What makes Luck "Special"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Like I said already(feels like three times in this thread alone):

Having a VALID Focus Limitation may makes this balanced.

 

You keep saying it, yes. That does not make it true, and certainly does not make it true in all cases. Your definition of a "valid limitation" is not necessarily shared, nor is it automatically appropriate in every game.

 

Can 15 Sight Flash Defense in a VPP without (VIABLE!) limitations be balanced' date=' if you can change that VPP at will? I highly doubt that. 1-2 Points that will only stop NND/UAA's? Likely.[/quote']

 

So why is it balanced if I buy it as +15 Resistant Protection - Flash Defense instead? Just because it costs more? If that added cost has no added benefit, then R Prot - Exotic Defense is overpriced and that should be fixed.

 

If the GM doesn't allow the character to have Duplication at all, the question of Duplication in a Framework is moot.

When the GM does not allows +20 rPD/+20 rED Powers in addtion to what the cahracter already has, the question of allowing the same in a Framework is moot.

So you only point out that if powers are not allowed, they aren't allowed in Framework. Wich is fairly obvious and pointless to point out.

 

Yup. I disagree with your conclusion that these abilities are pretty much always overpowered in a framework in a game where they are perfectly acceptable outside a framework. I also disagree with the belief this is a serious concern when we see a ton of examples where they are included in a framework. It seems like the classification is intended only to say "your GM may not allow this in a framework". So why is Multiform a Standard power with a suggestion it may be inappropriate for a framework, rather than being a special power? Why not remove "special powers" as a category entirely and discuss those powers which may be inappropriate for frameworks on a case by case basis, with the reasoning (which is what Multiform does), and let the GM assess whether he agrees that reasoning is persuasive in his game?

 

Saying "you can't take these powers in a framework without GM permission, but the GM should commonly grant such permission" is a waste of space. "These aren't allowed in frameworks except when they are which is pretty common" isn't really much of a rule, especially when that rule is easily circumvented with other powers that ARE allowed in frameworks (except if the GM disallows them). It's not a rule - it's a circle game.

[Duane From RI]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Saying "you can't take these powers in a framework without GM permission, but the GM should commonly grant such permission" is a waste of space. "These aren't allowed in frameworks except when they are which is pretty common" isn't really much of a rule, especially when that rule is easily circumvented with other powers that ARE allowed in frameworks (except if the GM disallows them). It's not a rule - it's a circle game.

 

I think the Special Power definition is simply a reminder to people new to the game and to obstinate players that the GM is going to get to make the call on these in a framework. It takes up one column of one page and provides a specific example that the GM can use to quell a revolt in his play group. The specific example uses two different powers in its illustration so repeating the example on a power-by-power basis is probably a mistake.

This example is pretty important. Duplication is not allowed by example because the GM uses the "I said so" card. There are very few blatant "I said so" moments in the book. Most of the book is written with "I will allow it" moments. This example mixes a "I will allow it" moment with a "I said so" moment and uses key words to explain why one can occur and not the other - "reasonable" and "potentially unbalancing".

The example does not go into how a GM might find something "reasonable". The GM with obstinate players gets to point to this paragraph and then define what he decides is reasonable.

Again, the section is one column. This one column with one clear example of the fact that it is up to the GM will quell many an argument. It might not make the obstinate player happy but it ends the argument.

Anything that ends an argument with obstinate players is never a waste of space.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I think the Special Power definition is simply a reminder to people new to the game and to obstinate players that the GM is going to get to make the call on these in a framework. It takes up one column of one page and provides a specific example that the GM can use to quell a revolt in his play group. The specific example uses two different powers in its illustration so repeating the example on a power-by-power basis is probably a mistake.

This example is pretty important. Duplication is not allowed by example because the GM uses the "I said so" card. There are very few blatant "I said so" moments in the book. Most of the book is written with "I will allow it" moments. This example mixes a "I will allow it" moment with a "I said so" moment and uses key words to explain why one can occur and not the other - "reasonable" and "potentially unbalancing".

The example does not go into how a GM might find something "reasonable". The GM with obstinate players gets to point to this paragraph and then define what he decides is reasonable.

Again, the section is one column. This one column with one clear example of the fact that it is up to the GM will quell many an argument. It might not make the obstinate player happy but it ends the argument.

Anything that ends an argument with obstinate players is never a waste of space.

 

Why not a statement that the GM may disallow any power from being a framework slot? I would expect that obstinate player to come back after being slapped around and not being allowed to put, say, Flash Defense in his multipower with a "Resistant Defense: Flash Defense" slot. That's a Standard Power, so since the GM can only deny Special Powers, I guess he has to allow that one.

 

This section seems prone to creating more arguments with an obstinate player than it solves. A simple statement up front that the GM can disallow any build or construct he finds unbalancing seems equally (in)effective in dealing with an obstinate player.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Seriously, if allowing VPP Man to switch his VPP to, say, +30 Flash Defense would be unbalancing, how is it not unbalancing that he can switch it to +20 Resistant Defense: Flash Defense? That's a standard power, so it's allowed in frameworks. If allowing Flash Defense in a framework would be horribly unbalancing, it seems this easy workaround should be removed.

 

Do we really need a separate statement that "special powers" are only allowed in frameworks with GM permission when both frameworks are marked (caution and stop) to indicate they should have careful GM consideration in any case? How many times do the rules need to say "it is possible to build unbalanced constructs and the GM should be alert for this"?

 

I was posting from a smartphone earlier today so I couldn't properly respond to this....

 

My initial idea goes hand in hand with a concept of common conception. If the character in question has a Multipower that already has a Resistant Protection slot (*correct power name that I meant earlier) I would require the "Special" defenses be built in combination with the "Standard" ones at a set ratio per RAW. If the player wants the ability to change that initial ratio I would require that they use the Allocatable# Advantage.

 

#Allocatable Resistant Protection can have its points of defense re-allocated in any way among any defenses that already exist in the base defense power (Resistant Protection or Barrier) - my paraphrase of relevant text from 6e1.

 

I wouldn't necessarily require this Advantage for a VPP that lacks any sort of Limited Slot selection Limitation (like a "Utility Belt" VPP might have) since ALL Advantages are normally available as a no cost 'Variable Advantage' within a VPP. However, I would restrict the character from using more than one instance Resistant Protection from the same Pool even when the mechanics would otherwise allow 2 different 'abilities' of the max active points to be used under the current 'real point' limit of the Pool. From an active point cost perspective this would mirror the cost restrictions of using Clairvoyance in a framework to mimic the effects of an individual Enhanced Sense bought outside the framework.

 

The main question this leaves for the GM to answer is "would he allow the PC to purchase" the equivalent 'Special Power' outside of any framework?"

[Duane From RI]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I will admit that Resistant Protection flies completely in the face of "Special". In fact it is such a gaping loophole to "Special" that I am firing off a question to Steve Long for some clarification.

[Sean Waters]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Without agreeing that there is a need for 'special' powers, I can sort of see why Enhanced Senses should be avoided in frameworks because they are often sued outside combat and so you can get a whole suite of EnSen without paying much for it that is not much more limited than buying them individually.

 

Everything else though IS a balancing exercise that the existence of the framework already provides a mechanical basis for. If you buy a VPP that has 'instant power change', you are actually paying for that, so you get more utility. If that means you can abort to defences in the framework, fine, IMO. Why not? If you have not got instant power change, then you probably can not abort to defences anyway.

 

If you want to abort to covering your eyes when someone flashes you, I'll probably let you DEX off on that, whatever the rules say: losing an action and voluntarily blinding yourself for a phase is a reasonable trade.

 

The list of special powers has dwindled over the years, there are gaping inconsistencies, and I'm not sure what need (with the possible exception of EnSen as mentioned above, which could be dealt with by way of a caution) that 'Special' serves any more - or arguably ever did.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I often see an Enhanced Sense serving as a substitute for Flash Defense. If you have Spatial Awareness, it makes little difference if your sight is blinded. I see characters with Enhanced senses use them in combat fairly often.

 

In fact, earlier rules sets allowed a discount for buying a lot of enhanced senses, as I recall, although that has now gone away.

 

I can certainly see trading off one enhanced sense for another being a small price to pay in many circumstances but, as you note above, trading away your Flash Defense for Mental Defense can also be a small price to pay. In both cases, there are probably instances where you want both.

[Sean Waters]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I often see an Enhanced Sense serving as a substitute for Flash Defense. If you have Spatial Awareness, it makes little difference if your sight is blinded. I see characters with Enhanced senses use them in combat fairly often.

 

In fact, earlier rules sets allowed a discount for buying a lot of enhanced senses, as I recall, although that has now gone away.

 

I can certainly see trading off one enhanced sense for another being a small price to pay in many circumstances but, as you note above, trading away your Flash Defense for Mental Defense can also be a small price to pay. In both cases, there are probably instances where you want both.

 

Good point well made! Targeting senses that do not work in the usual way are pretty effective substitutes for Flash Defence.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

If you want to abort to covering your eyes when someone flashes you' date=' I'll probably let you DEX off on that, whatever the rules say: losing an action and voluntarily blinding yourself for a phase is a reasonable trade.[/quote']

 

I am pretty much convinced by the argument that the abort should be to a manouevre that has the special effect of covering your eyes - that could be block (seems appropriate), dodge or even dive for cover. All of that is in rules as written and requires no hand-waving or making up rules or even wondering how effective your hands will be at avoiding the blinding flash of the nuclear bomb.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I am pretty much convinced by the argument that the abort should be to a manouevre that has the special effect of covering your eyes - that could be block (seems appropriate), dodge or even dive for cover. All of that is in rules as written and requires no hand-waving or making up rules or even wondering how effective your hands will be at avoiding the blinding flash of the nuclear bomb.

 

 

Doc

 

Another good point,well made! No need for undue generosity at all.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Another good point' date='well made! No need for undue generosity at all.[/quote']

 

I agree but not my good point, twas Odds Bodkins that done it further up the thread...

[Sean Waters]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I agree but not my good point' date=' twas Odds Bodkins that done it further up the thread...

 

OK then. Very gracious to give credit where it is due, That does not always happen.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I agree but not my good point' date=' twas Odds Bodkins that done it further up the thread...

 

And I was simply confirming for bigbywolfe that this would work, it was bigby's idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

OK, this is getting weirdly polite now...