becaus the character can (with aproval of the GM) use some powers with her mouth closed: sound images, then the fact that the energy blast is defined as requireing her to screem with her mouth wide open warrents a limitation.

 

Technically speaking by using Images to hearing the character can screem at the top of her lungs at somone. However the idea is that the techniques used to throw her voice are different from the ones used to deal damage by screeming.

And like a real-world ventriliquest the character can throw her voice with her mouth closed

 

thout the limitation I could claim that the character has the ability to generate her damageing effects by humming with her mouth closed

[ghost-angel]

Re: (Rant) Reasoning from effect

 

you are right about the point of origin' date=' but becaus the character can (with aproval of the GM) use some powers with her mouth closed: sound images, then the fact that the energy blast is defined as requireing her to [i']screem with her mouth wide open[/i] warrents a limitation.

 

Technically speaking by using Images to hearing the character can screem at the top of her lungs at somone. However the idea is that the techniques used to throw her voice are different from the ones used to deal damage by screeming.

And like a real-world ventriliquest the character can throw her voice with her mouth closed

 

thout the limitation I could claim that the character has the ability to generate her damageing effects by humming with her mouth closed

 

I would allow you to hum to cause damage, just not your full dice. Maybe half.

 

Either way, you still don't get a Limitation in my book.