Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

[zornwil]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

For some time I have been using a rule of my own devising under which each martial art is a skill enhancer that costs three points and reduces the cost of each manoeuvre in the art by one point. This is simple' date=' quick, and produces the desired effect of encouraging but not forcing characters to stick within their declared martial art.[/quote']

I like that. I added a "Driver" skill enhancer and a "Warrior" one. The Driver one is a better candidate for general use; it basically allows you to knock off the point for all the driving-related skills such as Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, the non-combat versions, and a discount for the various Transport Familiarities.

 

Warrior had a similar effect on combat skills, but may be more of a concern balance-wise. I think the driver one just makes sense.

[zornwil]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

3) I would seriously review the cost of MegaScale' date=' though I feel it is a valuable addition to the system. (On a personal note, it makes me nervous, but that doesn't mean that no one should be able to achieve MegaScale effects.)[/quote']

 

I felt as you did. Our group has found some good uses for Megascale, though, including those sorts of Change Environment, Transform, and Mental type of powers that affect a wide area but are milder in influence than actual combat powers. For example, one character is a powerful mentalist; she can cause headaches around her as a sort of combined uncontrolled outpouring of her annoyance as well as her desire on a conscious level as well to express herself. This has no overt effects, no combat ones anyway, but works quite well. As the book suggests, movement does seem to work okay with this Advantage, in my experience.

 

At a more general level, I would endeavor to improve the flexibility of many Powers. This would assuredly result in a lot of potential abuses (see below), but I have found that when I want flexibility, I go to HERO first. I realize that a GM can always make an exception, but there are concepts that are readily within the bounds of a given Power that are outlawed in the name of game balance. I don't see a generic system as one that should try to police certain abuses. For example, I don't feel that being unable to have any Dupe be the 'original' in the case of a Duplication character is necessary. Not having one can be abused, but not being able to define whether or not there's a 'core' Dupe limits creative character conception - or in some cases, forces points to be spent to simulate something that really isn't that important in some cases. (Transform Dupe to Core Character? It's ugly, but it could be done.) I realize a GM can always say "Sure, you can break that rule." But honestly, I'd rather be in the position of asking a player not to do something, offering alternatives, and working with them to see if the concept will work - or to simply point out that it's not an appropriate concept for the setting/power level/etc. Similarly, I would rather have the rules consistent - by and large - than be making exceptions to them regularly. (See Instant Change in FrEd; that's an inobvious build for the Power, given how Transform works and that it's an Attack Power.) Denying a character/power construction feels distinct from making a rules alteration/exception to allow one. I guarantee there are loopholes upon loopholes in the system anyway, so you're already on the lookout for abuses - and presumably, for concept-appropriateness.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head on what is just a tough judgement call - is the book to help people say "no" by itself giving harder guidelines or is the book to help people assemble powers and abilities as a higher priority and therefore it must be looser in guidelines? No right answer of course. I have some comments below.

 

I think one of the problems that arose with FrEd is that a number of rules were altered because of "squeaky wheels" and I'd hate to see further problems arise due to a countermovement.

 

I think that's an excellent and true point. It's probable we've been TOO responsive in the rules!

 

I think we're really rapidly reaching the point that the best thing really is to take Sidekick just one iteration forward to encompass more of the standard rules (Damage Reduction, VPP, etc.) and serve as a combined Player and "Intro GM" book, and then generate a much more comprehensive "everything a GM could ever need" version which is pretty much 5ER/to-be-6th. The real value is in that it at least opens the door to either make the "everything" version a true complete version which one could buy and not bother with the simpelr version if so desired or to strip out of the deeper book all of the fundamentals, just referring to them in the base book, and thereby free up space. I know a lot of people might not like this, but I think it might be a good thing on the whole. Not sure, though.

 

(Much was snipped from original post to address specific points)

[Fox1]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Interesting to browse the thread, almost all of it concerns point costs in one way or another.

 

For me, the points don't matter as I tend to build to concept without a budget. My balance is done by character niche, not points. Given my success on this line (and the point differences between characters that result from it), I'd have to say the for balance purposes- the points suck.

 

I'm doubtful that point constructions can ever be made to balance. So all the focus on them is somewhat amusing.

 

I'm sure other think differently and I don't really intend to de-rail the conversation. So consider this a passing concept.

 

Beyond that, I think all my house rules should be in the next edition. About time they did the game right

[Vondy]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Its broad, but I think there should be an optional 2 point "recreational vehicles" group for transport familiarity - there are sooooo many of them that being an "avid sportsman" costs way too many points (for the return).