Focus on focus

[Sean Waters]

Following a discussion on the meaning of restrainable on another thread, I go to thinking that the whole restrainable/focus thing could do with a bit more structure. Here is what I came up with.

 

First off do not call it focus - it is simply a set of restrictions defining how the power can be removed or negated.

 

REMOVEABLE

The power can be removed in combat (requires a grab at -2 OCV and STR v STR or a disarm) -1/2

OR

 

The power can be removed out of combat -1/4

 

If you have a removeable power you can take a further modifier:

Can be given to another to use +1/4 (equivalent to taking UBO)

 

 

 

RESTRAINABLE

Cannot be used in some reasonably common circumstance other than removal or damage (eg entangled or grabbed ) -1/4

 

 

TARGETABLE

Can be destroyed in combat (targeted at target's DCV+2) -1/4

 

 

You end up with more definition and get rid of the rather odd 'indestructible focus for free' thing*, and the equally odd free UBO. It also allows you to differentiate between a pistol and a staff: you should still be able to fire a pistol if you are entangled if you had it in hand, even though it is a OAF, whereas a staff would be useless if you could not swing it.

 

A power that can be removed could be defined as an object (using the rules in the book for focus) or as a power that can be negated - if you have wings then a targeted shot to them could stop them working even though they are not seperate from you (perhaps if you take more than CON/2 stun to the power it is considered 'stunned' and if you take CON or more stun in one hit it is considered disabled for this scene), of someone could pluck all the feathers out of combat.

 

 

If a power normally has visible sfx it should be obvious that the power comes from the removeable/restrainable/targetable power unless the power is built with IPE or indirect. If a power does not normally have visible sfx then these rules do not change that, but the sfx/source of power can be made visible with the limitation of the same name at -1/4.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* a power that is not targetable is not necessarily indestuctible, just so rugged that it can not be damaged without damaging you.

[tesuji]

Re: Focus on focus

 

replace restrainable and focus with

 

LIMITATION - Stuff happens

 

Frequency - how many sessions out of ten does this limitation cause you problems? Multiply number by 3cp.

 

Severity - How severe is this when it comes up?

Critical? costs character 2/3 of his effectiveness x2 cost

Severe - costs character half his effectiveness x1

Minor costs character 1/4 of his effectiveness x1/2

 

Definitions (by player) - provide one paragraph and at least five examples of "these problems"

 

Definitions (by gm) - approve/disapprove the player's suggestions and provide at least three more examples.

 

move along.

 

i think we get less useful the more we try and pigeon hole the game play into pre-defined mechanical blocks. We shouldn't be trying to define the game blocks but instead to let the play define the mechanics.

 

make it more about mutual agreement between player and gm and not about which hero defined elements are bought how.

 

make game fit you, not the other way round.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus on focus

 

replace restrainable and focus with

 

LIMITATION - Stuff happens

 

Frequency - how many sessions out of ten does this limitation cause you problems? Multiply number by 3cp.

 

Severity - How severe is this when it comes up?

Critical? costs character 2/3 of his effectiveness x2 cost

Severe - costs character half his effectiveness x1

Minor costs character 1/4 of his effectiveness x1/2

 

Definitions (by player) - provide one paragraph and at least five examples of "these problems"

 

Definitions (by gm) - approve/disapprove the player's suggestions and provide at least three more examples.

 

move along.

 

i think we get less useful the more we try and pigeon hole the game play into pre-defined mechanical blocks. We shouldn't be trying to define the game blocks but instead to let the play define the mechanics.

 

make it more about mutual agreement between player and gm and not about which hero defined elements are bought how.

 

make game fit you, not the other way round.

 

You can either take a very generic approach - every limitation is a form of limtied power - or a more structured one. I think there are elements of Hero that are in the middle ground, and not in a good way.

 

The advantage of a very open approach is that it is easy to understand but the problem is that you are sacrificing consistency it is unlikely that two people will necessarily define the same limitation (say armour being a worn suit rather than an innate power) the same way. That damages game consistency.

 

I'm a little confused (as usual ) by the way you have presented it. I like the 'how many time out of 10 is it a problem?' approach, but why multiply by 3cp? Shouldn't it be related to power cost?

 

I'm assuming that we are taking a reasonably structured approach (I can't see 6ED coming in at 98 pages ), and trying to extract the fundamental particles that make up the current focus and restrainable limitations.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Focus on focus

 

I think that the generic approach is a good starting point, but it is my experience that most players benefit mightily from examples. It gives everyone a reference point, promoting consistency as Sean pointed out, and lets people know what is reasonable. Examples also frequently spark the imagination, which is what RPGs are all about.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Focus on focus

 

I'm not really sure how much of a problem Focus is, I see more of a problem in people not using the tactical option to attack them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus on focus

 

I'm not really sure how much of a problem Focus is' date=' I see more of a problem in people not using the tactical option to attack them.[/quote']

 

To my mind, focus has a number of problems, most created by arbitrary rules that address the structure of focus without taking into account the wider context and restrict what you can do. There are some horrible logical inconsistencies.

 

For example you can create an indestructible focus for the same cost as a destructibe one, but the indestructible one can not be broken by damage. That seems unfair.

 

There is a rule that you can not use accessible focuses when entangled. Why not? I can understand your nightstick not being much use when you are tied up, but if you are wearing an amulet that grants you +40 STR why should that not work?

 

This approach removes most if not all of the inconsistencies, and gives you more options. You can build a power as 'removeable' even if it is not a focus - so long as it can be taken away with a grab. You can build a power that can be damaged in combat, even if it is not an object.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Focus on focus

 

ok, I agree that to the focus rules could use a reworking, I just don't find that their flaws tend to show up in games. It's one of those "this is a problem, but not a huge one" issues to me. I'm interested in how this thread goes though.

 

Also, I think issues like "breakable vs. unbreakable" are probably best handled by individual GMs and genres.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus on focus

 

ok, I agree that to the focus rules could use a reworking, I just don't find that their flaws tend to show up in games. It's one of those "this is a problem, but not a huge one" issues to me. I'm interested in how this thread goes though.

 

Also, I think issues like "breakable vs. unbreakable" are probably best handled by individual GMs and genres.

 

I think that you are right - there are not that many problems in practice - but if we look at why I'd suspect we'd find that first we tend to use focus for very specific things and second we are so use to the little foibles that we have a blind spot there. A re-working would expand the options and clarify the thinking.

 

As to breakable or not, I see it as having three potential levels:

1. breakable with an attack in combat

2. breakable wih time and effort out of combat (or anything in combat that leaves the character as nothing more than a pair of smoking boots

3. unbreakable.

 

There is little practical difference between 2 and 3: if it is not breakable in combat it does not really matter if it is indestructible or just incredibly rugged. However I am quite convinced that there is a real utility jump between 1 and 2, and a utility jump should be paid for.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Focus on focus

 

I can agree with that breakdown, it does seem weird that a focus can be "unbreakable" what with the hero system having few absolutes and all. Maybe there should just be a "unbreakable - permanently" or something.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Focus on focus

 

There is a rule that you can not use accessible focuses when entangled. Why not? I can understand your nightstick not being much use when you are tied up, but if you are wearing an amulet that grants you +40 STR why should that not work?

Wouldn't a Gauntlet usually be Inaccessible? OIF under the current rules? Anyway, that’s my first thought, more serious and thought out opinions later.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus on focus

 

Wouldn't a Gauntlet usually be Inaccessible? OIF under the current rules? Anyway' date=' that’s my first thought, more serious and thought out opinions later.[/quote']

 

 

Sorry - meant something like a necklace that could be snatched away, and glowed when it was enhancing your strength.

[tesuji]

Re: Focus on focus

 

You can either take a very generic approach - every limitation is a form of limtied power - or a more structured one. I think there are elements of Hero that are in the middle ground, and not in a good way.

 

The advantage of a very open approach is that it is easy to understand but the problem is that you are sacrificing consistency it is unlikely that two people will necessarily define the same limitation (say armour being a worn suit rather than an innate power) the same way. That damages game consistency.

 

the myth of consistency is not due to mechanics being defined.

 

take your chosen example - armor.

 

legally one gm can define it as oif for one character

same gm can define it as oif real armor for another

same gm can define it as oihid for a third

same gm can define it as no lim for a forth.

 

all based on "what kind of problems does the character have".

 

by choosing oihid theplayer wrote "i sometimes get caught out of armor and have to change" and by choosing oif the other player wrote in "sometimes it is stolen and it takes damage from attacks" and so forth.

 

the difference is not in consistency UNLESS the different parties agree to a mutual "we will all use oif for powered armor" and decide to limit themselves... which is the same agreement they could make in an open system.

 

 

a hammer can be oif or oaf based on "does he have trouble with people grabbing it" regardless of whether or not it CAN be grabbed.

 

the difference is two-fold.

 

in an open system without predefined cubbyholes there is no pre-fabbed component you try and fit our concept into. if your armor contains elements of oif and oihid but not all of oif, you can define it that way. the limitation fits your concept exactly not "close enough".

 

additionalluy, there is clear understanding, there is clear expression of the problems and their ffrequency.

 

how often is the very well defined OAF blaster gun shot out of your hand in combat? how often is it damaged?

 

more over, taking two gms who both decided to define blaster gun with oaf, how frequentl one has enemies shoot it outt of your hand (using spread ebs to overcome the ocv penaalty but realizing the lower dice damage is still enough to overcome your strength) is not anywhere defined as goingto be close to how frequentl the other gms does.

 

i have seen gms who played villains tactically and so focus was a serious problem and i have seen gms who didn;t and focus was a rare problem and both used the same well detailed focus oif rule and oaf rules.

 

on the other hand, in an open system, if both gms had the same defined list of problems and the same defined list of frequencies, the odds are they would be the same.

 

the open system provides more useful definition, tailored to the specific character traits, not less.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus on focus

 

the myth of consistency is not due to mechanics being defined.

 

take your chosen example - armor.

 

......................

 

on the other hand, in an open system, if both gms had the same defined list of problems and the same defined list of frequencies, the odds are they would be the same.

 

the open system provides more useful definition, tailored to the specific character traits, not less.

 

You makes a good point indeed, but I think we both come down to a need for some points of definition, whether it be in terms of mechanical definition, of better defining the approach to coming up with a 'generic' limitation value.

 

You are never going to get the Hero community to agree to a consistent approach to character creation, so you have to put the points of reference in where you can.

[Split Decision]

Re: Focus on focus

 

Sean, have you considered collecting all your wisdom in a sourcebook? The Ultimate Rule or something? You are clearly a deep-ish thinker even by the high standards of these boards. I'd pay money to get what you give us for free.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Focus on focus

 

Sean' date=' have you considered collecting all your wisdom in a sourcebook? [i']The Ultimate Rule[/i] or something? You are clearly a deep-ish thinker even by the high standards of these boards. I'd pay money to get what you give us for free.

 

All my wisdom would make for a very short book, all my rules mods and suggestions one that would be far too long

 

I do believe that there is a place for a book along the lines of The Ultimate Option though

[secretID]

Re: Focus on focus

 

I like Sean's system. I've recently been having discussions on just these issues, and this system would resolve them more neatly than I did.