Inherent Discussion: How do you interpret it?

[clnicholsusa]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Actually, this is an issue with Unified Power.

 

Which is more limiting:

 

(a) eight powers which are all drained whenever any one is?

(b) two sets of four powers, with each group drained whenever any power in that group is, but not when powers in the other group are?

(c) four sets of two powers each, with each power drained whenever its paired power is, but not when powers in the other pairs are?

 

The likelihood of any individual power being drained rises the more powers are Unified, yet the limitation does not. 

 

As I noted, point values for options 2 and 3 would need to be assessed.  Maybe the limitation should be on the other powers (for being drained whenever the Inherent power would be drained).

 

Or maybe the player should just take a Complication - "Susceptibility:  These Powers subject to negative Adjustment when a negative Adjustment targets the inherent power"

I'm not sure this is much of an issue. The fact that one build seems to get more 'bang for the buck' than another is endemic to the flexibility of the system. To be honest, I'm not happy with the whole 'unified powers' thing, anyway. I've tried to incorporate drains of one sort or another in all the characters I make just for that nice surprise when my little 2d6 END drain depowers all the abilities in the Evil Iron Monger's power suit. Unless EIM has been allowed to declare all the abilities Inherent because they're part of the suit's nature.

Which, of course, would be an issue.

[Lucius]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

True, but you get more and more points back the more powers you put it on, so it all adds up.

 

He was describing a situation in which three characters all got the exact same discount on the exact same Powers, but differ from one another in how vulnerable they are to drains.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary looks over a house on which neither windows nor plumbing have been installed....

[Surrealone]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:55 AM, indy523 said:

Inherent advantages and unified power limitation should be mutually exclusive.  If your power is inherent and cannot be drained then it won't drain when other powers are drained.

Not necessarily.  The way it was intended is as follows:

• The Power Defense, itself, is a mutant ability ... and the Unified Power limitation is taken on all Mutant Powers/Abilities (as is the campaign norm; it's a mutant-centric campaign).
• If a Drain Mutant Powers/Abilities is thrown at the character, it does nothing to the Power Defense.
• If a Drain Power Defense ... or a Drain Mutant Invulnerability Powers is thrown at the character, it works as usual (when there would otherwise be no effect due to the Inherent advantage).

The point behind this was to ensure there was a defense (since this is an invulnerability-themed brick) to the very broad/general attack against Mutant Powers/Abilities... but to let a very targeted attack (aimed at the actual defense ... or this particular brick's powers) work normally.  The way this manifests is that generic anti-mutant nullifier rays, cuffs, etc. don't work on this character ... but if someone tunes/targets them specifically for his abilities, you get a different ending.

 

Note that the effect I was going for is very different from a Susceptibility or Vulnerability, as damage isn't being taken from normally harmless things (a la Susceptibility) and the character isn't taking extra damage from some attacks (a la Vulnerability). The GM had no problem with the concept, above; it fits the game. Since you're advocating blanket mutual exclusivity for Inherent and Unified Power, how would you have built it differently for the game/campaign I just described? 

 

 

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 5:19 PM, clnicholsusa said:

Perhaps Inherent + Unified together become something different. Unified as a limitation must have some affect or would not be allowed (unless as a +0 limitation). Inherent as an advantage must have some affect or would not be allowed (unless as a +0 advantage). Applying Unified to a power eliminates advantages from Inherent, and applying Inherent to a power eliminates disadvantages from Unified; the two modifiers applied together wouldn't change the cost of the power they were applied to, but could define the nature of that power's relationship to other powers in the build.

You (very generically) explained the thinking that I applied.  As you can see from above, the character gets -some- benefit from both Inherent and Unified Power, but the protection from Inherent is not complete/total, and there's still a grouping that can be used to drain off the Power Defense making Unified Power remain relevant (it's just a much more targeted grouping than it otherwise would need to be).  The  game for which this was developed has all kinds of anti-mutant drains, anti-mutant nullifier cuffs/collars, etc. in it ... so when considering the power one must also consider the game for which it was built, as that context is important.  The above might not be acceptable in a vacuum or another game, but is completely appropriate in the one for which it was built. 

 

 

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:44 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would personally disallow a power to be part of unified if its inherent, because it can't be drained by definition, so would not be negatively impacted by the unified limitation.

See above for why it was built the way it was. I put the same question to you - how would you have built it differently for the game/campaign in question, given your blanket disallowance?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

See above for why it was built the way it was. I put the same question to you - how would you have built it differently for the game/campaign in question, given your blanket disallowance?

 

I'd just treat it like any limitation that's not worth any points.  The other powers are affected by the limitation, but power defense is not.  You can put it on Power Defense, but it isn't worth any points on that power; it still functions the same (reducing everything else) but it doesn't do anything to Power Defense. 

 

Power Defense 5 points (5 active points); Unified Power (-0)

[Surrealone]

9 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I'd just treat it like any limitation that's not worth any points.  The other powers are affected by the limitation, but power defense is not.  You can put it on Power Defense, but it isn't worth any points on that power; it still functions the same (reducing everything else) but it doesn't do anything to Power Defense. 

 

Power Defense 5 points (5 active points); Unified Power (-0)

But that's just it -- per the above, there IS a limitation for Unified Power, since it IS affected by more than just Drain Power Defense.  (i.e. It's also affected by Drains to Mutant Invulnerability Powers.) 

Are you saying that unless something is as broad/sweeping as the Mutant Abilities/Powers that was used for the Unified Power limitation, it's worth no points?  (If so, I we'll have to agree to disagree.)

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

Assuming that the points are set up appropriately (i.e. divisible by 4), the net effect should be the same among all three options over time.  If you're talking about a single attack, you'd get a progressively greater effect but less chance that the particular power you wanted to reduce was affected for the last two options.

 

??Unified Power doesn't divide anything by 4. 

 

If Character A is hit by a drain for 10 points on any one of the powers, all 8 are Drained 10 points.  Character C will only lose 10 points from 2 powers, and Character B will lose points from 4 powers.

 

16 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

True, but you get more and more points back the more powers you put it on, so it all adds up.

 

As Lucius notes, the point savings in my three examples (assuming the same three powers) are identical, yet a single Drain will affect all 8 powers for the first, four powers for the second and two for the third.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Are you saying that unless something is as broad/sweeping as the Mutant Abilities/Powers that was used for the Unified Power limitation, it's worth no points?

 

What I'm saying is that a limitation that does not limit is worth nothing.  Unified power on a power that is not affected by adjustment powers is worth no points.  You can put it on there, so that it might affect other powers with unified on them when drained, but its not limiting to Power Defense in any manner so its a -0 limitation.  Power Defense, being inherent, cannot be drained, so it is unaffected by Unified Power's limitation.  That means its worth no points.

 

So: 52 other mutant powers with Unified: all get the limitation -¼ because they are affected by the limitation; each is drained when any other are drained.

Power Defense which is inherent: limitation is worth -0 because it is unaffected, but might affect other powers with unified (depending on GM interpretation).

 

Quote

As Lucius notes, the point savings in my three examples (assuming the same three powers) are identical, yet a single Drain will affect all 8 powers for the first, four powers for the second and two for the third.

 

I don't see this as an issue for this reason:  limitations are to individual powers, not to sets or groups.  If you buy a limitation, you're buying it for the power that it affects, not anything else.  It doesn't matter if 81 powers are all given the same limitation, or 7.  Each one is what the limitation is affecting.  So you get the cost savings for each individual power.  How many other powers are also affected is covered by each one of them buying unified.

I'm puzzled to figure out a power set which has several, independent, and different sets of unified powers.  I'm sure it could be done, but that's a very weird concept.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I don't see this as an issue for this reason:  limitations are to individual powers, not to sets or groups.  If you buy a limitation, you're buying it for the power that it affects, not anything else.  It doesn't matter if 81 powers are all given the same limitation, or 7.  Each one is what the limitation is affecting.  So you get the cost savings for each individual power.  How many other powers are also affected is covered by each one of them buying unified.

I'm puzzled to figure out a power set which has several, independent, and different sets of unified powers.  I'm sure it could be done, but that's a very weird concept.

 

By definition, Unified Power applies to a group of powers.  I cannot apply it to just my Blast- it has to apply to at least two different powers.

 

Put a Mutant (Unified Power on mutant abilities) in a suit of powered armor (Unified Power on the Powered Armor abilities) and we have two sets of unified powers.

 

Dr. Doom has Armor and Spells.

 

There's two quick examples off the top of my head.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

By definition, Unified Power applies to a group of powers.

 

No, its effects do.  The Unified Power limitation applies only to each power it is applied to.  

 

But as you say, you cannot apply it to a single power without any others to affect; that would be an example of a limitation that doesn't limit anything.  Like putting it on an inherent power.

[Surrealone]

48 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 that would be an example of a limitation that doesn't limit anything.  Like putting it on an inherent power.

You've said this multiple times -- all the while, discounting the example I provided where there's a Unified Power that's also Inherent ... which is only Inherent in specific circumstance ... while being limited in the situations outside of those circumstances.

 

Care to square that circle -- as to how being limited in some situations ... is somehow not limiting?

[Watchman Mk. IV]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

??Unified Power doesn't divide anything by 4. 

 

In the particular scenario presented, the AP have to be divisible by four to avoid rounding.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If Character A is hit by a drain for 10 points on any one of the powers, all 8 are Drained 10 points.  Character C will only lose 10 points from 2 powers, and Character B will lose points from 4 powers.

 

Not the way it works.  The points drained are absolute; they're split between the powers, so Character A would lose one-and-a-quarter AP (rounded to one) from each power in your scenario.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

No, its effects do.  The Unified Power limitation applies only to each power it is applied to.  

 

But as you say, you cannot apply it to a single power without any others to affect; that would be an example of a limitation that doesn't limit anything.  Like putting it on an inherent power.

 

What is the actual limitation?  To take a plain vanilla example, let's assume my Blast, Flight and Force Field have "Unified Power".  Oh, look - 6e provides us with exactly that example:

 

Example: The Human Flambeau has the power to transform his body into coherent fire. While in “fiery form” he can project a bolt of fire (Blast), fly (Flight), and protect himself with a fire-shield (Resistant Protection, Costs Endurance). Since these powers are all aspects of his having a fiery

form, they’re all going to be affected by Drains and Suppresses if any one of them is — they’re just aspects of one “meta-power.” So the Human Flambeau takes Unified Power (-¼) as a Limitation on each of them.

 

I suggest that the limitation on Blast is "affected by negative adjustment powers which affect either of Flight or FireShield".

 

But why can't Extra STR for Extra Limbs be affected by negative adjustment powers which affect Extra Limbs, even if the Extra Limbs themselves are Inherent?  If there are no other Unified Powers, that is a Limited Power limitation, probably most reasonably applied to that extra STR, but that extra STR has certainly been limited.

 

In fact, it is EXACTLY as limited as it would be if the Extra Limbs were not Inherent and both powers had Unified Power applied to them (but, under that model, the Extra Limbs would also get the limitation). 

 

I do agree it seems more appropriate to limit the power which will be subjected to extra negative adjustments, and not the other power.

 

34 minutes ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

In the particular scenario presented, the AP have to be divisible by four to avoid rounding.

 

 

Not the way it works.  The points drained are absolute; they're split between the powers, so Character A would lose one-and-a-quarter AP (rounded to one) from each power in your scenario.

 

I assume you are saying that "The points drained are absolute; they're split between the powers, so Character A would lose one-and-a-quarter AP (rounded to one) from each power in your scenario." is "Not the way it works."  That example from 6e makes that very clear one line lower:

 

During a battle against Leech, the Human Flambeau is attacked with a Drain Blast 4d6. Leech rolls 12 points of effect for his Drain. Since the Flambeau’s Blast is Unified with his Resistant Protection and Flight, all three powers each lose 12 Character Points’ worth of effect

 

If the effect were split, as you described, The Human Flambeau would lose only 4 points from each power, not the 12 noted in the example.  Unless you are arguing that, somehow, Leech managed to roll 36 on 4d6 (averaging 9 per die), which is then split equally between the three powers. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You've said this multiple times -- all the while, discounting the example I provided where there's a Unified Power that's also Inherent ... which is only Inherent in specific circumstance ... while being limited in the situations outside of those circumstances.

 

If you want to build an alternate version of inherent that has different rules from the book, then you have to make your own rules up as to how it works.

 

Quote

But why can't Extra STR for Extra Limbs be affected by negative adjustment powers which affect Extra Limbs, even if the Extra Limbs themselves are Inherent?

 

There's nothing that says you have to buy the strength on those Extra Limbs inherent just because the limbs are.  Even if the powers are conceptually tied together or bought as a combined power, you can still just have inherent on one part and not the other. Nobody can make the limbs go away, but they can make them weaker.

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

If you want to build an alternate version of inherent that has different rules from the book, then you have to make your own rules up as to how it works.

You keep wanting to look at Inherent in a vacuum ... and that's just not the scenario here.  The scenario is Inherent and Unified Power when both are applied to the same power, which IS rules-legal so long as Unified Power is still appropriately limiting.  (As long as the GM feels that's the case, there's just not a problem ... or a need to build alternate versions of rules ... or even make up any rules.)

 

Now, with that in mind, I'll ask you again -- how would you have built the Power Defense differently?  Here are the criteria:

• It is a mutant power.
• It is intended not to be drainable to broad-spectrum drains like Drain Mutant Powers/Abilities.
• It is supposed to be drainable to very targeted drains like Drain Power Defense or Drain Mutant Invulnerability Powers
• Things that drain/suppress powers are very common in this game ... so the latter is still limiting.

 

If you wouldn't use Inherent for the 2nd bullet of those, then what would you use?  And if you wouldn't use Unified Power for the 3rd of those bullets, then what would you use?  Let's hear your take on how to construct this concept, with the understanding that it's not your idea of what's limiting that matters, here, but the GM's for the campaign in which this power will be used ... and the GM's already agreed there is, indeed, a limitation worth -1/4.  What's your construction look like?

 

[clnicholsusa]

3 hours ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

In the particular scenario presented, the AP have to be divisible by four to avoid rounding.

 

 

Not the way it works.  The points drained are absolute; they're split between the powers, so Character A would lose one-and-a-quarter AP (rounded to one) from each power in your scenario.

Really! No wonder I see so many characters with every possible power marked as 'Unified'. If that's how it works, it shouldn't be a limitation; or isn't it obvious that, in that scenario, placing four powers into a 'unified powers' list is effectively giving each of them 75% Adjustment Reduction?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If you wouldn't use Inherent for the 2nd bullet of those, then what would you use? 

 

That just sounds like a house rule or a limitation on Mutant-draining powers rather than some effect on Power Defense.  Inherent is pretty absolute: it makes a power not subject to adjustment powers or being shut off, period.

 

Regarding Unified powers, here's what the HSR book 1 says on page 395

 

Quote

If a negative Adjustment Power affects any of the powers in a Unified Power suite, it affects all of them in the same amount.

 

It goes on to give an example:

 

Quote

During a battle against Leech, the Human Flambeau is attacked with a Drain Blast 4d6.  Leech rolls 12 points of effect for his Drain. Since the Flambeau’s Blast is Unified with his Resistant
Protection and Flight, all three powers each lose 12 Character Points’ worth of effect.

 

Drain one power 7 points, drain all of them 7 points. There's no dividing between them.

 

 

[Surrealone]

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That just sounds like a house rule or a limitation on Mutant-draining powers rather than some effect on Power Defense.  Inherent is pretty absolute: it makes a power not subject to adjustment powers or being shut off, period.

 

Regarding Unified powers, here's what the HSR book 1 says on page 395

I think I figured out the issue we're having:

You appear to assume that a Power with the Unified Power limitation can only be part of one set/grouping of powers when, in fact, you could have a Unified Power that is part of several such sets/groupings.  Here are some obvious examples: Mutant Powers grouping and Invulnerability Powers grouping; Alien Lifeform Abilities grouping and Symbiont Suit Abilities grouping; you get the idea.

 

I, on the other hand, make no such assumption, as I acknowledge that Powers may fall into more than one grouping.  

 

This is where I believe the issue with Inherent comes in ... as it's the only way to make a power not subject to adjustment powers (whether harmful or beneficial).  Perhaps you'd have understood my intent better if, instead of Unified Power, I had used a Limited Power limitation: Only Inherent Against Broad-Spectrum Drains; Not Inherent to Highly Targeted Drains (such as Drain Power Defense or Drain Invulnerability Powers; -1/4).  It's the same limitation value ... and even the exact same meaning/intent as previously noted.  However, this more verbose approach completely unravels one's ability to suggest the power isn't limited when, in fact, it is (and always has been).

[Ninja-Bear]

I’m sure!

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

There's nothing that says you have to buy the strength on those Extra Limbs inherent just because the limbs are.  Even if the powers are conceptually tied together or bought as a combined power, you can still just have inherent on one part and not the other. Nobody can make the limbs go away, but they can make them weaker.

 

OK, so let's assume we have Extra Limbs, Inherent and +30 STR, Extra Limbs Only, Limited Power: Affected equally by any negative adjustment power targeting Extra Limbs

 

What is the Limited Power limitation worth?  It sounds a lot like it is Unified Power under another name, to me, but since you are dead set against any use of Unified Power involving an Inherent power, we will make it a Limited Power instead.

 

Now, I question whether being affected by negative adjustment powers that target Extra Limb is likely to come up very often.  But if that is the issue, then removing "Inherent" from those extra limbs should not change the result - it is still pretty uncommon that slapping Unified Power on that extra STR will have much impact (maybe a STR drain that causes the Extra Limbs to hang limp and useless with a fairly tiny roll is more limiting, but we're discussing the cost savings on the extra STR, not the Extra Limbs).

 

10 hours ago, clnicholsusa said:

Really! No wonder I see so many characters with every possible power marked as 'Unified'. If that's how it works, it shouldn't be a limitation; or isn't it obvious that, in that scenario, placing four powers into a 'unified powers' list is effectively giving each of them 75% Adjustment Reduction?

 

No, not really.  The example reprinted twice on this page alone shows that.

 

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Drain one power 7 points, drain all of them 7 points. There's no dividing between them.

 

 

I just said that, reprinting the same example, a couple of posts higher.  It seems at least we have documented the correct mechanics for Unified Power  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

OK, so let's assume we have Extra Limbs, Inherent and +30 STR, Extra Limbs Only, Limited Power: Affected equally by any negative adjustment power targeting Extra Limbs

 

Why would you build it that way?  Just build them both with unified power, but the unified power on the Inherent power (Extra Limbs) is worth +0, as noted above.

 

Quote

You appear to assume that a Power with the Unified Power limitation can only be part of one set/grouping of powers when, in fact, you could have a Unified Power that is part of several such sets/groupings.  Here are some obvious examples: Mutant Powers grouping and Invulnerability Powers grouping; Alien Lifeform Abilities grouping and Symbiont Suit Abilities grouping; you get the idea.

 

...no, I'm just answering the questions you asked. You want a guy whose inherent only works against drains that don't target mutant powers, and that's not how inherent works. How many or what groupings or in what arrangement you build inherent or unified is irrelevant to this.  Its not even about "Broad-Spectrum Drains" or "Highly Targeted Drains."  Its just about Genocide-style mutant power draining attacks in your game.

 

The easy answer is to do what I suggested: define mutant power draining attacks as bypassing inherent as a campaign rule.  Problem solved. 

 

If you're not the GM then buying your character with power defense that doesn't work against mutant power drains is the other easy answer.

[Christopher R Taylor]

However after having said all that, I don't think inherent should even be part of the rules.  Its a basic Hero system rule that nothing is absolute, so Inherent kind of breaks that rule as defined.  If its used at all, perhaps it should act like the kludge for stats: double cost.

 

So you can drain someone's eyesight, its just going to be difficult.

Eyesight is basically Detect visible objects, discriminatory, ranged, targeting, right?  So that's a 25 point power (maybe 30, depending on how broad the category you treat visible objects as).  If you treat inherent as doubling cost then it would take a 60 point drain to blind someone until the drain recovered.  I like that system a lot better, where its possible to build interesting tricks like silencing people (rather than a darkness to sound field) by dispelling images (sound) for speech.

[Cantriped]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

However after having said all that, I don't think inherent should even be part of the rules.  Its a basic Hero system rule that nothing is absolute, so Inherent kind of breaks that rule as defined.

Inherent isn't an absolute effect, there are exceptions. For example; you can still take away an Inherent Power by subjecting the target to a Transform. In that regard it is no different than NND Attacks or Desolidification which are similarly absolute except when they suddenly aren't.

 

Inherent is a useful element of the toolkit because of the way Adjustment Powers were written, and how they can be used in a VPP. How you use Inherent should depend entirely on how you allow Adjustment Powers to be used in your campaign. While it is possible to manage the creation of adjustment powers to prevent it from being necessary (such as never allowing Drain Life Support or Dispel Extra Limbs); I think it is nice that the system provides a tool to deal with the logical inconsistencies created by some Adjustment Powers. For one thing, it is nice because it means that a GM doesn't have to future-proof every single adjustment power you allow against the possibility that it can affect a power it shouldn't. Or worse, give out arbitrary immunity to a character's powers for free, based solely on a personal interpretation of a given special effect...

 

One example of where I would use Inherent is to differentiate mechanically between the forms of Desolidification bought by a Necromancer that can become a Ghost, and an actual Ghost. In most campaigns, the former could be forced to turn off their Spell and become solid, but generally speaking the latter cannot be. On the other hand, if my campaign featured sufficiently common methods of making a ghost temporarily solid (for example; a spell that brought them "into phase with our reality" or some such) so that normal weapons could damage their ectoplasmic forms for a brief time, then building those methods using Adjustment Powers makes sense, and using Inherent on the Ghost's desolidification doesn't; because even though it is truly an inherent element of their nature, in that campaign it is an element that can be Adjusted, just like their inherent Strength and Running.

[Lucius]

Naked Advantage: Limited Inherent for POW DEF:  (Total: 7 Active Cost, 3 Real Cost) Inherent (+1/4) for up to 30 Active Points of Power Defense (7 Active Points); Limited Power Not vs certain specific Drains, not vs Transform (-1) (Real Cost: 3)

 

Just a suggestion.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says this is one way to do it but not necessarily an inherently better way....

[RDU Neil]

Just reading this argument over, as I inadvertently started it, I like it because it is exposing some of the hidden assumptions about the game.

1) That there is some universal, perfect way to build a character from a set of common mechanical denominators... which there isn't, no matter how reductive you make the mechanics, even though it is heavily implied by the design.

2) That builds can be divorced from SFX and still be meaningful/coherent in actual play... which is never the case if you are actually role playing, and not just doing abstract calculations.

3) That building a character is separate from the game you are playing in, and that there is some kind of generic way the characters are portable to every other Hero game.  Simply not the case.

4) That Limitations are rules for helping to "define" a specific power, rather than what they are, desired methods/situations in which a numerated power is reduced or made ineffective IN GAME PLAY, and the player WANTS IT THAT WAY! (A whole different thread)

5) That game play can somehow be purely mechanical and not exist on a rule and judgment level, where "what makes sense and feels right" is decided in a shared imaginary moment between players, not on paper, in numbers or programmed code.

 

Hero has always been a war between two games... the game of building a character, vs. the game of actually role playing the character in a group, with a story, a shared world, etc. There are many things that can be mechanically pure and consistent in the former (adjustment powers mechanically affecting other powers) that can completely break the latter ("What? That makes no sense?!")? Hero has spent so many years and words and pages on the former, but very little on the latter... so it makes sense that people think of it this way.

 

I know there are people who love just messing around with the rules and seeing what kind of builds they can come up with that are "legal" and cram the most in for the least. I also know that just because it can be done by the rules, doesn't mean it makes it anywhere near a table or actual play. The mechanics will surely affect the play experience, but people seem to balk at it going the other way around, that actual play should affect how mechanics are interpreted and used. Hero is still stuck in these horrible arguments because it was built before game designers understood that rule and mechanics are judged by the resulting game play they help manifest. Game play is the goal of the game creation. Hero is still in the old school model of mechanics first, with the expected game play nebulously defined at best. It tried, pretty well for its time, to have aspects of mechanics built to reflect a certain outcome... the idea of nine panel pages and actions that reflected it... and the idea that the mechanics at the time were specifically written to reflect a Bronze Age style of comic book fighting... but it was limited, and still had too many war game aspects, and the more genericized the system became, the more it lost touch with its resulting game play.

 

If you are going to build a house, do you...

1) Look at the tools and materials you have, and build whatever kind of house they allow for?

2) Design a house, then get the tools and materials that will best help you make that house a reality?

 

Too many Hero arguments exist with the former mindset, instead of the latter... which is where it really gets dicey. Hence why I used the word "interpret" in the title of this thread. The only way you get the house you want (the role playing experience) is to allow for interpretation, not just "This is what the rules say."

[Ninja-Bear]

RDU Neil I agree with what you say and at least for me, I’ve been factoring in game play to judge game mechanics. Also I try to judge players experiences too. With that, I try to choose mechanics which are easier for players to grasp and me to explain/remeber! ?