VPP Change

[Ndreare]

I was thinking of making some changes to how VPP functions for an upcoming fantasy game and wanted some feedback on potential consequences before implementing the changes.

 

1: VPP is inherently limited to a single FX (Fire Magic, Weather Magic, Animal Magic...) if you want variable FX you would have to pay points for it.

 

2: VPP slots cannot have any advantages unless the advantage has been purchased on the Control cost.

 

3: VPP Slots can only use extra endurance limitation by default. Any other limitations can only b placed on powers if they are also on the Control cost.

 

So will these changes effectively gimp VPP to below usefulness or would you as a player still consider using one?

 

the same changes would also be applied to NPC such as those in the bestiary a Demon Magic vpp would be limited to demonic powers, a farie magic VPP would be vulnerable to iron and other farie tropes.

 

Generally most magic users will have a VPP, however the advantages and limitations represent skill. For example a young week mage will have gestures, incantations and delayed phase maybe even concentration. While the more skilled mage may chose to have no limitation.

 

In general it is supposed to be a world with thousands of unique or varied magics so the characters will have full liberty to design their powers. and many powerful acrane effects can be in the hands of player characters.

 

PS: All power uses would Require a Skill roll, if effective skill is 13+ no roll is actually needed in play. However powers suffer -3 for every Caution Sign and -10 for every stop sign. I know this one flows okay as I have required it in every Fantasy game I have GMed in HERO for years.

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

The changes you suggest are more build restrictions than rule changes and should be fine.

 

Magic is often a thorny issue, but you can get around that without changing the rules. Take a normal VPP but require a "pick list" for the powers, and require in-game actions to add to the list.

[Martin2]

Re: VPP Change

 

I have a new VPP for one of my players for a supers game. What I am going to do is get the player to predefine all his popular powers. These powers have to be approved by myself in advance and will be precosted. He has the "COSMIC" power so he can instantly change between these approved powers and does not have to make a skill roll.

 

If he wants to make powers on the fly I am going to make him roll a power roll to "invent" new powers, even though he does not have to on his other approved powers. If I think the power is too different from his current list of powers and is not allowed and he passes the skill roll I will say he can not have the power and explain why, or produce a lesser effect that is within his SFX.

 

I am also thinking of not having the first use of the power at the maximum active cost even if he want it to be (unless its a power that need to save the character / party on that instance etc). This is to show his lack of experience with his new power etc.

 

But I have the advantage that the player does not know the rules so may not know if the power was not at maximum power or not. He is also not a min / max player so most of his extra powers will most probably be for flavour and not to unballance the game. Well I hope not .

 

So this keeps the VPP as an important tool for the player but is also something that needs planning on the side of the player or he will not get every power he / she wants. You also have the frame work to say your power worked but as you have not planned this or practiced with this power the effect is not as good as you would like. If you practice and the active point effect will go up and will appear on their power list as a permanent power and will be the same as the rest of the powers on their character sheet.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: VPP Change

 

I think #1 and #3 look like excellent ideas. However...

 

Given the number of different advantages required to create a useful variety of spells, I'd say #2 is well beyond the 'gimped into uselessness' threshold. The other two don't look like deal-killers, but if I was playing in this campaign, I'd decline to play a magic-user.

[dmjalund]

Re: VPP Change

 

f you were to insisst on #2, i would think that Variable Advantage on the control cost might be a popular option

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP Change

 

I was thinking of making some changes to how VPP functions for an upcoming fantasy game and wanted some feedback on potential consequences before implementing the changes.

 

1: VPP is inherently limited to a single FX (Fire Magic, Weather Magic, Animal Magic...) if you want variable FX you would have to pay points for it.

 

I'd provide the usual limitation to the control cost for a single SFX, myself, but the level of limitation would depend on exactly how limited the variety of available powers is going to be. For example, if Fire Magic includes Hypnotizing Flames (mind control), Flames of Protection (force field and barriers), etc. that's a way lower limitation than if fire does damage, period.

 

2: VPP slots cannot have any advantages unless the advantage has been purchased on the Control cost.

 

This significantly limits the VPP and would probably cause me to either play something else or look for SFX where advantages seem less useful. For example, Fire can either have all its spells be AoE or Explosive or none of them? Fire's probably out. Animal powers, on the other hand? Maybe I can live with "no advantages", especially when I slap +1/4 "END only to activate" on the control cost.

 

3: VPP Slots can only use extra endurance limitation by default. Any other limitations can only b placed on powers if they are also on the Control cost.

 

I don't think this is as bad as the advantage issue, but it does eliminate a lot of flavour limitations. No reason, for example, to limit my Bear's Claws to be Reduced Penetration, or build an Emotion Control spell since I can get full Mind Control for the same price.

 

PS: All power uses would Require a Skill roll' date=' if effective skill is 13+ no roll is actually needed in play. However powers suffer -3 for every Caution Sign and -10 for every stop sign. I know this one flows okay as I have required it in every Fantasy game I have GMed in HERO for years.[/quote']

 

I think this restricts some otherwise viable and flavorful spells, but wouldn't be a dealbreaker. I suspect a broken spell would still not be impossible to create, and my general bias is to evaluate rather than apply blanket restrictions.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: VPP Change

 

I share the concerns about the "no Advantages on slots" ground rule. If you want to do something like that, I think it might be better to go through the list of Advantages and separate them into a "this actually changes how the power functions" category, and a "this just makes the power work more efficiently in some way" category. Then only apply the restriction to the second kind (since that seems to be your aim anyway... simulating skill).

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: VPP Change

 

f you were to insisst on #2' date=' i would think that Variable Advantage on the control cost might be a popular option[/quote']

 

Dude just won the thread.

[Lucius]

Re: VPP Change

 

Numbers 2 and 3 sound like you're trying to make a given mage's spells all too much alike.

 

All my spells are Explosions or none are? What about spells for which "Explosion" just doesn't make sense?

 

All my spells require Gestures or none do?

 

what is the purpose of these restrictions?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

All my taglines require a palindromedary?

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

A mage using this VPP could change the weather, fly on the wind or strike someone with a lightning bolt, freeze them in ice or drain thir END with a heatstroke. Hardly gimped or overly restricted. Has made me think we tend to use advantages far more often on attack powers though.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: VPP Change

 

A mage using this VPP could change the weather' date=' fly on the wind or strike someone with a lightning bolt, freeze them in ice or drain thir END with a heatstroke. Hardly gimped or overly restricted. Has made me think we tend to use advantages far more often on attack powers though.[/quote']

 

For me, the problem is less about "gimping" the VPP (though I agree it would make some fairly straightforward concepts problematic to build), and more about the logical problems inherent in saying (for example) that no attack can be Area Of Effect unless all attacks are Area Of Effect.

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

For me' date=' the problem is less about "gimping" the VPP (though I agree it would make some fairly straightforward concepts problematic to build), and more about the logical problems inherent in saying (for example) that no attack can be Area Of Effect unless [b']all[/b] attacks are Area Of Effect.

 

I can see that: one of the problems with VPPs is that you CAN build powers that are highly advantaged and that use synergies to do highly nuanced things that might, from a moral viewpoint, be seen as cheating. We can all come up with extinction level powers for under 30 points.

 

That is why dmjalund's suggestion makes a lot of sense: don't allow advantages except the variable advantage: you pre-determine the maximum level of advantages (and thus, to an extent, the flexibility of the power) and pay for it up front as part of the VPP cost.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: VPP Change

 

I can see that: one of the problems with VPPs is that you CAN build powers that are highly advantaged and that use synergies to do highly nuanced things that might, from a moral viewpoint, be seen as cheating. We can all come up with extinction level powers for under 30 points.

 

That is why dmjalund's suggestion makes a lot of sense: don't allow advantages except the variable advantage: you pre-determine the maximum level of advantages (and thus, to an extent, the flexibility of the power) and pay for it up front as part of the VPP cost.

 

 

This is the kind of thinking which has caused me to leave certain campaigns and not sign up for any others with the same GM:

 

You might be inclined to "cheat" therefore I'm going to penalize you in advance for said "cheating."

 

What if I'm not trying to "cheat"? What if I just want to build a freaking character that works, according to concept? When I see house-rules like this, my reaction is, count me out, I'll play this character concept in another campaign.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: VPP Change

 

This is the kind of thinking which has caused me to leave certain campaigns and not sign up for any others with the same GM:

 

You might be inclined to "cheat" therefore I'm going to penalize you in advance for said "cheating."

 

What if I'm not trying to "cheat"? What if I just want to build a freaking character that works, according to concept? When I see house-rules like this, my reaction is, count me out, I'll play this character concept in another campaign.

 

I have to agree with this sentiment too. It's not fair to "penalize" non-abusive players by subjecting them to restrictions aimed at curbing abusive players.

[Tasha]

Re: VPP Change

 

This is the kind of thinking which has caused me to leave certain campaigns and not sign up for any others with the same GM:

 

You might be inclined to "cheat" therefore I'm going to penalize you in advance for said "cheating."

 

What if I'm not trying to "cheat"? What if I just want to build a freaking character that works, according to concept? When I see house-rules like this, my reaction is, count me out, I'll play this character concept in another campaign.

 

I also agree with this.

 

The whole way the OP is trying to limit VPPs is "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

 

The best answer that has already materialized in this thread is simply

1)"Make the VPP user Write up a list of Spells they can place in the pool." Then any further spell to be added MUST be researched (taking days or weeks) or must be copied out of another caster with similar magical type (ie Arcane vs Devine is different, but a Pyromancer could copy a fire spell from the Necromancer's spellbook).

2) The VPP takes 2-3 hours to completely change out the spells within (Makes casters THINK about what spells they need).

3) Define what minimum limits spells should have (ie Requires a Magic roll, OAF Casting Implement (ie wand, staff or holy symbol) etc) Keep these minimal and allow the Player to take full value out of these limits.

4) If you require specialities for Casters allow them to buy generic Utility spells as well (ie Detect Magic, Dispel Magic etc).

 

That's how I would deal with a VPP in a Fantasy game. Heck, that's how we have been dealing with them since FH 2.0 (Champs v3). It works well, gives casters the utility that other games like D&D allow, and still limits their options and prevents Spot attacks (ie whipping up firespells for defeating the Frost Giant). YMMV Remember what you run has to be fun for the Players as well.

[Ndreare]

Re: VPP Change

 

The idea behind buying advantages on the control cost would not be to make all powers aoe, it would be to allow access to aoe. However it seams like it would be a deal breaker.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: VPP Change

 

The idea behind buying advantages on the control cost would not be to make all powers aoe' date=' it would be to allow access to aoe. However it seams like it would be a deal breaker.[/quote']

 

It seems very oddly balanced to me. If a wizard had 20 different spells in his spellbook (for example), and 10 of those were built with one Advantage or another, it seems odd to me to have to put all 10 of those Advantages on the entire Control Cost as if the whole VPP used them all the time or something.

 

Besides, I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of it. If characters want to put an Advantage on a Power in a normal VPP, they (essentially) have to lower the Base Points in the Power so that the Active Points don't exceed their limit when the Advantage is applied...

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: VPP Change

 

It seems very oddly balanced to me. If a wizard had 20 different spells in his spellbook (for example), and 10 of those were built with one Advantage or another, it seems odd to me to have to put all 10 of those Advantages on the entire Control Cost as if the whole VPP used them all the time or something.

 

Besides, I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of it. If characters want to put an Advantage on a Power in a normal VPP, they (essentially) have to lower the Base Points in the Power so that the Active Points don't exceed their limit when the Advantage is applied...

 

This is a good analysis. To take it a bit farther, a good magic-user will have a variety of spells, and some of them will tend to have very specialized advantages: the Safe Blind Teleport advantage makes no sense for any other power; Expanded Effect is useless on anything except Adjustment powers. So why would I pay extra for Blast, Barrier and Flight spells in that same VPP just because some other spells have advantages that don't apply?

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

This is the kind of thinking which has caused me to leave certain campaigns and not sign up for any others with the same GM:

 

You might be inclined to "cheat" therefore I'm going to penalize you in advance for said "cheating."

 

What if I'm not trying to "cheat"? What if I just want to build a freaking character that works, according to concept? When I see house-rules like this, my reaction is, count me out, I'll play this character concept in another campaign.

 

I have known people who have refused to play if they can not do anything they want, and it is usually the case that they have not been missed. When I have seen this sort of reaction it has been 'justified' by claims that there are unfair limits being placed on the creativity of the player, but it is not unfair if it applies to everyone and it is not a limit on creativity at all. Anyone can come up with the perfect power if they have access to all of them when ever they want. It takes far more actual creativity to find a useful solution within limits.

 

I have also, as a GM, seen VPPs used in such a way that, whilst perfectly 'book legal', overshadow the concepts of other players and are constantly stealing the glory (or slowing down play to a crawl, or both), because they see their concept, and their sovereign creativity, as superior to others.

 

Now I'm sure when you say that you would not play in a game where you see the GM 'penalising in advance for potential cheating', that you have entirely noble reasons for that approach, and that is why what I actually said was, "one of the problems with VPPs is that you CAN build powers that are highly advantaged and that use synergies to do highly nuanced things that might, from a moral viewpoint, be seen as cheating."

As a GM, I'm playing too. I spend a lot of time thinking about elements of the game and I spend a lot of time trying to create situations that are going to be a challenge to players, and interesting for them, without being a walkover or a deathtrap. In fact the GM is the person playing the game that often puts the most time and effort into it, and demanding the right to a power that can be adapted to any situation makes my hackles rise, because it means that I either have to find some way to nerf the ability in game (which becomes a real creative challenge for me if I have to stop that becoming boring), or accept that a lot of my carefully crafted challenges are going to be dealt with by the 'multitool' approach. Frankly I find that boring too.

 

You can not really cheat in a game with no final 'win' condition, but you can cheat others playing of their enjoyment, and it has been my experience often enough that VPPs are more of an excuse for creativity rather than the real deal. Limiting a VPP from the character creation stage is entirely fair. The player has the choice of whether they want to play within those limits of come up with a different character.

 

Now whilst that may penalise some players, and I'm sure you are among them, who would only use VPPs to enhance the game for everyone, I'd rather set the ground rules from the start than have to start limiting things as we go along, because it is better in most cases to anticipate and avoid a problem than have to deal with it if it comes up. Bear in mind I'm making rules for everyone who is or may be in the game, not just one player who I am personally confident, will not turn the game into a train wreck, or far, far worse, make it boring for others playing.

 

It is also interesting that there is no problem with some restrictions on VPPs, what tends to get people going is when a restriction is imposed that limits offensive capability. Set SFX? I can work round that. Limited limitations, that too. Limited advantages - hang on a gosh-darned minute there...! I think I can honestly say that alarm bells always start ringing and often with good reason if a power comes in with much more than +1 in advantages, because at that stage the base power is so weak that what really matters is the advantages.

 

So I would implore you all to remember that the GM is playing too, and think about everyone in the game. If you are GMing, well, you get to let everyone use VPPs if you want to, and the very best of luck to you.

 

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

This is a good analysis. To take it a bit farther' date=' a good magic-user will have a variety of spells, and some of them will tend to have very specialized advantages: the [i']Safe Blind Teleport[/i] advantage makes no sense for any other power; Expanded Effect is useless on anything except Adjustment powers. So why would I pay extra for Blast, Barrier and Flight spells in that same VPP just because some other spells have advantages that don't apply?

 

 

I agree: that approach is going to limit some good spells and concepts, but the approach that dmjalund suggested, of using 'Variable Advantage' as the only power advantage on the pool sidesteps both your objections (it means that a lot of advantages are never going to get used at all) and mine (too many advantages spoil the broth). Of course you could just replace that whole rule with "all spells have to be pre-approved by the GM and you can only have access to a limited number of spells that you can use at any one time". So that could work where you have to 'learn' your spells from your spell book (which contains GM approved spells*), which takes a minutes per active point (or whatever) and you can only 'know' up to INTx20 spells at one time (that is you can have more than that in your spell book, but only that many in your head for 'instant use').

 

If you want magic users to be powerful but only when properly prepared, this seem like a good system. If you want them to be more dangerous at all times, then use less restrictions. Bear in mind that the freedom to make up an attack on the fly tends to undermine the value of defences, because there is always a way around them. All the design decisions about a campaign will have implications for the feel and flavour of the game.

 

 

 

*And the GM will presumably be limiting NPC spell users in the same way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

It seems very oddly balanced to me. If a wizard had 20 different spells in his spellbook (for example), and 10 of those were built with one Advantage or another, it seems odd to me to have to put all 10 of those Advantages on the entire Control Cost as if the whole VPP used them all the time or something.

 

Besides, I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of it. If characters want to put an Advantage on a Power in a normal VPP, they (essentially) have to lower the Base Points in the Power so that the Active Points don't exceed their limit when the Advantage is applied...

 

It is not going to work well if you can ONLY buy your spells through a Magic VPP, but maybe you use VPPs to buy your general utility spells and then buy your specific use spells separately, which would be an interesting way to flavour individual magic using characters: two fire mages would the be quite different if they had unique spells outside their VPP too.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: VPP Change

 

From the OP, I'm picking up a discomfort with the flexibility and utility of VPPs that might be better served by outlawing them altogether and building magic-users with Multipower frameworks instead.. That would allow the GM to approve each spell in advance rather than worry about what they might come up with on the fly. For those plot-directed occasions where one-time use of an unfamiliar spell detailed in a scroll, spell book, etc. arise, the Power Skill could serve.

[Ndreare]

Re: VPP Change

 

From the OP' date=' I'm picking up a discomfort with the flexibility and utility of VPPs that might be better served by outlawing them altogether and building magic-users with Multipower frameworks instead.. That would allow the GM to approve each spell in advance rather than worry about what they might come up with on the fly. For those plot-directed occasions where one-time use of an unfamiliar spell detailed in a scroll, spell book, etc. arise, the Power Skill could serve.[/quote']

 

No discomfort with VPP versatility, they are very common in most of our games. I am trying to figure out a way to represent a young wizards need to study and learn the tricks of the trade. What i am having trouble coming up with is a good way to simulate that outside of a multipower (which quickly get way overpriced).

 

I guess skill alone can represent this progressive growth in talent, but i wanted something more tangible.

 

Perhaps a 1-point familiarity for certain limitations representing a mage learning how to take advantage of a casting style, or for certain advantages representing the same thing. Then wave the +2 cosmic, overall the cost should balance out for most mages.

 

Maybe have casting style as an optional proffetional skill. a player could then use the casting style (such as blood magic, or fire magic) as a complimentary skill when taking advantage of the relevant casting roll.

 

In truth I am not happy with any of the ideas I have thought of yet but still working on it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP Change

 

You might want to take a look at Killershrike's website.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeMagic.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeMagicDesign.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/ShrikeMagicSystems.aspx

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeMagicSystemAdvisor.aspx

[Sean Waters]

Re: VPP Change

 

No discomfort with VPP versatility, they are very common in most of our games. I am trying to figure out a way to represent a young wizards need to study and learn the tricks of the trade. What i am having trouble coming up with is a good way to simulate that outside of a multipower (which quickly get way overpriced).

 

I guess skill alone can represent this progressive growth in talent, but i wanted something more tangible.

 

Perhaps a 1-point familiarity for certain limitations representing a mage learning how to take advantage of a casting style, or for certain advantages representing the same thing. Then wave the +2 cosmic, overall the cost should balance out for most mages.

 

Maybe have casting style as an optional proffetional skill. a player could then use the casting style (such as blood magic, or fire magic) as a complimentary skill when taking advantage of the relevant casting roll.

 

In truth I am not happy with any of the ideas I have thought of yet but still working on it.

 

 

Build your VPP with limitations that you can only pick spells with specific SFX and from a list. The mage can not create new spells, they have to find them in-game (or buy them in-game)*. That way you have a VPP working pretty like a MP and with the content entirely down to the GM. Don't worry about limiting modifiers because everything is from a pick list anyway.

 

 

 

*Which all have to be pre-built by the GM, or by the player and approved by the GM.