Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[Lucius]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well, Adjustment Powers already have an option to target Special Effect, and I suspect it's a very popular option and I would suggest it should usually be used.

 

It does not strike me as unreasonable, on the face of it, to generalize that concept to other sorts of powers.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Special Effect: Palindromedary

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well, Adjustment Powers already have an option to target Special Effect, and I suspect it's a very popular option and I would suggest it should usually be used.

 

It does not strike me as unreasonable, on the face of it, to generalize that concept to other sorts of powers.

Using the Advantage of an Attack Power, a Yield Sign Advantage at that, and applying it to a Defense. Doesn't sound like a good or balanceable idea for me.

 

In the end it is like Hugh says:

Either the GM allows that to work or not.

If he does, he can just say: Every Power that deals damage outside its "natural Damage type" is still affected by "SFX Only" Defenses, even if they protect against the wrong type. Just a campaign rule, not even any point spendign nessesary.

If not, no Yield Sign advantage in the books will make you let it happen.

And if you want your attacks still to be affected by "Fireproof" defenses, just apply a -0 Limitation "Affected by SFX-Only-Defenses of the wrong type" and be done with it.

And if you think you want more than -0 for that, it can only mean two things:

You want a lot of enemys with fire resistance.

Or it never was about the concept, but only your inner Point Saver/Power Gamer disguising himself as concept.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well' date=' Christopher does bring up some good points;[/quote']

 

I'm afraid I don't really see them. We have chosen some examples that might be more black and white than the problem this might be best at addressing but even so...

 

Let's take the example of Mental Invisibility;

 

Invisibility: Mental Group

 

Should, for all intents and purposes, makes you invisible to Mind Scan, and other assorted Mental Powers. But...

 

"I Can Hear You Thinking" Detect: Minds; Hearing Group

 

Completely valid build - but didn't the GM say, "No, that's not really going to work in this campaign. Mental Powers should always be Mental Group:[\quote]

 

And then you get the technological Hero who has an electro-magnetic gadget that tunes into the electrical discharges of a brain firing. Suddenly that invisibility to mental groups is useless to you. it is not difficult to find ways and reasons to build things in different ways, it does not even take someone trying to be difficult. If you build the detect power in a different way then it would not be subject to adjustment powers with other electrically based powers as might reasonably be expected.

 

This is one of the difficulties in working with a system like HERO.

 

I do have a GM that makes all Fire Effects go versus PD. He never randomly switches it over to ED for some reason - it's always PD in his campaigns. It's a design decision and no one has to worry their Fire Immunity will suddenly be less useful because Fire suddenly goes against ED.

 

It's not that things are "black and white" it's that inside the construct of a Campaign/Game - you do actually have control over these factors. There is a GM/Player contract. I can't think of a single situation that can't be dealt with like this.

 

And this is fine if you are playing in a campaign where there is one GM or all the GMs are bought into the same design principles - easy to say they should be...

 

If there is to be cross-campaign portability or characters that are not at the whim of a variety of GM decisions, then this is probably desirable.

 

If there is a "Magic Defense" the GM either needs to create one' date=' or decide all "Magic" works against the same Defense in his game. He does need to decide if there is a difference between a Torch and a Magic Flame burning you - are they both "Fire" or is one "Fire" and the other "Magic"? If it's "Magic" what's the defense against "Magic?"[/quote']

 

And here is possibly where Christopher might on the face of it have a point. If a wizard sprays magic fire at you and his player had decided that the SFX was magic, then the SFX is magic and magic defences should defend against it. If he decided it was fire then fire defences should work against it. if he decided it was magic fire then possibly each would work less well against it...

 

That makes intuitive sense. If you hold too closely to the HERO ruleset then you get these little intuitive gaps that you cannot really bridge and people have the opportunity to scoff at how inflexible this 'flexible system' really is.

 

Design consideration plays an important role in this. If you just do everything willy-nilly and don't want to keep a consistent parameter across the board; I suggest you use my previous suggestion of adapting Expanded and Variable Effect to Defenses.

 

Will have a look and see if these do the job.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

And if you want your attacks still to be affected by "Fireproof" defenses, just apply a -0 Limitation "Affected by SFX-Only-Defenses of the wrong type" and be done with it.

And if you think you want more than -0 for that, it can only mean two things:

You want a lot of enemys with fire resistance.

Or it never was about the concept, but only your inner Point Saver/Power Gamer disguising himself as concept.

 

The point here Christopher is not about a player seeking point saving for his attack but instead a away of a player seeking to pay more points to get reasonable added value from a defence.

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I'm afraid I don't really see them. We have chosen some examples that might be more black and white than the problem this might be best at addressing but even so...

 

And then you get the technological Hero who has an electro-magnetic gadget that tunes into the electrical discharges of a brain firing. Suddenly that invisibility to mental groups is useless to you. it is not difficult to find ways and reasons to build things in different ways, it does not even take someone trying to be difficult. If you build the detect power in a different way then it would not be subject to adjustment powers with other electrically based powers as might reasonably be expected.

 

That's exactly what I'm getting at actually - just because it's a "Technological Hero" building a "Gadget" Does not mean they can step away from using the Mental Group to detect the neurological firings.

 

The SFX may be Tech, the Mechanics - to any GM paying attention - does need to be consistent internally and this should be built with either a Sense in the Mental Group or a Mental Power.

 

Unless the GM also rules that being Invisible to Mental Abilities won't actually prevent Tech-Based or Magic-Based Abilities from finding you.

 

But in my mind, you're example is simply a Special Effect Reason to build Mental Powers as Gadgets, and still be foiled/affected by Mental Invisibility. You're still going to be affected by Adjustment Powers that affect Tech - because you're SFX are Tech; and you're going to get foiled by Sense Powers affecting Mental Powers because that's the Mechanics you're using.

 

Hero has a dozen ways to build any one thing, that's effectively a Hero Law. But it also requires a GM to understand his game and knowing when to allow or disallow specific builds based on expectations and GM/Player contracts.

 

You asked how one accounts for "every contingency"? Well, the GM needs to build an internally consistent game - otherwise you're just bashing about in the Marvel Universe.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The point here Christopher is not about a player seeking point saving for his attack but instead a away of a player seeking to pay more points to get reasonable added value from a defence.

The applying defenses are not the choice of the defender. The defenses are choice of the attacker - always. It's his phase, his action, his Attack Power, his END cost and his Character Points.

 

When the GM allowed him to build a Fire SFX attack that works agaisnt PD (when ED is the default) and you don't have PD, Only vs. Fire, then this is the full right of the attacker to choose an attack against wich your defenses are weak.

 

Trying to have a "defense for any contigency" is the fault in your thinking. And such a thing was deliberately left out of the system. There is no "absolute, innegateable defense". Just say your GM: "I want to make my character very resistant vs. Fire, what are the defenses I should resonably have?"

If the GM then sucker punches you by having every Fire EP and his dog throw Fire Attacks against you that ignore those defenses - then there is propably something wrong in your player/gm contract. And that is nothing the rules can solve.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I am going to avoid getting drawn into the discussion of individual examples.

 

Are you really telling me that HERO never finds itself in a position where the game rules contradict in game reality and a strict following of the rules would go counter to the intuitive result? Even is tightly controlled campaigns?

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Are you really telling me that HERO never finds itself in a position where the game rules contradict in game reality and a strict following of the rules would go counter to the intuitive result? Even is tightly controlled campaigns?

I say most of the problems people have with the rules, comes from incomplete knowledge or faulty interpretion of the rules. Or an improper understanding of what they wanted to do.

 

I also think there is a general disconnect betwen descriptive action and the speed/action system, for many players and gm (the the-action-has-to-be-resolved-in-one-second effect).

 

It's "wrong tool for the right job" effect, I observe here very often.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I am going to avoid getting drawn into the discussion of individual examples.

 

Are you really telling me that HERO never finds itself in a position where the game rules contradict in game reality and a strict following of the rules would go counter to the intuitive result? Even is tightly controlled campaigns?

 

Doc

 

The Rules are there to facilitate the game. If the rules are prevented the game from moving forward in a logical and consistent manner then I suggest one of two things is happening:

1) The Rules are being abused unfairly and outside the spirit of the Game, and the offense needs to be adjusted to fit within the Games guidelines.

2) The Rules need to be adjusted on a per game basis to keep the Game internally consistent.

 

By "Game" I mean "Any Individual Campaign"

 

Have I run into problems that could cause this kind of thing? Occasionally, yes. The solution has always been easy to implement. If you run into a situation that a specific build seems to go against the spirit of previous builds, Mechanically, you've probably used the wrong Mechanics for that given game. Just because you can build a Power one way does not mean that Power is equally valid (no matter how Strictly Rules Correct) in every Campaign.

 

I don't think I've used the Rules in the book in any two campaigns the exact same way either.

 

The System is not your babysitter - it must be forced to conform to your Game. Not the other way around.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The System is not your babysitter - it must be forced to conform to your Game. Not the other way around.

 

I am so close to everything you say here but the rules are a players only defence against bad GMs, that and not playing.

 

With good players and a facilitative GM all things are possible. The best systems compensate for deficits on both sides...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I say most of the problems people have with the rules' date=' comes from incomplete knowledge or faulty interpretion of the rules. Or an improper understanding of what they wanted to do.[/quote']

 

What I am about to say is pretty scary for me. If the age on your profile is correct, I have been playing this game from before, or close to, the day you were born.

 

In that time I have seen many examples of what I am talking about and I have also found lots of ways round the problems, including flexible/generous GMing. I have also seen bad GMs crucify reasonable player requests and concepts by sticking to the rules as written. Not incomplete knowledge or faulty interpretation. Not even a faulty interpretation of what they wanted to do.

 

Mind you, I am not saying these things do not also exist. Just that I am looking to those times when these are not the issue.

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I am so close to everything you say here but the rules are a players only defence against bad GMs, that and not playing.

 

With good players and a facilitative GM all things are possible. The best systems compensate for deficits on both sides...

 

Doc

 

The ability to adapt and change the rules to suit the game is the GMs best defense against bad players. That and not running.

 

The words you really want to latch onto in my posts are "Internal Consistency"

 

If the GM says "Fire goes against PD" then

a) The Player cannot whip out the Rules say "No, here it says Fire is against ED, I build my Fire Attack that way and bypass the villains Fire Immunity"

The GM cannot suddenly say "This Fire attack goes against ED, bypassing your character's Fire Immunity"

 

it's a GM-Player contract. The best systems allow for the Group to make their own game the way they want it.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I am so close to everything you say here but the rules are a players only defence against bad GMs' date=' that and not playing.[/quote']

It is not the purpose of the rule to "be the players defense against bad GMing".

 

The only "defense" against bad GM's or Bad players, is not playing with bad GM's/bad players.

 

Totally wrong tool and totally wrong aproach for the right job.

[Martin2]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

What I am about to say is pretty scary for me. If the age on your profile is correct, I have been playing this game from before, or close to, the day you were born.

 

Doc

 

Doc you bring up Christophers age? His age quoted is 27 so is not a child anymore.

 

You both have much experience with gaming systems (like myself I know many systems other than Hero as I have been roleplaying nearly for as long as Christopher has been alive as well).

 

Doc, you will also be experienced like myself with now defunct editions of systems with concepts still floating around my head. So if Christopher is familiar with less editions of Hero is his experience more relvant or less relevant for this edition of Hero???

 

A bit like a Taxi driver who drives more miles the the average person will he be a better driver than that average driver?? It depends on the driver.

 

I value both your inputs as they bring up my knowledge of Hero and give ideas of my own. Age does not come into it.

 

But it does not mean that I disagree with both of you on some ocassions (but do not express it).

 

Just keep up the discussions for all of us to learn more from varying view points

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The applying defenses are not the choice of the defender. The defenses are choice of the attacker - always. It's his phase' date=' his action, his Attack Power, his END cost and his Character Points.[/quote']

 

So you're OK if my fire attack works against Mental Flash Defense because I define it that way? The rules are intended to facilitate bringing a concept into game terms. The object is, or should be, to translate the power into game terms, not use them as a Gotcha (Ha Ha - I can circumvent your Fire Defense because I built the power mechanically to circumvent your power's mechanics!) If the player's concept is extreme resistance to fire attacks, then his power should achieve that end. If, as a GM, I want to get around that resistance, using a non-fire power seems like a pretty easy approach, rather than resorting to "this very special fire that your defenses don't apply against".

 

Trying to have a "defense for any contigency" is the fault in your thinking. And such a thing was deliberately left out of the system. There is no "absolute' date=' innegateable defense". Just say your GM: "I want to make my character very resistant vs. Fire, what are the defenses I should [i']resonably[/i] have?"

If the GM then sucker punches you by having every Fire EP and his dog throw Fire Attacks against you that ignore those defenses - then there is propably something wrong in your player/gm contract. And that is nothing the rules can solve.

 

"Immune to fire" doesn't strike me as a defense for every contingency. It strikes me as a pretty narrow, conceptual ability for a specific character.

 

If the GM says "Fire goes against PD" then

a) The Player cannot whip out the Rules say "No, here it says Fire is against ED, I build my Fire Attack that way and bypass the villains Fire Immunity"

The GM cannot suddenly say "This Fire attack goes against ED, bypassing your character's Fire Immunity"

 

it's a GM-Player contract. The best systems allow for the Group to make their own game the way they want it.

 

Exactly - if the player says "I want my character to be immune to fire", the onus is on the GM to say "No, that will not be allowed in my game" or "OK, here is how we will build it and the character will be immune to fire attacks". Not "OK, you build what you like and I will build opponents to violate your concept just because I can and I see no reason you, the player, should have any say on your character's abilities".

 

In other games, the character might very well be able to take an "immune to all fire" ability and point to the rules. In Hero, the GM and player must agree to what the rules can be applied to simulate.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

So you're OK if my fire attack works against Mental Flash Defense because I define it that way?

As long as the same GM would allow it for other player too, why not?

If not and he did not announced such things then I must wonder about the quality of his GMing and I would certanly doubt his ability to make a game where I have fun.

 

And when in doubt I quit the group/wait until GM change, before being frustrated from playing. Happened already, did it already.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

As long as the same GM would allow it for other player too' date=' why not?[/quote']

 

Maybe because you told me that the defence against fire was ED, not PD? Then changed to say that PD would be fine if all defences against fire were PD and that was known to all players? So you would be OK with this if all fire attacks were against mental flash defence or is mental flash defence different from PD?

 

If not and he did not announced such things then I must wonder about the quality of his GMing and I would certanly doubt his ability to make a game where I have fun.

 

And when in doubt I quit the group/wait until GM change, before being frustrated from playing. Happened already, did it already.

 

Lucky to have the option - though people do say that no gaming is better than bad gaming. However, a GM in a pick-up game is not going to remember all of the special builds he has agreed with people over time and many builds are simply built book-legal, not according to the ideal of a GMs internally consistent campaign.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Doc you bring up Christophers age? His age quoted is 27 so is not a child anymore.

 

I did bring up his age, since he questioned my experience and ability to understand the system. I wanted to make sure that he knew I had been through all this design stuff many times and I was not lightly suggesting this, that I had seen a need.

 

I do not accept that familiarity with the current iteration of the rules makes Christopher's view more valid because the discussion is not talking about application of the rules, simply me suggesting there is a gap for a rule supplement and Christopher telling me that I am playing the game wrong...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Totally wrong tool and totally wrong aproach for the right job.

 

You want to explain that?

 

Doc

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I think the different views being discussed in this thread illustrate a need for there to be a more formalized method or even requirement for GM's to define ALL the Campaign Rules they plan on using up front. As it stands, most of the existing rules are character centric and don't lend themselves to easily showing potential interaction issues that are more directly important to a GM setting up his game-verse. I know there are bits and pieces already available but I for one would welcome a book dedicated to this concept alone. Not a book about rules but one about picking a consistent grouping and use of existing rules. The APG does some of this but it is otherwise still primarily focused on construction methods for individual abilities deemed too difficult to model with the core book toolkit.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Here are a couple of older threads I started a while back that never got much traction.

Looking back, I think they were failed attempts to discuss some of the same themes brought up in this thread.

Campaign Damage Caps, Code vs. Killing & Pulling a Punch

Scale of Detail in HERO gaming

 

Or maybe not.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I am going to avoid getting drawn into the discussion of individual examples.

 

Are you really telling me that HERO never finds itself in a position where the game rules contradict in game reality and a strict following of the rules would go counter to the intuitive result? Even is tightly controlled campaigns?

 

Doc

 

 

I think HERO games where there is a perceived contradiction between game reality and game(campaign) rules, it usually results from a misunderstanding of those rules by 1 or more parties or a miss-communication of the GM's house rules in use.

 

Going back to the earlier Mental Awareness example...

(I know you don't want to get into specific examples but I find that is usually the ONLY way to determine if the issue is one of understanding or communication)

 

from 6e page 211:

Mental Awareness

Cost: 5 Character Points

(Detect Mental Powers [3 Character Points], Sense; Passive).

I don't think this changed from 5e.

It illustrates a minor rules layout inconsistency in that Mental Awareness is really just an ability description (like Talents*) and not really a stand alone Power.

 

*from 6e1 page 447:

Bump of Direction:

Detect Direction (Passive):

Total cost: 3 points.

As already pointed out by ghost angel, the special effect (gadgets) does not trump mechanics when attempting to construct a way around Invisibility to Mental Awareness. Sure, the character still shows up when scanned for "mental activity" (as would every other character in range) but that is not the same as actually using Mental Powers. If I were the GM of a game with a NPC Mentalist with Invisibility to Mental Awareness and a Player had a gadgeteer character who wants to build a device to circumvent the NPC's Invisibility I would strongly suggest starting with Drain as the core power and build it like a 5e Suppress. This is really the only option since Invisibility ALWAYS trumps a Detect of a Sense affected by the Invisibility. They could certainly build a device that actually detects the use of Mental Powers (Mental Awareness) but to do so it MUST use the Mental Sense Group and as a result is thereby affected by the Invisibility.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Maybe because you told me that the defence against fire was ED' date=' not PD? Then changed to say that PD would be fine if all defences against fire were PD and that was known to all players? So you would be OK with this if all fire attacks were against mental flash defence or is mental flash defence different from PD?[/quote']

As long a I knew in advantage that could happen and this is the way the campaign is played, there is not problem with that. And like somebody else pointed out: There are a bajillion other SFX one could use to circumvent your "Only vs Fire" Protection totally and without things like avad. So I don't see any point in expanding the defense, when any enemy with half a brain would just use a different sfx to hit me.

 

Lucky to have the option - though people do say that no gaming is better than bad gaming. However' date=' a GM in a pick-up game is not going to remember all of the special builds he has agreed with people over time and many builds are simply built book-legal, not according to the ideal of a GMs internally consistent campaign.[/quote']

A pick-up game does not mean that no Player/GM Contract is there. So it's just an issue of communication, not the rules.

Also, why would anybody play a game that is not fun? The entire point of playing is to have fun, so either you have fun playing the bad game or ... well, no idea why else you keep playing when it is not fun.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

As long a I knew in advantage that could happen and this is the way the campaign is played' date=' there is not problem with that. And like somebody else pointed out: There are a bajillion other SFX one could use to circumvent your "Only vs Fire" Protection totally and without things like avad. So I don't see any point in expanding the defense, when any enemy with half a brain would just use a different sfx to hit me.[/quote']

 

The idea is because it wouod be in concept for the character to have a better protection against attacks with a fire based SFX. That is the whole of it. It is not about efficiency, it is not about minmaxing, it is about getting a bit more consistency for the character ingame.

 

If a player has a character concept to have better defences against fire then that is what he should have. I need to investigate damage negation as I have never used it but to achieve a guaranteed better defence against fire you need either the GM to go along with it (and if you have rolling GMs this is more difficult than if you have a constant one) or you need rules that everyone can point to and say - "See, I paid for this convenience". Right now the rules are "buy all the defences that you think you will need" and, for this small area, I think that is too expensive and makes the game look silly to newcomers.

 

"Why am I buying mental defence only versus SFX fire?"

 

"Because it is possible someone may use mental powers with SFX fire and your ED doesn't cover that."

 

"Right. I'm off to play a less silly game like M&M where defence against fire means what it says!"

 

A pick-up game does not mean that no Player/GM Contract is there.

 

No, but it cannot be as comprehensive or as detailed as exists in a long standing relationship. As I said. With a pick-up game, you go by the rules in the book and in the book it says you can apply any SFX to your attack that seems to make sense. Getting into that level of detail for a pick-up game is more than I, or any of the many GMs I have played with over the years in just that kind of way, seem willing to get into.

 

So it's just an issue of communication, not the rules.

Also, why would anybody play a game that is not fun? The entire point of playing is to have fun, so either you have fun playing the bad game or ... well, no idea why else you keep playing when it is not fun.

 

Communication can make up for the lack of a rule, but a rule in the toolset removes the need for that conversation to take place - everyone knows where they are.

 

As for why anybody would play in a game that is not fun, you only have to look around the forums to see games that people are involved in that are not fun but are persevered because they are getting together with their friends and not willing to risk friendships with criticism or walking out of a game. There are lots of reasons, some because gamers are not reknowned for their social skills and graces and some because they just want to play and this is the only game in town.

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Communication can make up for the lack of a rule' date=' but a rule in the toolset removes the need for that conversation to take place - everyone knows where they are.[/quote']

You think just because it is in the rules, a Bad GM can't just say "We don't use them"?

90% of the games on Herocentral have a no VPP rule. And VPP's are in the book - and generally less problematic in forum play, as you can easily make the math on the fly with longer response times.

 

I already played in a D&D 3.0 game where the GM decided "Attack of Opportunity for Movement are silly, we don't use them". That's it.

One simple decission and even a core rule is gone without replacement, just because the Gm decided he does not like it.