VPPs and Game World Logic

[Trebuchet]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

The question of "being able to hit" with the power is not the same as what happens when you do apply your attack to the target.

Obviously I didn't express my point clearly. I was asking what would be easy about directing said killing psycho-kinetic "blade" attack against any reasonably fast and agile opponent? If he moves (and it's pretty safe to assume he will unless the psycho-kinetic plans to make all his attacks from ambush), then the attack is no longer "thrusting," it is chopping or slashing. Any swordsman can tell you thrusting is a lot easier than chopping and slashing - and it still takes concentration and effort to hit a precise location even when you're thrusting and lunging.

 

A steel blade through the brain will kill just as well as a psycho-kinetic one; it just is harder to keep your hands clean.

 

I believe that you are missing the point here.

 

Yes, most superheroes can do fairly major attacks, but that is not the point.

 

My question is about creating specific character concepts using VPPs. One specific example was a character concept of a VPP being based upon Telekinetic force. The character could use this force for a number of different options limited by his max force, his control (which we are going to assume is excellent), and his imagination. In many ways this ability fits into the VPP concept. The problem is that the tradeoffs between abilities do not always fit Hero active point schemes.

Oh, I get the point just fine: You want to create a character who can kill easily but isn't particularly mobile within his Powers. That makes it easy to justify simply killing opponents instead of fleeing to avoid conflict or pursuing with less lethal means. "I had to shoot him in the back; he was 'trying to escape'. I just didn't have enough power to chase him. Honest." What you're really building is a psycho-kinetic assassin masquerading as a mage with telekinetic magic. How exciting.

[Vadrus]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I'm just a newbie to the Hero System, but couldn't you do this through the 'requires a skill roll' limitation?

 

For the blade don't give it the limitation or make it -1 per 20 AP.

 

For the levitation make it RSR with -1 per 5 AP (maybe even with increased END as well)

 

I know this doesn't balance the character point costs, but from in game logic the character sees his levitation as much harder to use, more tiring and less reliable than his blade.

 

After all, world logic is from the characters point of view, game balance is from the players point of view, two separate beasts.

 

 

Vadrus

[ghost-angel]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I guess I was misunderstanding you, I assumed that the PK knife was a simple manifestation of force.

 

But to address the point which I now believe that you were making: yes, there could be many conflicting cost schemes for buying a power based upon the individual pool. Maybe one guy could do only very limited Force Walls and yet could apply force to objects effectively, whereas a different character could make more powerful Force Walls, but not have much ability to apply his power to moving objects.

 

Or maybe one mage has great power over the physical world with his magic, but only small ability to do illusions. And an illusionist-mage might have the opposite problem.

 

Given that - you really want to adjust the point cost of things on a Per Character Basis?

 

Yeah - that's fair.

 

 

Maybe just a VPP really isn't what you want.

 

Don't cut off the heel and toe to fit the glass slipper. Hero has a lot of constructs you can use to simulate what you want.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

Any swordsman can tell you thrusting is a lot easier than chopping and slashing - and it still takes concentration and effort to hit a precise location even when you're thrusting and lunging.

 

On the issue of thrusing vs slashing, I think that you may be mistaken, and others agree. . . .

 

http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

 

It can be postulated that sword attacks with the point rely more on speed and finesse while those with the edge rely more on strength and momentum and this itself may reflect some of the prejudice that later developed between the two philosophies. Part of this prejudice lies in the simple fact that thrusting requires much less strength to make a lethal wound while an effective cut can require a powerful blow. Both require skill to use, both will kill, and both have situations where they are more practical. In the end, it was really 19th century Victorians and their 20th century sport fencer followers with their thin featherweight swords (descended from the 18th century smallsword) who perpetuated a belief in a historical linear "evolution" from crude, heavier, clumsy cutting and bashing swords toward the more refined and elegant "proper" science of point fencing. But history shows that where each was used in combination, the art of defense was arguably more versatile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I get the point just fine: You want to create a character who can kill easily but isn't particularly mobile within his Powers. That makes it easy to justify simply killing opponents instead of fleeing to avoid conflict or pursuing with less lethal means. "I had to shoot him in the back; he was 'trying to escape'. I just didn't have enough power to chase him. Honest." What you're really building is a psycho-kinetic assassin masquerading as a mage with telekinetic magic. How exciting.

You are reading way too much into this. If I really want to create "a character who can kill easily but isn't particularly mobile within his Powers" that is very easy to do.

 

10d6 RKA, Cost 150 points

2" Flight, Cost 4 points

Total = 154 points

 

But if I really want to create a "psycho-kinetic assassin," I'd do better with a mentalist sniper. And Hyper-Mobility is good for mentalist sniper, because you want to be sure to always stay a long way away from your targets (that way, you can hurt them, but they can't hurt you).

 

You are reading motives into this discussion that are non-existant, so I wonder if you are understanding my point.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

Given that - you really want to adjust the point cost of things on a Per Character Basis?

 

Yeah - that's fair.

 

 

Maybe just a VPP really isn't what you want.

 

Don't cut off the heel and toe to fit the glass slipper. Hero has a lot of constructs you can use to simulate what you want.

If there are other ways to do it better, that would work for me.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I'm just a newbie to the Hero System, but couldn't you do this through the 'requires a skill roll' limitation?

 

For the blade don't give it the limitation or make it -1 per 20 AP.

 

For the levitation make it RSR with -1 per 5 AP (maybe even with increased END as well)

 

I know this doesn't balance the character point costs, but from in game logic the character sees his levitation as much harder to use, more tiring and less reliable than his blade.

 

After all, world logic is from the characters point of view, game balance is from the players point of view, two separate beasts.

 

 

Vadrus

That is an idea worth considering, and it could go some way toward achieving the objective. . . .

 

And it would be great for many possible psychokinetic character concepts.

 

But if we visualize Force as a limitation on what the character can/cannot accomplish, then it is possible that the character can simply not lift a 200 kg object against gravity. I mean that he just cannot generate enough force to do so.

 

Going back to an analogy with runners:

 

If a sprinter can't beat a distance runner in a marathon, that is a matter of endurance.

 

But if a distance runner can't beat a sprinter in a 100 meter dash, that is not a matter of endurance, that is a matter of simply not being able to run fast enough.

 

In my hypothetical example, it is not a situation where the character can generate huge amounts of force, but it just tires him quickly. Instead it is a situation where the character can not generate very much force with his mind, but he doesn't need to generate that much force in order to accomplish some goals.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

now a real VPP example:

 

139 Realistic Psychokinesis 3: Variable Power Pool, 52 base + 87 control cost, Cosmic (+2); all slots Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2), Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) (182 Active Points); all slots Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2) [Notes: Like v2b this version also has Advantages that are only legal on powers that target others (like AOE) so self targeting powers (like Flight) cannot be put in this Multipower. Unlike v2b this version does not have a common AOE Advantage as that would also necessitate the Mobile Advantage in some cases.]

 

0 1) Mental Hands: Telekinesis (21 STR), Affects Porous, Fine Manipulation (154 Active Points) Real Cost: 103 - END=14

0 2) Mental Knife: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (82 Active Points) Real Cost: 55 - END=8

0 3) Squeezing Internal Organs: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6-1, No Normal Defense ([standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), +5 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1 1/4) (72 Active Points) Real Cost: 48 - END=7

 

* all the slots are 52 active points before common pool advantages. For some reason HD is having a active and real cost display issue with these builds within a VPP but not a Multipower.

 

121 Realistic Psychokinesis 2b: Multipower, 52-point reserve, all slots Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2), Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) (182 Active Points); all slots Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2) [Notes: Because it has Advantages that are only legal on powers that target others (like AOE) self targeting powers (like Flight) cannot be put in this Multipower.] -

 

3u 1) Mental Hands: Telekinesis (21 STR), Affects Porous, Fine Manipulation (52 Active Points) - END=5

3u 2) Mental Knife: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (52 Active Points) - END=5

3u 3) Squeezing Internal Organs: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6-1, No Normal Defense ([standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), +5 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1 1/4) (52 Active Points) - END=5

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

That is an idea worth considering, and it could go some way toward achieving the objective. . . .

 

And it would be great for many possible psychokinetic character concepts.

 

But if we visualize Force as a limitation on what the character can/cannot accomplish, then it is possible that the character can simply not lift a 200 kg object against gravity. I mean that he just cannot generate enough force to do so.

 

I think you are vastly overcomplicating this. He can't do it. Then he CAN'T have that power in his VPP. Done. There is a list of powers he can have in his VPP, and a list of powers he cannot. A 5d6 RKA NND Does BOD is on the "can" list. 5" Flight is on the "Can't" list. It doesn't matter that the VPP has a 225 point pool and the Flight only has 10 AP. It's simply not permitted in the VPP.

 

The extent of the "can't" list should then determine the level of the "VPP has restricted power choices" limitation.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

now a real VPP example:

 

139 Realistic Psychokinesis 3: Variable Power Pool, 52 base + 87 control cost, Cosmic (+2); all slots Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2), Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) (182 Active Points); all slots Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2) [Notes: Like v2b this version also has Advantages that are only legal on powers that target others (like AOE) so self targeting powers (like Flight) cannot be put in this Multipower. Unlike v2b this version does not have a common AOE Advantage as that would also necessitate the Mobile Advantage in some cases.]

 

0 1) Mental Hands: Telekinesis (21 STR), Affects Porous, Fine Manipulation (154 Active Points) Real Cost: 103 - END=14

0 2) Mental Knife: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (82 Active Points) Real Cost: 55 - END=8

0 3) Squeezing Internal Organs: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6-1, No Normal Defense ([standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), +5 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1 1/4) (72 Active Points) Real Cost: 48 - END=7

 

* all the slots are 52 active points before common pool advantages. For some reason HD is having a active and real cost display issue with these builds within a VPP but not a Multipower.

 

121 Realistic Psychokinesis 2b: Multipower, 52-point reserve, all slots Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2), Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) (182 Active Points); all slots Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2) [Notes: Because it has Advantages that are only legal on powers that target others (like AOE) self targeting powers (like Flight) cannot be put in this Multipower.] -

 

3u 1) Mental Hands: Telekinesis (21 STR), Affects Porous, Fine Manipulation (52 Active Points) - END=5

3u 2) Mental Knife: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (52 Active Points) - END=5

3u 3) Squeezing Internal Organs: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6-1, No Normal Defense ([standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), +5 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1 1/4) (52 Active Points) - END=5

 

More good work!

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I think you are vastly overcomplicating this. He can't do it. Then he CAN'T have that power in his VPP. Done. There is a list of powers he can have in his VPP, and a list of powers he cannot. A 5d6 RKA NND Does BOD is on the "can" list. 5" Flight is on the "Can't" list. It doesn't matter that the VPP has a 225 point pool and the Flight only has 10 AP. It's simply not permitted in the VPP.

 

The extent of the "can't" list should then determine the level of the "VPP has restricted power choices" limitation.

 

But the PsychoKinetic character could do 5" Flight if the power of his pool was increased a bit (like maybe by some Adjustment Power).

 

And the same is true for the TK example, he may only have enough power for a maximum of 5 STR or 10 STR TK normally, but with a bit of Power Increase he might reach the ability to lift 200 kg (15 STR TK).

 

And there is also the fact that the 2" Flight, which he might normally be capable of, takes up everything he's got.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

back to the multipower model...

 

78 Realistic Psychokinesis 2c: Multipower, 52-point reserve, all slots Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Line Of Sight (+1/2), Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2), Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) (156 Active Points); all slots Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2), Requires A Skill Roll (-1/2)

 

[Notes: This version has multi-slots which allow 2 or more slots to be used simultaneously at reduced power. Because it has Advantages that are only legal on powers that target others (like Indirect) self targeting powers (like Flight) cannot be put in this Multipower. Furthermore, all powers must be constant or have the Continuous Advantage because of the specific use of the Concentration Limitation (see above). ]

 

5m 1) Pschokinetic Hand 1: Telekinesis (21 STR), Affects Porous, Fine Manipulation (52 Active Points) - END=5

5m 2) Pschokinetic Hand 2: Telekinesis (10 STR), Affects Porous, Fine Manipulation, Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2) (52 Active Points) - END=5

5m 3) Pschokinetic Blade: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (52 Active Points) - END=5

5m 4) Pschokinetic Surgery: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6-1, No Normal Defense ([standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), +5 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1 1/4) (52 Active Points) - END=5

5m 5) Pschokinetic Shield: Force Wall (6 PD/6 ED), Hardened (x3; +3/4) (52 Active Points) - END=5

 

Add a Ranged Martial Art only usable with TK and several special abilities (NND choke hold, Ranged Trip, etc...) become available plus the Damage Class of several abilities can be dramatically increased as well.

 

And to go with the Multipower/VPP:

 

9 Pschokinetic Self Targeting Abilities: Elemental Control, 38-point powers, (19 Active Points); all slots Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2), Requires A Skill Roll (-1/2) - END=

10 1) Psychokinetic Flight: Flight 8", Position Shift, x4 Noncombat, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), No Turn Mode (+1/4) (39 Active Points) - END=1

10 2) Psychokinetic Armor: Force Field (8 PD/8 ED) (Protect Carried Items), Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2) (39 Active Points) - END=4

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

But the PsychoKinetic character could do 5" Flight if the power of his pool was increased a bit (like maybe by some Adjustment Power).

 

And the same is true for the TK example, he may only have enough power for a maximum of 5 STR or 10 STR TK normally, but with a bit of Power Increase he might reach the ability to lift 200 kg (15 STR TK).

 

And there is also the fact that the 2" Flight, which he might normally be capable of, takes up everything he's got.

 

All this does is change the power list and limitation for the pool. "Can't achieve more than X in this power (say 2" Flight" and/or "These powers take up their AP x Y in pool reserve".

 

Back to our 225 point weilder of the easy 5d6 NND Does BOD PK KA. Perhaps his Flight requires 50x its AP in pool reserve, so he can achieve 2" flight, usually 4 AP, but he needs 50 times that (200 reserve points) to achieve this because it's so difficult. If he can get the pool Aided to 250 points, now he can get 5" Flight.

 

Surely if it's so difficult, a small increase in his pool won't massively enhance his flight speed. If you envision this being possible, however, perhaps it's not enhanced by an Aid, but by a "Limitation Buyoff UBO" contruct that reduces the control cost limitation, reducing the AP multiple for certain powers.

 

The "Pool can accomplish limited things" limitation is open-ended. It can, inmmy view, be used to allow for your open-ended restrictions on what each user's VPP might be capable of easily, or with greater difficulty.

 

I culd be completely off base here, but I get the sense you are looking for reasons to shoot down any approach provided - ie you don't really want to find a way to make it work, you want to say "Hero can't do this so Hero doesn't live up to its 'can do anything' hype".

[Oruncrest]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

Okay, I think I understand what you want now. You want to do a 'real' version of Uri Geller, able to bend a spoon but have trouble lifting it. If that's the case, let's try this:

 

103 The Psychokinesis of Warp 9: 60pt VPP, Cosmic (+2), Invisible to Sight, +¼, Psychokintetic Effects Only (-½), Maximum END usable per power is (Base points of Pool/10) = 6 (-¼), END Cost Increases the more solid the mass is (Plasma/Gas, ×1, Water, ×2, Mud or Slush, ×3, Sand or Loose Dirt, ×4, Solid, ×6, -½); 157AP, 103RP

Sample Powers

Cutting Wind: 4D6 RKA, (60AP, 6 END)

Hammering Wind: 12D6 PB (60AP, 6 END)

Burn Baby, Burn: 2D6 Continuous RKA (60AP, 6 END)

The Stroke: 1D6-1 RKA, NND (Force Field, Shapeshifting Powers or Density Increase), Does Body, ×2 END (30AP, 20RP, 6 END)

Hydrokinesis: 15 STR TK, Affects Porous, Only vs. True Liquids (-½), ×2 END (32 AP, 21 RP, 6 END)

True Levitation: 5" Flight, ×6 END (10AP, 3RP, 6 END)

True Telekinesis: 6 STR TK, ×6 END (9AP, 3RP, 6 END)

[ghost-angel]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

Here's a Metagame Side Effect (and make no mistake - the Player who came up with this is Metagaming their powers with Powers).

 

Side Effects; Power Acts As If It Were 10x Active And Real Points For The Purpose Of Counting Towards VPP Totals

[Mike W]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

A cool thing about Hero is that I can use it to create characters for a large number of different worlds.

 

A cool thing about Variable Point Pools is that they can simulate a character with a very flexible power.

 

So let us imagine that I want to simulate (in Hero terms) a specific character concept from a specific world. This character has a very versatile psychokinetic ability. He can use this ability to accomplish a wide variety of tasks, only limited by his imagination and the raw force he can generate with his psyche.

 

It would seem that using a VPP for this character would be the perfect choice—but there is a problem: the logic of this world doesn’t match the logic of the game in terms of point equivalence.

 

From the “world view” the character is limited by raw PK force, but that force, used in different applications is not always equal value in Hero terms. . . .

 

For example, if the character focuses his PK into an almost infinitely thin blade, then it doesn’t take much raw force to do a HUGE amount of damage. Or the character could also very easily do massive internal damage with very little force by focusing his power inside a target’s brain. However, just hovering in the air requires lifting one’s whole body mass against the force of gravity which would be a significant application of force.

 

By the world logic, the character should be able to easily chop off a target’s head with a nigh infinitely thin psi blade much more easily that it would be for him to levitate, but by game-logic, an attack that would chop off a target’s head would be much more expensive point wise (massive killing attack), than simple levitation (small number of points in flight).

 

So how is the best way to create this character, in Hero terms, as he is in the source material?

 

I’m specifically curious if people have suggestions about setting up something like VPPs as a versatile pool of power. But in ways which do not follow Hero game point logic, and instead represent some other logic (like the pool of raw PK force which I mentioned above).

 

This same issue could apply to other situations:

 

For example, a gadget pool which is limited by tech level and materials. Or an expense account where things of equal $$$ costs are not always equal in Hero point costs.

 

I’m not expecting any simple answers here. And what I’m looking for is, in many ways, almost by definition, outside of Hero rule logic, but I am curious what people think. . . .

 

Honestly, I think you're overthinking some of these examples.

 

1. Any "expense account", in game terms would produce one-shot items until you paid points for them. As a game balance, you can't just buy new powers with your character's wealth via equipment and write them on the character sheet. So the amount of points each one is worth is really irrelevant. And in the real world, most "expense accounts" say for a businessman who flies alot, wouldn't need to be defined in great detail anyway. It's just a "the company pays for it" 1 or 2 point perk.

 

2. ANY gadget pool is limited by the technological levels of the game. So is real life. There are lots of things that happen in comic books and science fiction novels that don't happen in real life. For example, we don't travel to other galaxy or build flying power armored suits in real life. There is no way around such a limitation for a gadget pool. In order to have a gadget you must have the materials and the know-how to build it. Sure some things will be more expensive than others, but most typical real world technology, at least that is usable by an individual person, doesn't have such radically different point costs as to create a problem here. You can have a typical hand gun, a grenade, and a personal radar system all for about the same price. A real life notebook computer would fit into that as well.

 

3. As for the psychokinetic example. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of some of the things you're attempting. OK, so you want to create a microthin blade to cut someone's head off by sheer concentration? A blade needs an edge to cut well and the thinner the blade the sharper the edge it needs(and the harder it is to maintain that edge). Does your character know anything about how to actually "construct" a blade? And you still have to create something in midair and then repel all the forces around it to keep it afloat. And probably exercise a great deal more control over it to be effective. And if you want the blade to be more than a "one and done" construct then you need to be able to maintain your concentration and the integrity of your blade and you slam it into something that is much bigger. A blade as thin as you're proposing and made out of almost any common real world knife material would be dulled the first time it hit anything remotely solid - bone, brick, wood, whatever.

 

Honestly, I don't think any of your examples hold up very well.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

All this does is change the power list and limitation for the pool. "Can't achieve more than X in this power (say 2" Flight" and/or "These powers take up their AP x Y in pool reserve".

 

Back to our 225 point weilder of the easy 5d6 NND Does BOD PK KA. Perhaps his Flight requires 50x its AP in pool reserve, so he can achieve 2" flight, usually 4 AP, but he needs 50 times that (200 reserve points) to achieve this because it's so difficult. If he can get the pool Aided to 250 points, now he can get 5" Flight.

 

That would do what I'm talking about. . . . And that is along the lines of my current thinking as to the best approach.

 

 

I culd be completely off base here, but I get the sense you are looking for reasons to shoot down any approach provided - ie you don't really want to find a way to make it work, you want to say "Hero can't do this so Hero doesn't live up to its 'can do anything' hype".

So far there have been some good answers---and there are a number of ways to make these ideas work in Hero (although many of them will require a bit of work to set up).

 

I'm being critical because I'm trying to find the "best" approach.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

Here's a Metagame Side Effect (and make no mistake - the Player who came up with this is Metagaming their powers with Powers).

 

Side Effects; Power Acts As If It Were 10x Active And Real Points For The Purpose Of Counting Towards VPP Totals

Yeah, I think that "Metagame Side Effect" is very much along the lines of what I'm looking for.

 

Oruncrest has already suggested that there be an END limit per phase that the pool can handle, and then some powers be given increased END.

 

Along these same lines of thought, a Metagame construct would be a good way to track the amount of PK force taken by each effect.

 

Rather than actually increasing the cost of flight, you could add a metagame element (PK Force) as a secondary cost.

 

Even perhaps to say that you have a 250 point pool, but you are also limited to 25 units of PK force at one time. Every power in the pool has a force cost as well as an AP cost.

 

For example, maybe the NND Killing Attack takes 5 PK Force units per d6

 

flight takes 15 PK Force, as a base cost (just to resist the pull of gravity) + 2 PK Force units per 1" Flight

 

Thus

5d6 RKA NND, Does BODY, costs 225 AP and 25 PK Force points

5" flight costs 10 AP and 15 Base PK F + 2 X 5" = 25 PK Force units total.

 

You could even increase the PK force total of the character without increasing the points in the pool. You'd still be limited to 250 APs, but most of the powers never really reached that limit anyway.

 

Increasing the PK Force total would not really increase the Psi-Blade damage, but it would increase the TK STR and Flight speed of the character.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

Honestly, I think you're overthinking some of these examples.

 

1. Any "expense account", in game terms would produce one-shot items until you paid points for them. As a game balance, you can't just buy new powers with your character's wealth via equipment and write them on the character sheet.

There is a balance issue involved; however, that does not necessairly mean that you can't just buy new powers with your character's wealth via equipment and write them on the character sheet.

 

It seems to me that one key element to that situation is controlling the character's wealth.

 

 

2. ANY gadget pool is limited by the technological levels of the game. So is real life. There are lots of things that happen in comic books and science fiction novels that don't happen in real life. For example, we don't travel to other galaxy or build flying power armored suits in real life. There is no way around such a limitation for a gadget pool. In order to have a gadget you must have the materials and the know-how to build it. Sure some things will be more expensive than others, but most typical real world technology, at least that is usable by an individual person, doesn't have such radically different point costs as to create a problem here. You can have a typical hand gun, a grenade, and a personal radar system all for about the same price. A real life notebook computer would fit into that as well.

The problem here is that a diamond ring costs more than an AK-47 in $$$, but is likely to be somewhat lower in active points.

 

 

3. As for the psychokinetic example. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of some of the things you're attempting. OK, so you want to create a microthin blade to cut someone's head off by sheer concentration? A blade needs an edge to cut well and the thinner the blade the sharper the edge it needs(and the harder it is to maintain that edge). Does your character know anything about how to actually "construct" a blade? And you still have to create something in midair and then repel all the forces around it to keep it afloat. And probably exercise a great deal more control over it to be effective. And if you want the blade to be more than a "one and done" construct then you need to be able to maintain your concentration and the integrity of your blade and you slam it into something that is much bigger. A blade as thin as you're proposing and made out of almost any common real world knife material would be dulled the first time it hit anything remotely solid - bone, brick, wood, whatever.

 

Honestly, I don't think any of your examples hold up very well.

You will have to explain your concerns about the "blade" a bit better. I think that you are making the same mistake that I made in respect to ghost-angel's point--but in reverse.

 

ghost-angel was talking about constructing some kind of physical object out of force, and I missed that point.

 

I am talking about a simple manifestation of raw force--in my example, there was never any "physical knife."

 

My concept was that the character could generate some amount of PK force (lets say 100 newtons for example). This 100 N force could be applied over a large area, for a gentle push, or focused into some nanoscopically small area (for an effect that would cut through almost anything like a hot knife cutting through butter).

 

Now, the ability to focus that force into an micro small area does involve the specific assumption that the character has immense control over the application of his PK force. But again, there is no need to create any sort of physical blade to accomplish the feat I am describing.

[Ganesh]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I don't know if anyone has suggested this, but buy your flight liked, to enough TK to lift your character? This actually mimics the logic behind "it takes a lot of power to lift myself and fly."

 

I've played around with the notion of a GM-level dial to affect "rare or difficult powers in game world paradigm" with a Scarcity (stop-sign) advantage -- powers that are rare and difficult must take a +1/2 or +1 advantage that doesn't actually grant any additional game effect: it just means you have a power construct on the limits of what's physically possible (or mechanically allowed) in the game world, and you can expect the power you have to be rare, or, at higher levels, unique.

 

I've never thought about applying this to specific characters and their power paradigms, rather than a whole world. It seems a little less sound.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I don't know if anyone has suggested this, but buy your flight liked, to enough TK to lift your character? This actually mimics the logic behind "it takes a lot of power to lift myself and fly."

 

I've played around with the notion of a GM-level dial to affect "rare or difficult powers in game world paradigm" with a Scarcity (stop-sign) advantage -- powers that are rare and difficult must take a +1/2 or +1 advantage that doesn't actually grant any additional game effect: it just means you have a power construct on the limits of what's physically possible (or mechanically allowed) in the game world, and you can expect the power you have to be rare, or, at higher levels, unique.

 

I've never thought about applying this to specific characters and their power paradigms, rather than a whole world. It seems a little less sound.

The TK concept is a good idea.

 

Especially if one also assumes that the sort of game where such a power would be allowed would likely be a darker gritter world. That would be a different set up from a 4-color action world where it is more likely that the heroes will survive for their next adventure. In the default Hero Game setup, powers that kill people are meant to be relatively expensive. However things could be different in a world where death is a more likely occurance. In such a world, lethality might be considered easier to achieve.

 

A general (game-wide) decrease of the costs of attacks like RKA, and a (game-wide) decrease of the cost of the advantage "does BODY" would combine to make the nastier PK attacks easier to afford. That, along with restrictions that make the flight more expensive, would go a long way toward setting the proper environment for the PK power to work as described.

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I earlier suggested that you have a munchkin here. Maybe that was unkind. Maybe you have a concept player, and maybe the concept is so good that you want to build a campaign around it. We can do that.

OK, have you ever heard of a game called ‘Godlike’?

WW2 Superheroes. Lovely game.

One of the powers you can have is killing people. Look at them, they die. Don’t need to bother rolling to hit or for damage, they just keel over.

Powerful? You betcha.

All powerful? Nah.

Why? Because in Godlike, most characters are basically humans with a single (albeit sometimes devastating) power, or a small related group of powers. Death Gaze Guy could be taken out by a normal soldier with a pistol.

What is the relevance of this?

Well, your question got me thinking about Hero, and how flexible it really is. We can do this, but it is going to require that you build the whole concept of the campaign around this guy, or at least around the idea that powers like this define the game world.

First off what you need to do is define the character in terms of what they can and cannot do. You have someone with a huge reserve of PK Force they can use in a variety of ways. The trouble is, the way the player has ‘defined’ the use of the PK means that some of the most combat effective powers will not ‘cost’ a lot in terms of the ‘concept’ reserve, but because of the play balance inherent in the system, would cost a lot in terms of Hero points. Moreover the cheaper powers, in Hero terms (like flight) are defined as ‘costing’ a lot of the concept pool.

It is completely back to front.

So, we cannot use ‘standard’ Hero concepts. If we are using Hero though, we might as well at least use the power rules to build the components of the abilities:

125 points Attack1 (indirect surgery) 5d6 NND, Does Body, indirect, IPE, 0 END (actually costs 1 END)

30 points Attack2 (flinging) 20 STR Telekinesis (costs 3 END)

10 points Movement 5” flight 3x END (costs 6 END)

OK, we have the builds (these are obviously rather crude) next we need to know how we apply them.

I’m going to suggest an End Reserve.

Say the character has SPD of 5, it is going to cost 5 END to maintain the surgery attack, OR 15 for the flinging attack plus 30 for the flight.

Well let us assume he can’t keep flight going for more than a turn and then only if he does nothing else. We need 30 points in the reserve.

Now we need to buy the REC, which should be between 5 and 15 points (he can certainly maintain his surgery attack indefinitely – it is not draining, and it depends whether you want him to be able to maintain the flinging attack too). Say we settle on 10 REC.

OK, now we have the bones of the character build; not point efficient, not a ‘rounded’ Hero character, but interesting, dangerous and not far off what the player wanted.

In a game with standard Hero supers, this character would be very effective for the first couple of phases, then get creamed. HOWEVER, if this was the build style that you applied across the entire campaign then you have something going – an interesting game that is far from standard ‘Hero’, but built using the ultimate toolkit to get a ‘concept’ game rather than a primarily points game.

You can make the powers more versatile by adding some sort of VPP but with rules about END cost – that is the ‘raw PK potential’ limiting factor here. Generally ‘concentrated PK attacks’ will be END cheap, but movement and defences will be END expensive.

[Warp9]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

I earlier suggested that you have a munchkin here. Maybe that was unkind. Maybe you have a concept player' date=' and maybe the concept is so good that you want to build a campaign around it. We can do that.[/size']

 

OK, have you ever heard of a game called ‘Godlike’?

 

WW2 Superheroes. Lovely game.

 

One of the powers you can have is killing people. Look at them, they die. Don’t need to bother rolling to hit or for damage, they just keel over.

 

Powerful? You betcha.

 

All powerful? Nah.

 

Why? Because in Godlike, most characters are basically humans with a single (albeit sometimes devastating) power, or a small related group of powers. Death Gaze Guy could be taken out by a normal soldier with a pistol.

 

What is the relevance of this?

 

Well, your question got me thinking about Hero, and how flexible it really is. We can do this, but it is going to require that you build the whole concept of the campaign around this guy, or at least around the idea that powers like this define the game world.

 

First off what you need to do is define the character in terms of what they can and cannot do. You have someone with a huge reserve of PK Force they can use in a variety of ways. The trouble is, the way the player has ‘defined’ the use of the PK means that some of the most combat effective powers will not ‘cost’ a lot in terms of the ‘concept’ reserve, but because of the play balance inherent in the system, would cost a lot in terms of Hero points. Moreover the cheaper powers, in Hero terms (like flight) are defined as ‘costing’ a lot of the concept pool.

 

It is completely back to front.

 

So, we cannot use ‘standard’ Hero concepts. If we are using Hero though, we might as well at least use the power rules to build the components of the abilities:

 

125 points Attack1 (indirect surgery) 5d6 NND, Does Body, indirect, IPE, 0 END (actually costs 1 END)

30 points Attack2 (flinging) 20 STR Telekinesis (costs 3 END)

10 points Movement 5” flight 3x END (costs 6 END)

 

OK, we have the builds (these are obviously rather crude) next we need to know how we apply them.

 

I’m going to suggest an End Reserve.

 

Say the character has SPD of 5, it is going to cost 5 END to maintain the surgery attack, OR 15 for the flinging attack plus 30 for the flight.

 

Well let us assume he can’t keep flight going for more than a turn and then only if he does nothing else. We need 30 points in the reserve.

 

Now we need to buy the REC, which should be between 5 and 15 points (he can certainly maintain his surgery attack indefinitely – it is not draining, and it depends whether you want him to be able to maintain the flinging attack too). Say we settle on 10 REC.

 

OK, now we have the bones of the character build; not point efficient, not a ‘rounded’ Hero character, but interesting, dangerous and not far off what the player wanted.

 

In a game with standard Hero supers, this character would be very effective for the first couple of phases, then get creamed. HOWEVER, if this was the build style that you applied across the entire campaign then you have something going – an interesting game that is far from standard ‘Hero’, but built using the ultimate toolkit to get a ‘concept’ game rather than a primarily points game.

 

You can make the powers more versatile by adding some sort of VPP but with rules about END cost – that is the ‘raw PK potential’ limiting factor here. Generally ‘concentrated PK attacks’ will be END cheap, but movement and defences will be END expensive.

 

A "concept" game is actually what I had in mind here.

 

Much of the time it does seems that I like working with such games, and trying to meld Hero rules to that view has sometimes been a challenge.

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

 

A "concept" game is actually what I had in mind here.

 

Much of the time it does seems that I like working with such games, and trying to meld Hero rules to that view has sometimes been a challenge.

 

 

We do sometimes become slaves to the points and forget that they are just there as a game balance mechanism, but even without a strictly points based approach to character creation, the mechanics of Hero make for a great game anyway. Hmm. Sounds like fodder for a thread....

 

I'd be interested to know how the character works out and what other concepts you use.