1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

When using these powers' date=' you certainly have to use judgement, and that's not a virtue in and of itself.[/quote']

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm going to come back later and reread that sentence.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

When using these powers' date=' you certainly have to use judgement, and that's not a virtue in and of itself.[/quote']

 

That they need them to be balanced is not. It may not in practice be a flaw in most cases, but there's nothing intrinsically good about a rules set that requires intervention to be used in a balanced way. If people want to keep telling me to the contrary, feel free, but I'm telling you flat out its not going to get anywhere.

 

That's why I say its a virtue that you can do so, but not a virtue that you must. If you feel otherwise that's your business, but frankly, I don't buy it.

 

Certainly your prerogative, just as I don't buy your counter arguments. As I said in the bits of my post that you didn't quote, what is balanced in one campaign might not be in another. The rules give options, some of which might be unbalanced in some campaigns. But they might not be in other campaigns. If you make it so people can't do things that are broken, you make it so they can't do clever things either. Requiring that Ref's pay attention to the characters that their players design means that I can do more clever things with the rules.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

Certainly your prerogative, just as I don't buy your counter arguments. As I said in the bits of my post that you didn't quote, what is balanced in one campaign might not be in another. The rules give options,

 

 

And any rules set can only aim for the middle. Other things within the system may or may not be balanced in some campaigns, but if you wait for campaign specifics to talk about balance, no rules set can ever try for it at all, and even such things as point costs are essentially, well, pointless.

 

 

some of which might be unbalanced in some campaigns. But they might not be in other campaigns. If you make it so people can't do things that are broken, you make it so they can't do clever things either. Requiring that Ref's pay attention to the characters that their players design means that I can do more clever things with the rules.

 

Its just as easy for a GM to make something legal that normally isn't as it is for him to block something that is, and is far less likely to blow up in his face.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

And any rules set can only aim for the middle. Other things within the system may or may not be balanced in some campaigns, but if you wait for campaign specifics to talk about balance, no rules set can ever try for it at all, and even such things as point costs are essentially, well, pointless.

 

 

 

Its just as easy for a GM to make something legal that normally isn't as it is for him to block something that is, and is far less likely to blow up in his face.

 

Fortunately the Hero system doesn't wait for campaign specifics to talk about balance. It talks about it at the system level, and how the judgement of the Ref is a of central importance to balance. It even goes to the lengths to point out the areas that will likely require specific attention from them. Overall a great way of handling it, IMNSHO.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

Fortunately the Hero system doesn't wait for campaign specifics to talk about balance. It talks about it at the system level' date=' and how the judgement of the Ref is a of central importance to balance. It [/quote']

 

And these two statements together are why I say the design is fundamentally conflicted. Perhaps necessarily so, but still conflicted.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

And these two statements together are why I say the design is fundamentally conflicted. Perhaps necessarily so' date=' but still conflicted.[/quote']

 

And I don't. Sorry, I just don't consider the Ref having a central role in determining the balance of their campaign to be a bad thing. Obviously YMMV.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

When using these powers' date=' you certainly have to use judgement, and that's not a virtue in and of itself.[/quote']

 

OK, it's later.

 

This says that using judgement and personal involvement in a cooperative, interactive experience like a Roleplaying System is a bad thing.

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. How can tailoring something to your own needs with personal judgement be bad??

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

And I don't. Sorry' date=' I just don't consider the Ref having a central role in determining the balance of their campaign to be a bad thing. Obviously YMMV.[/quote']

 

I don't recall saying it is a bad thing. What I said is that the _requirement_ for it is a failure of rules designed to produce a balanced game. In a game where that's not the point in the rules it'd be no failure at all, and there are such games. However, as I've noted before, Hero isn't such a game; it spends a lot of time and effort on fine detail in ability costs that don't make much sense accept to make cost commensurate with value. If you then have a power that's not so commensurate, that's at odds with the rest of the rules. If you don't see why that's the case, I just don't know what to tell you.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

OK, it's later.

 

This says that using judgement and personal involvement in a cooperative, interactive experience like a Roleplaying System is a bad thing.

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. How can tailoring something to your own needs with personal judgement be bad??

 

It isn't. Being forced to do it because the rules don't provide any limitations on it is. Again, if you can't understand the difference between those two statements, don't know what to tell you.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

I look at it the other way around - the rules are unrestricted beyond what I impose on them. Not I'm restricted by what he rules impose on me.

 

I understand the difference and I think you are so far on the side of wrong it hurts.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

I look at it the other way around - the rules are unrestricted beyond what I impose on them. Not I'm restricted by what he rules impose on me.

 

I understand the difference and I think you are so far on the side of wrong it hurts.

 

Then you don't need any rules at all, and any mechanical discussion is fundamentally irrelevant to you. And you're welcome to think what you like.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

I don't recall saying it is a bad thing. What I said is that the _requirement_ for it is a failure of rules designed to produce a balanced game. In a game where that's not the point in the rules it'd be no failure at all' date=' and there are such games. However, as I've noted before, Hero isn't such a game; it spends a lot of time and effort on fine detail in ability costs that don't make much sense [i']accept[/i] to make cost commensurate with value. If you then have a power that's not so commensurate, that's at odds with the rest of the rules. If you don't see why that's the case, I just don't know what to tell you.

 

That seems to be the disconnect: The rules aren't designed to produce a balanced game. They are designed to give a Ref the tools to make a game that balances how they want it to.

 

There are uses of the mentioned powers that are innately unbalanced, and would be so in most campaigns. And there are uses of those same powers that are perfectly balanced. And even uses that give much less utility for cost than other powers do. It is up to the player to determine what they want/need for their character, and up to the Ref to determine how that balances with the rest of the campaign. And up to the rules to give them some place to base the comparison from.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

That seems to be the disconnect: The rules aren't designed to produce a balanced game. They are designed to give a Ref the tools to make a game that balances how they want it to.

 

 

I don't believe that the first statement is correct; it certainly wasn't correct at one time. The rules most certainly were designed to produce a balanced game within the limits of rules design. Otherwise, as I said, the focus on precise point costs would be, well, pointless.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

I don't believe that the first statement is correct; it certainly wasn't correct at one time. The rules most certainly were designed to produce a balanced game within the limits of rules design. Otherwise' date=' as I said, the focus on precise point costs would be, well, pointless.[/quote']

 

And I disagree with your interpretation. It isn't an all or nothing situation. It doesn't have to be either "There is no need for Ref oversite, as the rules take care of everything already" or "The Ref has to do everything and we should just throw points out the window". Like most things, it is a middle ground between the two. And has been since I started playing in '81.

 

Just because the system is based on points doesn't automatically mean that all point expenditures are going to be worth as much as each other. No rules set that allows for people to be involved could do that, as different things will be worth more or less depending on the campaign structure they are put into.

 

Just because the rules don't meet up to the standard you have for them doesn't mean that they are flawed. It means that their goal wasn't necessarily the same as yours.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

I've never found there to be a problem with the 5-for-1 Perks (Follower, Base, Vehicle). Nor for Summon. But IMO, Multiform has always been a bit wonky. Regardless of genre or setting considerations, a character with only one single 350-point form is less powerful than a character who can swich back and forth between two forms, one having 350 points and the other having 280 points (350 - 70 for the other form).

 

Reading this thread (and others) has started an idea percolating: to get rid of MultiForm entirely, and replace it with a MultiPower build, in three easy steps:

 

1) Buy all the abilities common to all forms normally.

2) Buy a MultiPower reserve with enough points to accommodate all the remaining powers of the most expensive form.

3) Buy each form as a separate ultra slot in the MultiPower - instead of containing one power each, they'd contain all the Powers/Characteristics/Skills possessed by the form.

 

Example for a 350-point game:

1) Multi-Man buys 100 points worth of stuff that applies to all his forms - some basic level characteristics and skills, maybe a power or two.

2) He buys a 200-point MP reserve for the changable parts of each form.

3) A maximally-powerful form-slot costs 20 points, and would have a total of 100 ("common" ability points) + 200 (points specific to that form) = 300 points.

3a) Multi-Man can afford two 300-point forms (20 each), and one 200-point form (10 points). All three of these forms have the 100 points of stuff from step 1 in common.

3b) If you like, he can be said to have a fourth form - by turning off the multipower completely. Then, he'd have only the 100 points of common stuff and nothing else. This extra form is usually going to be irrelevent, since it doesn't cost Multi-Man anything extra to be in one of his more powerful forms at any given time. The fourth form is his "secret identity" form, at most.

 

With this structure, a multiple-form character won't ever be more powerful than a normal character built on the maximum points available for the game.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

And I disagree with your interpretation. It isn't an all or nothing situation. It doesn't have to be either "There is no need for Ref oversite, as the rules take care of everything already" or "The Ref has to do everything and we should just throw points out the window". Like most things, it is a middle ground between the two. And has been since I started playing in '81.

 

 

Of course there's a middle ground, but the question is, is the middle ground the consequence of desire or necessity? Did George and Steve design it Champions so that referee oversight was a part of character design because they thought that was intrinsically desirable? I don't think so. They did so because the reality was there was no good way to make a rules set entirely self-reinforcing, which they quickly figured out. That doesn't mean they thought those necessities were a virtue.

 

(Note I'm _not_ talking here about the necessity of GMs to intervene to get the rules to do precisely what they want: that _is_ a virtue. But there's no reason why a lot of Champions GMs wouldn't have found the intended result just what they wanted. The rules just weren't going to do it by themselves).

 

Just because the system is based on points doesn't automatically mean that all point expenditures are going to be worth as much as each other. No rules set that allows for people to be involved could do that, as different things will

 

 

And that's my point. That's a flaw in process. In a perfect system, that would, indeed, be the result for the intended purpose of the game. In practice its impossible, but that doesn't make that a virtue.

 

Just because the rules don't meet up to the standard you have for them doesn't mean that they are flawed. It means that their goal wasn't necessarily the same as yours.

 

Actually, having known at least one of the two designers fairly well, I think it was indeed their goal. They just concluded quickly (by the time of 2nd Edition) that it was in impossible goal.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

the Point system is merely to provide a common starting point for everyone involved in any given Game.

 

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

 

GM and Player oversight being required is a virtue because it plays into the concept of cooperative interaction. Otherwise I have a million video games to choose from.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

Of course there's a middle ground, but the question is, is the middle ground the consequence of desire or necessity? Did George and Steve design it Champions so that referee oversight was a part of character design because they thought that was intrinsically desirable? I don't think so. They did so because the reality was there was no good way to make a rules set entirely self-reinforcing, which they quickly figured out. That doesn't mean they thought those necessities were a virtue.

 

(Note I'm _not_ talking here about the necessity of GMs to intervene to get the rules to do precisely what they want: that _is_ a virtue. But there's no reason why a lot of Champions GMs wouldn't have found the intended result just what they wanted. The rules just weren't going to do it by themselves).

 

And I disagree. But we've already determined that.

 

And that's my point. That's a flaw in process. In a perfect system' date=' that would, indeed, be the result for the intended purpose of the game. In practice its impossible, but that doesn't make that a virtue.[/quote']

 

And I disagree even more strongly here.

 

Actually' date=' having known at least one of the two designers fairly well, I think it was indeed their goal. They just concluded quickly (by the time of 2nd Edition) that it was in impossible goal. [/quote']

 

I'm much less concerned with what the writers intended initially quite honestly. When researchers at 3M came up with the adhesive that is used now in Post-It notes, they considered it a huge failure. They were trying to come up with a super-strong glue, and ended up with a considerably weaker one. But they fairly quickly realized the usefulness of what they DID have, and the rest is history.

 

Regardless of why the rules ended up where they did, I'm very happy they did. As I've said many times, I consider the fact that the Ref's input is central to determine how things balance is one of the most attractive parts of Hero to me, and one of its main strengths. It doesn't try to pretend that there is in reality some way of making sure that points always balance. You point out yourself that that is an impossible goal. The Hero system presents a baseline from which a campaign can be built and balanced. It notes that there are ways to build things that are broken, and what rules are most likely to be used to do so.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

the Point system is merely to provide a common starting point for everyone involved in any given Game.

 

 

That's the practical effect of it, but at that point none of the individual costs matter if taken to its logical extreme.

 

GM and Player oversight being required is a virtue because it plays into the concept of cooperative interaction. Otherwise I have a million video games to choose from.

 

Nice false dichotomy. I don't need to micromanage player design to not have a video game, and if you do, I'd say you have other problems there.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

And I disagree. But we've already determined that.

 

 

 

And I disagree even more strongly here.

 

 

Then are we doing anything here but repeating ourselves?

 

 

I'm much less concerned with what the writers intended initially quite honestly. When researchers at 3M came up with the adhesive that is used

 

 

Then I'd not use phrases like "their goal was not yours." Actually, yes it was, at least in George's case, as far as I can tell. If you want to state their goal shifted, I'd agree, but that was out of necessity, which is what I've said all along.

 

Hero to me, and one of its main strengths. It doesn't try to pretend that there is in reality some way of making sure that points always balance. You

 

 

And here _I_ don't agree. I think in parts it does just that, and in parts it doesn't. As I said, if values aren't going to balance, what's the point of worrying about values of Advantages, Limitations, Drawbacks and even base costs? Those are only relevant in terms of matching cost to value, and I've yet to hear anyone actually present an argument as to that _not_ being their purpose. Its the claim that this is _not_ a primary purpose of those rules that I'm having issue with, and why I've continued with this thread.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

Then I'd not use phrases like "their goal was not yours." Actually' date=' yes it was, at least in George's case, as far as I can tell. If you want to state their goal shifted, I'd agree, but that was out of necessity, which is what I've said all along.[/quote']

 

Sorry I ever gave you the impression that the original goal of the people who wrote the first edition was particularly important to me. As I said in my last post, it isn't.

 

And here _I_ don't agree. I think in parts it does just that' date=' and in parts it doesn't. As I said, if values aren't going to balance, what's the point of worrying about values of Advantages, Limitations, Drawbacks and even base costs? Those are only relevant in terms of matching cost to value, and I've yet to hear anyone actually present an argument as to that _not_ being their purpose. Its the claim that this is _not_ a primary purpose of those rules that I'm having issue with, and why I've continued with this thread. [/quote']

 

Because, as I've already said, there is a middle ground between "The points are all, and balance everything perfectly" and "The points mean nothing, lets get rid of them". You've already stated that the first one is an unattainable goal, and I've said I have no interest in the other one. Hero does a nice job of falling in the middle. The points have meaning, without the system making the internal assumption that all that is needed to balance things is the points themselves.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

That's the practical effect of it, but at that point none of the individual costs matter if taken to its logical extreme.

 

 

 

Nice false dichotomy. I don't need to micromanage player design to not have a video game, and if you do, I'd say you have other problems there.

 

Who said anything about micromanaging. Just oversight.

 

Most of the time that oversight amounts to "Yep, no need to change any rules for this game" and we move on.

Yes - the rules require you to look at them, it's good to understand what's going on. Doesn't mean any action needs to be taken.

 

Sometimes we go "Ah, this isn't working, why? What can we do to make it work better?" And the rules not only allow for that, but encourage it, and are flexible enough to go with it and not suddenly throw the whole system off.

 

Personally - I think you're just being contrary at this point.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

Who said anything about micromanaging. Just oversight.

 

 

The difference is entirely in degree, and often in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

Personally - I think you're just being contrary at this point.

 

I'd have said the same about you, so I'd say we're even.

[Paragon]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

Sorry I ever gave you the impression that the original goal of the people who wrote the first edition was particularly important to me. As I said in my last post, it isn't.

 

 

At which point that part of our exchange was a simple miscommunication.

 

 

 

Because, as I've already said, there is a middle ground between "The points are all, and balance everything perfectly" and "The points mean nothing, lets get rid of them". You've already stated that the first one is an unattainable goal, and I've said I have no interest in the other one. Hero does a nice job of falling in the middle. The points have meaning, without the system making the internal assumption that all that is needed to balance things is the points themselves.

 

That doesn't mean the middle ground is, however, the design ethic of the system, and in fact, I have no evidence it is. As I said, if mechanical balance isn't an important criteria, then almost any critique of the design system and costs is moot; if it is important, its as legitimate here as anywhere else, as long as you understand the limits of process.

[archermoo]

Re: 1 for 5 powers (summon, duplicate, mult-form, follower etc)

 

That doesn't mean the middle ground is' date=' however, the design ethic of the system, and in fact, I have no evidence it is. As I said, if mechanical balance isn't an important criteria, then almost any critique of the design system and costs is moot; if it is important, its as legitimate here as anywhere else, as long as you understand the limits of process.[/quote']

 

Mechanical balance can be an important criteria without it being the ONLY important criteria. As you said, perfect mechanical balace is impossible. At some point further attempts to reach the impossible make things worse, not better.

 

I have on pretty good authority that the design ethic of at least the current version of the rules is "have fun". Towards that goal the current version of the rules do a very good job of balancing the input of both the system and the Ref in balance, as do in my opinion all the previous versions. I would be shocked if it was done by accident.