Special Powers & Talents in Frameworks - What's your GM Ruling?

[ghost-angel]

I think a lot of folks (including me, at times) overcomplicate this stuff.  The short, SHORT version (as they would say in Spaceballs):

 

If it would be fun, allow it.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun. 

 

Heresy!

 

Er, I mean - yeah, that.

[sinanju]

I think a lot of folks (including me, at times) overcomplicate this stuff.  The short, SHORT version (as they would say in Spaceballs):

 

If it would be fun, allow it.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun. 

 

Yeah. I think a lot of the restrictions on special powers in frameworks is a pointless obstacle to building fun characters. I also think VPPs can be used a lot more frequently than a lot of players/gms seem to like. Yes, I confess to being (more than little bit of) a rules lawyer/powergamer. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as the "is it fun for everyone?" test is applied. In which case the GM may say, "That's very clever, but you can't do it in my game." At which point the player has had his cleverness recognized and should be willing to tone things down in the interests of everyone having fun.

[dmjalund]

Apiology Accepted!

[Sean Waters]

Yeah. I think a lot of the restrictions on special powers in frameworks is a pointless obstacle to building fun characters. I also think VPPs can be used a lot more frequently than a lot of players/gms seem to like. Yes, I confess to being (more than little bit of) a rules lawyer/powergamer. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as the "is it fun for everyone?" test is applied. In which case the GM may say, "That's very clever, but you can't do it in my game." At which point the player has had his cleverness recognized and should be willing to tone things down in the interests of everyone having fun.

 

...or the GM could just sit there with a loaded Sig Sauer P226 on the table and just glance meaningfully at it whenever the troublesome player opens his mouth.

 

Oh the larks we had...

 

 

One point of clarification: are you sure it is everyone who has to have fun, not just almost everyone?  I mean, it is so much easier to have fun if you have someone to make fun of.

 

Isn't it?

 

Should I have put a smiley in there?  Would that make it all alright?

 

Sorry, guys.  Weird mood.  

[bigdamnhero]

I am curious about this part "When I said his suit's computer couldn't do that".  Was the character actually built with a computer?

I don't think I had it fully statted out using the Computer rules, but basically yes. No AI or anything like that; I just threw a few things like Lightning Calculator and such together and labelled it "suit computer." But I had left something out of the mix (I still can't remember for the life of me wht it was, but pretend it was something like a scanner), so he wanted to use his Gadget VPP to create it.

 

The same argument applies to having a Blast and  Drain in a multipower, or, even more closely, a Blast and a NND BLast

But with Blast, Drain, etc their full AP cost is taken into account by the Framework. But Talents have their "actual" AP cost hidden. Take Simulate Death for example: as a Talent it only costs 1 point. But if you look at the actual build (6e1 p447) it has an AP cost of 10. Not exactly going to bust most MPs/VPPs, but still can affect slot allocation, etc.

 

That is what GMs are for.  Foiling devious players.

I'm just the opposite: I love it when my players come up with something really devious, and see my job is to reward them for it without breaking the game or overshadowing the other players.

 

If it would be fun, allow it.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun. 

Rule Of Fun and Rule Of Cool trump all other rules.

[Sean Waters]

I don't think I had it fully statted out using the Computer rules, but basically yes. No AI or anything like that; I just threw a few things like Lightning Calculator and such together and labelled it "suit computer." But I had left something out of the mix (I still can't remember for the life of me wht it was, but pretend it was something like a scanner), so he wanted to use his Gadget VPP to create it.

 

But with Blast, Drain, etc their full AP cost is taken into account by the Framework. But Talents have their "actual" AP cost hidden. Take Simulate Death for example: as a Talent it only costs 1 point. But if you look at the actual build (6e1 p447) it has an AP cost of 10. Not exactly going to bust most MPs/VPPs, but still can affect slot allocation, etc.

 

....

 

I agree: Talents are ready made builds.  It can be unbalancing to have them in a MP because of active point cost, but I was not really meaning Talents when I commented: the discussion was (or the bit I was responding to was) about Special Powers.  Talents are not Special powers.  there is no real difference to my mind between having a MP containing various senses and a MP containing various attacks.  The cost and utility arguments apply equally - it is an argument against allowing multipowers, not in favour of Special powers.

 

Hero constantly suffers (or enjoys, depending on your POV) the problem of not thinking about a build enough at creation.  There are various ways around this, including a VPP.  One solution I have seens suggested (a long time ago...) by Derek Hiemforth is to simply give the player the power if it makes sense for the character and is not going to upset the rest of the players or unbalance the game.  Then they have to spend all future XP on that until it is paid off. Seems like a good, fun solution to me.  I'm sure he explained it more elegantly.

 

The argument against MPs and, even more so, VPPs, is that they are too easy.  They encourage (or CAN encourage) lazy builds because you can think about the detail later.  That is where you find the devil: I don't want to have to stop a game for 15 minutes while someone sorts out something they should have sorted out before play even started.  That is not fun.

 

MPs and VPPs certainly simulate certain builds you see in comics.  Judge Dredd's Lawgiver is a good example that would be ridiculously expensive to build without a MP.  The question is whether the balance is quite right.  Are frameworks too much of a bargain?  I'll tell you how to find out.  Have a look at all the characters and NPCs in your game and check if most of them have frameworks.  If they do, they are too much of a bargain.  Free market economics tells you so.  Raise the price.

[Christopher]

It is hard to know what the specific trick was as the poster could not recall, but this comes down to GMing.  I read somewhere - might have been Hero, might not, an anecdote about a player convincing a GM that some explosive or other could be made from bee secretions.  I have no idea if that is an actual thing, but if the character is built with points in Demolitions, KS Apiology and SS Biochemistry, we have a bit of a dilemma; either those points go to waist if the GM simply rules 'No' (I mean - how many times do you get to combine those skills?) or the GM just accepts it and lets the character get on (of course in Hero you then have an explosive which you have not paid for - OK in a Heroic game, but...).

There is a third option: Not requiring those skills to cost points. Indeed it is propably a good idea to never let a non-Combat skill cost points. Only if the player actually manages to get a lot of mileage out of it he should pay for it.

 

Similarly with modern technology: we don't have a problem if a player says "I'm going to jump into a car (I have TF: Cars) and drive it into the ravening werewolf" because we understand the concept.  We all know, basically, that driving a car is a thing, as is crashing it into something.  The fact that the player has not paid for a 12d6 physical EB with a 'car' focus probably won't even cross out minds because the idea is so familiar.  Ditto making a call from a local phone kiosk, or employing un-paid-for points of tunneling by getting on the subway.

 

If the phone trick was something like 'I send my GPS coordinates to a particular email address', well, yes, phones these days can do that.  A creative GM can always use their god-given small Italian car and rule that there is no signal here.  Not every game world runs like the X-Files.

 

If we are running a game in the modern world, it is not unreasonable to expect that characters have access to the level of technology most people in their income bracket have, without necessarily paying points for it, even if it could be built with points.  Of course, even the new Sony Xperia is not going to last long in a superhero battle, so there is an incentive to pay points for it.

That is the flipside of "gear you did not pay points for": It is not reliable.

Phones and Flashlights will break in a superfight. Phones never have a signal or maybe the villains kileld the phone network first thing into the heist. Car's never have fuel when you need it or just won't start.

 

I would not consider it odd for a team of Superheroes to have free communicators like in the Justice League Animated Series. Of course, since it was free it also is not reliable:

Enemies bases are shielded against thier use. The enemy might take them over or intercept them. They run out of juice at the worst times. Some minor side power of the "Monster of the week" disrupts them. They get fried in combat against electricity/magnetism power wielders.

 

The same applies to skills you did not spend points on:

The do not cost you, but most of the time they also do not bring you any advantages.

As usual with stuff you have no written they may still have an effect sometimes. But if the player finds too many uses for PS:Florist in the game the GM can always demand that he either cuts back or pays the points for it.

[Tasha]

I really hate blanket "No you can't ever do that" rulings esp in Hero. I like that it's possible to put special powers into a Framework esp with GM's permission.

One reason that more player don't try to put all of their skills into a multipower is simple. If a PC needs to make a skill roll and they don't have that skill active in the MP or VPP they can't make the skill roll. Now I can see some good reasons for allowing a PC to have Skills available in either a MP or VPP. One is for a Cyberpunk Character with a computer implant that can load up and remove skill mods into their cyberbrain. (Think the Matrix when Neo learns Karate). The Computer may only have a capacity for only a few Skill softs to be running at one time. Another good Special effect is for Magical Spells that replicate Skills (ie a Tracking spell) Again the Mage with the Magic Pool or Magic MP would only be able to hold a limited number of spells in their head.

There's tangible limits to not having any ability available without turning it on. Heck, someone who had a Regeneration spell that didn't have it turned on. If they were Stunned or KOed they would never have to chance to change the MP to that slot.

I agree with the person who said that it would depend on the Special effect/Power Concept for the character. Also if a Player appeared to be abusing the privilege and using it to munchkin their character. Then as a GM I would have to say no, please fix the character. I would be willing to talk about some sort of middle ground. Where some things would be allowed in the Framework and others would have to be purchased at full price.

[Sean Waters]

I get the impression we are all on the same page about this.  Stifling creativity is silly,  Equally a clever player should not be getting unpaid for mileage out of the character's abilities...and that is why we have GMs.

[bigdamnhero]

I was not really meaning Talents when I commented: the discussion was (or the bit I was responding to was) about Special Powers. 

 Ah, gotcha.

 

Indeed it is propably a good idea to never let a non-Combat skill cost points. Only if the player actually manages to get a lot of mileage out of it he should pay for it.

I guess it depends on the game you're playing. Noncombat skills come up all the time in my games, so giving them out for free would be hugely unbalancing. If you were playing an all-combat game, I can see where it might work to treat them as Free Fluf.

I comepletely agree with your 2nd sentence tho. I'll often let players take Background Skills for free/cheap if we both agree it's not likely to ever come up in game. If a player really wants his PC to have Encyclopedic Knowledge of Beatles Lyrics (actual example from actual PC), I might charge 1 point for that, and at some point try to build a scenario around it, but basically it's just a bit of flavor.

 

One reason that more player don't try to put all of their skills into a multipower is simple. If a PC needs to make a skill roll and they don't have that skill active in the MP or VPP they can't make the skill roll.

Right. Tho I think the equation is different for combat vs. noncombat slots, particularly in a VPP. Being able to switch between attacks is limited because it takes time and/or a skill roll to switch slots, which matters in combat. (Assuming you didn't go full Cosmic.) But for stuff that is used out of combat, having to take a 1/2 Phase to switch slots is rarely a disadvantage at all.

 

It's also a question of party balance. Using your Matrix example: if all the PCs can swap out skills as needed, it's balanced. The problem is if one PC had to pay full cost for Skills, etc that someone else gets a big Framework discount for.

 

Hmm...one way to balance special defenses in a Framework could be to not let players Abort to change slots. If they have that slot selected, they can abort to turn the power on. But if they don't, they either have to have it on most of the time, or risk getting hit once before they know to activate it.

 

I get the impression we are all on the same page about this.  Stifling creativity is silly,  Equally a clever player should not be getting unpaid for mileage out of the character's abilities...and that is why we have GMs.

Well summed-up.

[sinanju]

The argument against MPs and, even more so, VPPs, is that they are too easy.  They encourage (or CAN encourage) lazy builds because you can think about the detail later.  That is where you find the devil: I don't want to have to stop a game for 15 minutes while someone sorts out something they should have sorted out before play even started.  That is not fun.

 

I completely agree. And as a fan of VPPs, whenever I create a character using one of those, I always include a list of basic builds for the VPP on my character sheet. I can switch to any of those (or some combination of them) in an instant. Anything I have to design on-the-fly (which I must admit is half the fun of a VPP for me) I work out while it's not my turn to act. I think of it as basic VPP etiquette. Yes, I have this nifty variable power--but it's up to me not to derail the game with it.

[Sean Waters]

I completely agree. And as a fan of VPPs, whenever I create a character using one of those, I always include a list of basic builds for the VPP on my character sheet. I can switch to any of those (or some combination of them) in an instant. Anything I have to design on-the-fly (which I must admit is half the fun of a VPP for me) I work out while it's not my turn to act. I think of it as basic VPP etiquette. Yes, I have this nifty variable power--but it's up to me not to derail the game with it.

 

You are welcome at the table next time I run something

[Narf the Mouse]

I'm not sure of the viability of this, I've never tested it in actual play. That being said, certain powers having "virtual" active points that could be used in frameworks may solve the problem of "unpaid mileage". For an example, a 3/2 skill could be 15/10 in a Framework. As a variable slot in a MP, it would then cost 3/2 Real Points, and be fully paid for in Active Points. Perhaps also Senses that gain benefits from a Sense Group would add the Active Points from the SG onto their Active Points when in a Framework, although that may already be part of the rules.

 

On that thought, skills being reframed (no pun intended) as 15/10 and slots in a Skills MP would probably be too much reworking for most people.

[psyber624]

Well, first of all im not a huge fan of MPP/VPP to start with. But I do agree with most on here that it all comes down to fun and balance. If it seems like it would be fun and not abuseable then sure, you can have it.

 

One thing I do not use is the "it makes sense" justification. Because honestly in a fictional Superhero world with magic, superscience, aliens, alternate dimensions, whatever, ANYTHING can "make sense". Hell, all you have to do is say "I am a mage" and boom you have an in game logical rationale to do ANYTHING you can think of. Justification "I have a spell for that".

[Sean Waters]

I do use the 'it makes sense' rule.  Well, guideline.  Well, OK, justification.  I don't suggest that, in order for a character to use magic, a player has to explain how magic works, but I do expect either that the powers in use work to an internal logic or, if the player does not want to go to the effort, he is prohibited from whining if the GM does.

 

You will struggle to find any source material that does not at least try to apply some internal logic to its characters and their abilities*.  Every new editor/author might have a go at changing the ground rules, but it is that often unseen structure that makes things make sense.

 

Even if the answer is 'I've got a spell for that', there will be some sort of consistent approach to how spells work, or if there is not then there should be a reason for that.  

 

There is no reason that superscience and magic can not co-exist, but they are either different aspects of the same thing, or consistent  within their own medium

 

 

 

* With the exception of DC comics in the sixties and early seventies.

[Tasha]

Well, first of all im not a huge fan of MPP/VPP to start with. But I do agree with most on here that it all comes down to fun and balance. If it seems like it would be fun and not abuseable then sure, you can have it.

 

One thing I do not use is the "it makes sense" justification. Because honestly in a fictional Superhero world with magic, superscience, aliens, alternate dimensions, whatever, ANYTHING can "make sense". Hell, all you have to do is say "I am a mage" and boom you have an in game logical rationale to do ANYTHING you can think of. Justification "I have a spell for that".

The thing is to my mind "I am a Mage" isn't enough. I want to see something more like "I am a Fire Mage" or a Mind Mage, things like that. I want the Player esp one with a VPP give me an idea what spells they can do and more importantly what CANT be done with the Character's magic. I do like to see a list of under 15(10 or less is better) abilities that the VPP character can use with the pool.

 

When it comes to MPs if the thing is a MP of Ultra slots(Fixed Slots) as long as the pool isn't too big and as long as the Powers themselves seem to have a common theme and aren't unbalanced themselves. I allow them. Most players that I have run into more recently don't really make MP's with a bunch of Multi Slots. Usually as long as the player doesn't slow down combat I am ok with them as well(given the same restrictions as above).

[sinanju]

The thing is to my mind "I am a Mage" isn't enough. I want to see something more like "I am a Fire Mage" or a Mind Mage, things like that. I want the Player esp one with a VPP give me an idea what spells they can do and more importantly what CANT be done with the Character's magic. I do like to see a list of under 15(10 or less is better) abilities that the VPP character can use with the pool.

 

When it comes to MPs if the thing is a MP of Ultra slots(Fixed Slots) as long as the pool isn't too big and as long as the Powers themselves seem to have a common theme and aren't unbalanced themselves. I allow them. Most players that I have run into more recently don't really make MP's with a bunch of Multi Slots. Usually as long as the player doesn't slow down combat I am ok with them as well(given the same restrictions as above).

 

I agree. I'm also keen on mages whose magic is wide-ranging, but limited by a technique. For instance, a mage whose magic is all focused through graffiti or tattoos (a character I've written). She can do a few quick spells with spraypaint just about anywhere, but they're not very subtle. With enough time, she can draw, paint, or engrave marks that let her do all kinds of things. She can put the marks on inanimate objects, on people or animals (though only if they cooperate or are restrained) or on herself. Tattoos tend to the most potent body-magic, but they are necessarily limited by being fairly permanent--so you want to be quite sure it's what you want. (As a GM, I'd expect the player to be able to explain the symbolic link between the rune/pictograph/whatever and the effect she hopes to achieve. If you can justify it, I'll probably allow almost any effect at least once. If you can't, well...you can't.)

[Kraven Kor]

It is always a judgement call.

 

I tend to allow a lot of rules-bending when it comes to frameworks and limitations.  

I built a Cyborg dude once and I wanted the ability to drive, pilot, conn, or operate any vehicle.  ANY vehicle.  Would have been like 30 points as a slot in the VPP, and not allowed by RAW even there.  

GM and I ended up building a 3-point VPP for Transport Familiarity Skills only.

I wanted to be able to "jack in" to any computer.  GM wanted me to build some crazy Mind Control power and after an hour of mucking with it, we said heck with it and built a VPP slot that was Skill Levels with all Computer Related skills.

[PaycheckHero]

Are frameworks too much of a bargain?  I'll tell you how to find out.  Have a look at all the characters and NPCs in your game and check if most of them have frameworks.  If they do, they are too much of a bargain.  Free market economics tells you so.  Raise the price.

I don't agree with this at all. First in general the premise is deeply flawed because character points aren't a limited resource, aren't tradeable between players, and don't have an economic value, and because the purpose of the point buy system isn't to optimally allocate their use by incentivizing people to spend their CPs in a way that earns them the most return. But more specifically, how strict or lenient you are on the use of frameworks is really a choice about how flexible you want your players' characters to be. It is a campaign setting to be manipulated for dramatic purposes, and if you think one way is the only right way, then you're not using all your GMing tools.

 

Example: you want to start a Teen Hero campaign. The essence of the campaign, you decide, is struggling with a limited control of your powers. Sounds like a low-powered campaign, but total points are less interesting than how the characters can spend them. In this case it makes sense to have a fairly low total points/active points ratio, so the players have to invest in a few key powers rather than have a variety. In that case, it also makes sense to restrict or disallow frameworks. Frameworks are inherently flexible (that's the only reason they exist), and these characters shouldn't be flexible--at least not yet. They should be struggling to get basic control of their powers, not using them with the flexibility that comes with mastery.

 

Example: you want to start a campaign focused on Earth's premier super team, the Avenger's League Of America. OK, sounds like a high-point game, but again there are more interesting things to tweak. You basically want the reverse of the above: higher total points/active points ratio so characters can have several strong powers, and (the point of this thread) a permissive policy on frameworks. These guys should be very good with their powers and be able to use them in flexible ways, precisely what frameworks give you.

 

It's a *dramatic* choice to be exploited for dramatic purposes.

[Vondy]

The test I apply is 1) do the special effects work, and 2) does it unbalance game play?

 

If the answer to the first is "yes" and to the second is "no," then I allow it.

 

I prefer to rely on "sensible" and "balanced" when judging designs.

[ideasmith]

I allow "Counts Towards Pool Cost" as a -1/4 Limitation.

[Ndreare]

The restriction on special power in frameworks is a rule my group has always resented because it is soley game balance and counter intuative.

 

My regular group of players considered it a primary issue, and we would still be playing other games if I had not thrown the rule out.

 

Sean Waters pretty much nailed the insanity of the limitation in post #5 and why if I tried to enforce it my players would overrule me or quit.

 

The number of times it happens in fiction or cannon cannot be counted. And the whole idea of favoring a Batman character over a Green Lantern or a Fate because it makes sence for gadgets, but not for magic or cosmi power spits in the face of the whole idea of an effect based system.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't think removal of the restriction would have a huge impact.  The "special powers" never seemed all that "special" (or thematically similar) that they needed this added restriction.  We still need to look at balance with that restriction in place, so I don't think it's a Holy Grail of balance, and there are a lot of good examples where a Special power or two are better fits for the power than some non-special powers.

 

What's the huge abuse? Someone might have exotic defenses in a framework?  They can already - Resistant Protection (force field pre 6e) can have exotic defenses, and its not a special power.  Where's the big balance issue?

[bigdamnhero]

Hugh: I don't necessarily see it as a balance issue so much as a (potential) equity issue. Character X pays full cost for, say, Regeneration because his character is really good with languages. Charater Y buys Regen in a Multipower for a fraction of the cost. Character Z puts it in a VPP basically for free. Because it's mostly post-combat, there's not really a significant downside to Y & Z putting it in a Framework, so X feels gyped.

 

So I get why it's a Stop Sign and I'm fine with it requiring GM approval. [shrug] Personally I tend to be pretty permissive about it, but that's because I've been playing long enough to know the risks.

[Kraven Kor]

Hugh: I don't necessarily see it as a balance issue so much as a (potential) equity issue. Character X pays full cost for, say, Regeneration because his character is really good with languages. Charater Y buys Regen in a Multipower for a fraction of the cost. Character Z puts it in a VPP basically for free. Because it's mostly post-combat, there's not really a significant downside to Y & Z putting it in a Framework, so X feels gyped.

 

So I get why it's a Stop Sign and I'm fine with it requiring GM approval. [shrug] Personally I tend to be pretty permissive about it, but that's because I've been playing long enough to know the risks.

 

That and it is all about concept.  A spell that grants regen with a time limit in a VPP?  Sure.  But a persistent always-on VPP slot that is "just to save points?"  No.  

 

And again if you just kind of consider the full implications, it works out - rule that a character with Regen in a VPP does not have / can not have persistent Regen, and then regen bought at full cost is automatically that much "better than" the VPP regen slot.