Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

[schir1964]

The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

Given the following:

 

• Active Points: A general measure of the level of maximum impact an ability has on the campaign under ideal circumstances.
  
• Real Points: A general measure of the level of impact an ability has on the campaign on average or under the worst of circumstances.
  

 

Should Advantages and Limitations be further divided into groupings based on the effect they have on these two definitions?

 

Just Thinking

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Tonio]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

Given the following:

 

• Active Points: A general measure of the level of maximum impact an ability has on the campaign under ideal circumstances.
  
• Real Points: A general measure of the level of impact an ability has on the campaign on average or under the worst of circumstances.
  

 

Should Advantages and Limitations be further divided into groupings based on the effect they have on these two definitions?

 

Just Thinking

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I'd say Real Points are a measure of the level of impact an ability has on the campaign on average, not under the worst of circumstances. For example, a 12d6 EB, Conditional Power (Not at Night; -1) is worth 30 Real Points, but under the worst of circumstances (i.e. at night) has no impact on the campaign.

 

I think Advantages and Limitations should be further divided as you propose. This is partially accomplished by the Damage Class mechanic, which subdivides Advantages into those which affect the damage done by a power and those that don't.

[schir1964]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

I'd say Real Points are a measure of the level of impact an ability has on the campaign on average' date=' [i']not[/i] under the worst of circumstances. For example, a 12d6 EB, Conditional Power (Not at Night; -1) is worth 30 Real Points, but under the worst of circumstances (i.e. at night) has no impact on the campaign.

That is why I said "on average or under the worst of circumstances".

 

The "on average" is for the builds as you describe above.

 

The "worst of circumstances" is for the builds like partially limited powers, limited naked power advantages where they are considered only part of the whole power in question.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

Just a thought but here it is: points are pointless unless you are measuring the same thing.

 

You can just about measure combat utility with points, but it is almost impossible to measure the effect of, for example, the 'images' power. You CAN measure the utility of images against other sense affecting powers and, since there is some cross over between sense affecting powers and combat, you might well be able to expand teh utility calculation across the board, BUT there alsways has to be a common centre to measure in any given group, and I would suggest that will always be combat utility.

 

If that is always our starting point we can expect point utility calculations to be less accurate for powers that do not have a direct combat effect.

 

Cool.

 

What was the question again?

 

Oh, yeah. It is for the convoluted reason outlined above that the active cost is not always a good measure of utility: reduced END, for example, only really increases the combat utility of a power (and it is rarely otherwise important) where you are likely to run out of END before putting an opponent down.

 

We can take an economics standpoint, and assume that people won't buy it when it is not worth the points to them, and that is not a bad assumption, but implicit in it is the idea that the value varies depending on the overall build.

 

If I had a point, I'd use it to end this post, but...

[CTaylor]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

That seems to be a pretty good assessment of what the terms mean and their impact on the game.

 

I've noticed something frustrating with active points and spell rolls while working on spells, however.

 

Conceptually, a spell that is really slow to cast and takes a lot of expensive components is less powerful and thus should be easier in other ways (less mana, lower magic skill roll, or whatever). In other words, a spell seems to be a series of different modifiers that plug into it that modify its ease of casting.

 

Say, a spell that blasts the target with fire in an instant and takes no components is harder to cast than a spell that does the same thing, but takes a little while, only works on orcs, takes a diamond to cast, and can only be cast during a full moon.

 

The problem is... these spells both have the same active cost. Thus they have the same END (mana) cost and skill roll modifier. They take up the same room in a power framework. Sure, the second one is cheaper to buy and easier to learn but that's irrelevant once you have the spell already.

 

It seems like active cost is a great system for determining raw power for GMs to watch out for, but not such a great system for determining in game play (END Cost, etc).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

The solution is we re-write RSR, or better yet, completely get rid of it and use activation rolls instead. RSR is inherently cheesy because how useful a power with RSR is depends on the rest of your build. Arguably that is true of most attack powers (which ususally work better with a nice chunky OCV), but it makes a mockery of the idea that we are point balancing here. It is also aggravating beyond belief that it is a limitation that penalises you more the more you spend on the power.

 

Sheesh.

[Maur]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

The solution is we re-write RSR, or better yet, completely get rid of it and use activation rolls instead. RSR is inherently cheesy because how useful a power with RSR is depends on the rest of your build. Arguably that is true of most attack powers (which ususally work better with a nice chunky OCV), but it makes a mockery of the idea that we are point balancing here. It is also aggravating beyond belief that it is a limitation that penalises you more the more you spend on the power.

 

Sheesh.

RSR with AP penalties is a reason I really don't care to play a spellcaster type in HERO. It also bit me when using some of the talents from Fantasy HERO, namely Evasion... where in HD you don't see anything about the build, just buy the talent and while the text says it requires a DEX roll, seems to also be at a -3 penalty due to be a 60AP desolid effect...

[CTaylor]

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

 

It seems to me that at least some skill rolls ought to be based on the real, not active cost - real cost/2 or something. That way at least the more limited and troubled an effect is, the easier it is to attempt.

 

That doesn't do much for the problems with frameworks though, they are all based on potential, maximum power than actual, experience power.