Warp9

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

Actually, if you do the math, its much less expensive than a VPP already. At a certain point the difference between a VPP style "Only for X"; -1/4 and having to pay for each general broad type of effect would meet somewhere in the middle.

 

Also, if you really think about it, at the level of generality I gave as examples, there aren't really _that many_ different potential effects. You'd have to start getting very specific to make a really long list.

You might be right, although, on the other hand there might be more effects than you'd think. I'm guessing that, if you spend some time looking at every effect you could possibly imagine, you'd get a pretty long list.

For example, you'd have to include off the wall stuff like using your PK power to create vibrations, and thus make sound images. Once you include Pyro/Cyro Kinesis and all the things you could do with that, the list expands further.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

Then the simple answer is to design the desired abilities mechanically' date=' but ignore the point costs. The character can achieve whatever damage levels you feel are appropriate for his psi-blade, and levitate at whatever speeds you feel are appropriate for his psi-power. Characters need not have equal points - their concept defines what they can and cannot do. The player coould well have a 150 point VPP, but not have any movement powers over 20 AP that he can put in that VPP, based on its SFX.[/quote']

 

As you say, characters do not need to have equal points, in fact all the point costs could even be hidden from the Players and the Characters as well. The problem is that once you get to the stage of VPPs, and multipowers, the cost of one ability compared to another becomes a part of the character's awareness.

 

Anyway, to get to your specific example, a character with a 150 point VPP using a 20 point movement power would still have 130 points left in the pool, this does not give the same feel as a character who has been pushed to the very outmost limits of his TK ability.

 

It has already been pointed out that high END cost might simulate "being at the very outmost limits of TK ability" but it is more likely that this END limitation would simply stop the character from doing a given action for an extended period---it seems to me that we'd want things to be a bit more limited than that.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

Here is what I am hearing from your request --

 

"Despite the obvious fact that this is a game system that is intended to be played with at least a modicum of power balancing, wherein the ability to kill other characters is priced at a premium due to the total potential affect on a campaign of killing key characters, I'm going to pretend that the rules should instead be balanced against my rather fuzzy conceptualization of how force and the application of force by a person with a mind that is able to do such things by will alone should work."

 

 

So, ok, if thats the way you think it should work and you're ok with the clear and obvious issues this would cause in an actual game, go ahead and make it work like that. The most direct way is to change the costs of powers by SFX. To be fair, if you do it for one character, you should do it for all, right?

 

So, how this would work in practice is like a new Power Framework. We'll call it a "SFX Reserve" for now.

 

With a SFX Reservethe Player puts aside a Pool of points which represents the maximum Active Points of Powers a Player can take with the Reserve at any given time.

 

The GM and Player then work out and document an "Effect Contract" that simply states what kind of effects (not Powers or Power constructs) should be difficult, routine, or easy based upon their character's SFX. Regardless of the Power Constructs involved, things that are not covered by the Effect Contract are simply not possible with the Reserve.

 

The Effect Contract functions by applying a cost differential to effects that are easy or difficult, allowing a character to use abilities of variable Active Point values based upon how difficult it is for their character rather than using the default costs of effects in the HERO System mechanics.

 

Things that are agreed to be difficult in the Effect Contract have a cost differential of x2 -- whatever the Active Points of the power are, they are multiplied by x2 to determine if they fit into the Reserve. Thus in a SFX Reserve with 50 points in it, Difficult effects would be limited to 25 AP or less.

 

Things that are agreed to be routine in the Effect Contract have no cost differential; their Active Points are not adjusted to determine if they fit into a SFX Reserve. Thus routine effects with 70 Active Points or less could be used in a SFX Reserve with 70 points.

 

Things that are agreed to be easy in the Effect Contract have a cost differential of x.5 -- whatever the Active Points of the Power are, they are multipled by x.5 (or divided by 2 if you prefer) to determine if they fit into a SFX Reserve. Thus easy effects with 100 Active Points or less could be taken in a SFX Reserve with 50 points.

 

Only one Power construct can be taken in a SFX Reserve at any given time, but this Power construct can be changed as a 0 Phase Action with no Skill Roll required. Since only one Power construct is usable at a time, unlike a VPP the Real Cost of the Power construct effectively has no meaning.

 

In addition to the cost of the SFX Reserve at a 1:1 ratio, each Difficult effect costs the Reserve / 20 in character points, each Routine effect costs the Reserve / 10 in character points, and each easy effect costs the Reserve / 5 in character points. Further a character must have one difficult effect for each easy effect, and the number of easy effects must be less than the number of routine effects. A character can have as many difficult effects as they like (at the normal cost).

 

Thus, assuming a 50 point Reserve, an easy effect costs 10 points, a routine effect costs 5 points, and a difficult effect costs 2.5 points rounded to 2 points.

 

A SFX Reserve cannot be mixed with other Frameworks; you can't take a SFX Reserve inside of a VPP or vice versa for instance (a character can have multiple separate Frameworks including a SFX Reserve as normal). A character can also have more than one SFX Reserve, either for multiple SFX of for the same SFX. Powers used from within a SFX Reserve are subject to all normal rules including END costs, activation, targeting, and so forth.

 

Modifiers can be applied to a SFX Reserve, but if they are then they are automatically applied to any effects taken in the Reserve and effects that cannot legally have such modifiers applied to them are not valid. Modifiers do not affect the cost of Effect Contract items.

 

Example:

 

Forceboy has a SFX Reserve with the SFX of Psychokinetic Force Manipulation. He has 50 points in his Reserve. Forceboys Player and GM have agreed on the following contract:

 

* Levitate self (Hard): 2 points

* Move other things around by will alone (Routine): 5 points

* Make protective force barriers (Routine): 5 points

* Project force attacks (Routine): 5 points

* Make monomolecular-width force planes (Easy): 10 points

 

Total Cost: 77

 

 

Example:

 

Firechick has a SFX Reserve with the SFX of Fire Generation and Manipulation. She has 100 points in her Reserve. Firechick's Player and GM have agreed on the following contract:

 

* Control Fire (Hard): 5 points

* Evaporate / Melt Ice / Water (Routine): 10 points

* Rocket flight (Routine): 10 points

* Make a protective fire aura (Routine): 10 points

* Project fire attacks (Easy): 20 points

 

Total Cost: 155

 

 

 

That's from the hip, but theres probably something playable in there somewhere.

Those are some good ideas.

My main problem with that set up is that, if one really wanted to be able to cover all variations of a flexible power, then having to pay points for each effect would get pretty expensive.

I'm thinking that it might be better if it was set so that easy effects were 1:1 and everything else was more expensive than 1:1, that way it could be more like a VPP with a limitation. You'd just buy a pool that was large enough to cover the biggest "easy" power, then the other powers would fall into place from there.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

Hyper-Man has a point...

 

what exactly is meant bu "huge amounts of damage"?

 

I regularly see Champions characters with 60AP in Offensive, buy only 20AP in Movement

Powers.

 

Is this "huge amounts" compared to a Normal? then we might be talking 3D6KA or so - only 45AP. That same AP in Flight is a lot of inches. 20" x4 Non Combat, not slow by any means.

 

Is it "Harder" to get Flight because the AP Restriction on Movement is lower (you can get at best 10AP or 5" of Flight; compared to 60AP in a KA or 4D6.

 

That sounds like it's "harder" to achieve flight that it is a killing blade.

 

Perhaps what is called for is not Flight to cost more comparitely, but to have different limits, requirements and mandatory Limitations.

You could definitely approach things that way with this example, but once you go far enough along that route, it seems like it is not too much different than changing the point cost.

Again with Hyper-Man's ideas ... VPPs are "Attack Powers Only" or as he suggested "Non Self Affecting Powers"

 

Everything else must be bought either strait - now your Power is limited by Character Points.

The problem with that solution is that IMO it is too narrow.

The real problem in the TK example is not that we are dealing with a specific class of power, the problem is that the world logic doesn't mesh with the game logic. It is a conflict between equality of abstract Hero point values vs the equality of various theoretical applications of force.

There are many other things which you could do with a very flexible TK, the problem is that often times (from a world logic perspective) X units in power A are not the same as X units in power B. The flight vs psi-blade is just one example of the problem.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

re: razor-thin TK blade

I don't think this sfx demands a huge amount of damage. Rather, it's the perfect place for multiple levels of AP, Penetrating and/or NND which won't need many DC's to be effective. Add IPE and AOE 1 hex accurate and you have pretty deadly 1d6 RKA at =60 active points.

If we are dealing with a hyper-thin blade that can carve through flesh and bone like a hot knife through butter, we may be talking about something that can cut people in half with a single swipe, that would be a pretty big attack.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

You give him an insanely high ampount of points, and despair as game balance goes down the tube-unless the game is filed with characters of similar powers, and very amazing defenses that shrug off this sort of thing.

This is a great example of why it is important to understand the gamist/narrativist/simulationist perspective.

I would describe your argument as coming from a gamist perspective, which is fine. And you are correct about the game balance thing--that is a concern.

However, I am coming from a simulationist perspective (at least at the moment). And I'm not so interested right now as to whether or not this concept is a good idea from a pure game play stand point.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

I'd treat this as -1/4 "Limited Class of Powers Available: Pre Approved Psychokinetic Abilities with Limited Raw Power". Then I'd discuss what I felt Raw Power meant with the player' date=' and write up a list of sample powers. "You can have no more than STR 10 TK, but a 2d6KA NND Does Body defined as reaching into his brain is fine". No different than the limits on a magic system as you create a fantasy world. Maybe I'd go to -1/2 on if I felt the list was limited enough.[/quote']

That is an interesting idea. . . .

 

But what if there were multiple characters with this ability who had different levels of power? It would seem like there would need to be some ratio between max TK STR and the size of the pool.

 

If a guy with a 90 point Psyhokinesis pool has 10 STR TK, then perhaps a guy with a 145 point pool could go up to 15 STR TK?

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

http://surbrook.devermore.net/whitewolf/WODmage.html

Thanks!

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

Look at it from a different angle..

 

AP = Potential or Capability.

 

I don't understand why AP would equal how much power a Character In Game can throw around. Consider if they have low END, but a high AP Power, now they can't use that Power because they don't have the END to use it (unless they burn STUN). But a high END Person can - seems to me that END is equal to Power.

In Physics terms, work is a measure of the net impact you can have on the world, without consideration of time.

Climbing to the top of a mountain represents Work (or Energy).

Power is Work / Time. You can have a large amount of power by doing a moderate amount of work over a very small amount of time.

Now a character with 10" Flight, and a large amount of END, may fly to the top of a mountain, but again the net travel distance is not a measure of power. Power represents the ability to go from 0 mph to 30 mph in 0.1 seconds, but that doesn't have any bearing on how long you can keep going.

I'd compare raw power to active points, which is the maximum amount of raw energy you have available at a given instant. Net impact on the world over some undefined period of time is a different matter, but that isn't really a matter of raw power.

Take your Long Distance Runner vs Sprinter. First - note that they would use different END Rules, one short term (a 100 Yard Dash would take place at the Phase Level) and one longer term (a 10 Mile Marathon would most certainly use Long Term END).

 

Second the Sprinter may in fact have a large amount of END to run at fast burst speeds; he certainly can't keep up his Speed in a long term situation - to me that might even be modeled as Inches Running; x2 END.

The long distance guy has more total energy output in the long term, but the sprinter has more power.

Unless you just assume that the sprinter has a higher SPD (which I guess is doable), then you have the assume that the sprinter has more APs in running than the distance guy.

Raw Capability (lots of Powers with high AP) means nothing if you can't power them for long.

Not so: the Death Star only needs to fire once!

There are a number of other Limitations we can use to represent difficulty in doing something. Increase END. Requires Skill Roll. Side Effect. Activation Roll. Extra Time.

 

All of those can use "it's harder" as SFX.

 

The AP really isn't a great measure of Easier/Harder beyond higher AP requires more END, which can be seen as "harder" or at least, more taxing.

I agree that it is some what ambigious where the line is between "it's hard to do because I'm at the limit of what my power can do" and "it's hard to do because this action is simply more draining."

What you're suggesting could be very useful in some cases.

But I'm not really sure the example of the Telekinetic it is a simple matter of strain on the character's part. In the example, Raw Force represents what the character can and can't do. Perhaps another Telekinetic character, with similar abilities (but a smaller pool), may be too weak to fly at all, but he can still do massive damage.

It seems you're trying to use Mechanics (or your player is) to justify what could simply be a lot of In Game roleplaying and or properly modeled Powers.

That is possible.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

You just need to determine what if any game mechanic represents "raw power". If there isn't one, you will need to determine on a case by case basis what powers/power levels fall within the character's capabilities. It sounds like AP isn't what you are looking for, since as you pointed out cutting someone's head off is more AP than floating is, but requires more "raw power" to do. Give them a VPP, and discuss with them what powers and power levels are appropriate to the amount of "raw power" they have at their disposal. Make the VPP large enough to let them build the most expensive of them (not necessarily the most "powerful"), and go from there. They just can't use powers out of the VPP that use more "raw power" than they have access to, even if they have the points in the VPP to do so. You'd probably have to come up with a custom limitation on the control cost for that.

In some ways this is close to the custom cost concept (which I faver), but there are subtle differences.

This approach would be more in line with keeping the standard Hero rules, and costs, while simply using custom limitations to keep the character's power in line. Interesting.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

I could think of this from another angle:

 

You've got some experience with GURPS, it seems. That being said, HERO doesn't have as obvious a split between psychic "power" and psychic "skill" - both can be represented somewhat by the VPP itself (though a VPP can be created with or without the need for a skill roll).

 

Obviously, creating a small but incredibly sharp PK blade is a much smaller effect than using the same PK abilities to fly. However, using that power to create a near-monomolecular blade would likely take exponentially more focus and control than the relatively brute-force approach of flinging yourself around. You could easily rationalize that creating a more powerful blade (ie. one that costs more points than you could throw into flight) is simply beyond your willpower/ability to concentrate. Using this sort of rationalization, you could say that you could lift extremely heavy objects, as long as you weren't doing anything complex with them. You don't need to lock onto every single molecule and hold them under rigid and precise control, just give that mass over yonder a rough shove.

 

I'd say there's potentially a lot more to the equation than "raw force," as you put it. If you approach the issue as a tradeoff between power and control, a VPP should work decently well as-is, without any wacky adjustments or complicated power constructs.

 

My two cents.

That would definitely be one way to approach the problem. . . .

But, as I said above, that gets back to World Logic.

And it makes perfect sense if there is a trade off between power and control. But, if that is not how the source material describes the funtion of the power (if there is no real trade off between power and control), then we have a problem.

As you point out: in GURPS 3rd edition psionics, power and control are both separate, I'd like to explore the question as to what happens if we try to stay true to such a vision of the world (or more generally, other visions of abilities which may not fit into Hero game logic).

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

You can always adjust the costs of powers to fit the nature of the game world you're creating. If a 4d6 HKA psychokinetic blade is equivalent to 6" of psychokinetic levitation, then you can say that each 1" of Flight costs 10 points in this game. (Or you could make the each d6 of HKA cost 3 points, but I wouldn't recommend that.)

 

Alternatively, you could say that this is an added charge based on the particular power source (in this case psychokinetics). He could take a limitation on his VPP control cost like "Power costs are adjusted to reflect equivalent psychokinetic force". So that his particular Flight is more expensive, but a non-PK guy with a jet pack or wings, pays the normal price.

 

There is plenty of precedent for adjusting costs based on the nature of the campaign world.

That is very much along the lines of what I was thinking so far.

I like the idea of modified power costs, although the problem is that there is some overhead to setting that up---still, that is the way I'd tend to go.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

What you've got there is a munchkin.

 

We can all come up with devastatingly powerful 'concepts' that the rules will have a job describing in game terms, given a limtied number of points to play with.

 

What I'd do is this - ask huim what his most devastating, powerful ability is, and cost that out. If it is resonable for the campaign, then that is the pool size, and everything else has to eb that or less.

 

 

'But', he whinges, ' I need hardly any force for my infinitely thing PK blade, so it should hardly use any of my power up at all!'

 

'No,' you respond, 'you do not need a lot of the force potential, but you need an immense amount of concentration to get the force so thin that it can cut, and an immense amount and a lto of power to compress the blade to that thinness.'

My problem is that we are back to "world logic" here. But what if one doesn't visualize the PK as working so that it "takes a lot of power to compress the blade to that thinness" ?

One might visualize Power and Precision as being two very separate things, as they are in GURPS 3rd edition Psionics (you have raw power and a skill level which represents control of that power).

Sure I could, as GM, say that I don't like that concept, and simply refuse the world logic behind this character---problem solved!

---but what if I do like the world logic?

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

You really have to ask yourself "What is this raw force"?

 

Is it active points (mechanical aspect for balance)? Or END Cost (Game World aspect for amount of effort required)?

 

I would put something like x5 END Cost (or more) on the Flight to represent the In Game Effort (Force) required to levitate.

 

Active Points are a Game Balance vs other mechanics. But they don't really need to represent other in game aspects like "It requires a TON of force to levitate, so all Flight in this game has to take a x10 END Limitation" but a thin psychokinetic blade is easy, and can even take the 1/2 END Advantage if you'd like.

Off hand, I'd be inclined to equate the max force with active points.

I'll admit that the following is somewhat subjective, but IMO the real difference is between max power and END can be seen in sprinter vs marathon runner. The sprinter has more max active points, but the distance runner can run for less END.

The distance runner just doesn't have the power to go as fast as the sprinter, and it is not a matter of END. And if we are describing the limitations of this PK ability, I'd tend to think in the same terms of Power vs End. It could very possibly simply require more power to levitate than the person with the PK has.

And also - don't forget simple In Game Access - you can say "You can't buy Powers of this type until you've reached a certain point - like 5 points in a Perk, which will be heavily regulated." Kind of thing.

 

Hero imposes no such Game World logic if you don't want it to. You just have to think about how you're going to control your games aspects.

The above statement is a good point, although at some point along these lines we could just begin implementing custom costs for different powers.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the best way to use this concept in game would be to give it a cursory description, list some examples of what the power can do (like in your previous example, list those attacks and how much effect they have, and also note that Flight is limited to a lesser AP cap), put an appropriate Limitation on the VPP using Bob's Paradigm notes as a guide, and refine details in-play in such a way that the player and GM are both happy.

 

Obviously, such a flexible power will require the player to be accommodating on occasion if he really does want the Limitation. Otherwise, an un-Limited VPP will do everything the power as described can do, and if the player won't stick with the parameters he described for his power, he can pay full un-Limited points for it.

 

I guess in a nutshell what I'm saying is that the GM can throw the player a bone in the form of a Limitation if he plays according to the spirit of the Limitation (since in this case there's no hard letter of the law to fall back on), but that even failure to do so doesn't stop Hero from modeling the power.

 

Do you actually have a player that wants to use this power, or is this a mostly theoretic exercise?

I do not actually have a player who wants this power. However, I have had a number of instances where I've had a VERY specific idea about an open ended ability that a character would have, and I mean very specific in game world terms, but when I try to express this ability in VPP terms I run into the problem of being forced into Hero Game logic.

BTW I'm having a bit of trouble finding the M:TA stuff on Surbrook's site---I must not be looking in the right place. Where should I be looking?

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

Yeah' date=' but how many other systems would let him have such an open-ended power?[/quote']

 

 

Yeah, but how many other systems would I describe as "allowing you to build almost anything you can imagine?"

 

Answer: "very few."

 

 

 

And actually there are many "non-effect" based games where you have fairly open ended world-logic abilities which might be hard to transfer over to Hero.

 

TeleKinesis in GURPS 3rd edition works in very much this manner. You have a power and you can do various things with it, limited by your character's level of power, his level of control of that power, your imagination, and (of course) what the GM will allow. For example, you can even use your (GURPS 3rd ed) TK to attack things from the inside, especially if you have some other means of seeing inside said objects.

 

Or for an even better example, if you are familiar with some of the powers in the Amber Diceless RPG, consider how open ended they are. Unfortunately that gets back to being very "loosely defined" as I believe that you touched on earlier.

 

Hero allows for very flexible powers (like VPPs) the only problem is that it also inflicts some game world logic on such powers. It would be nice to find a good way to define very flexible powers while keeping to the logic of the source material.

Re: VPPs and Game World Logic

You're right. This is outside the scope of the rules. It's just something that is defined loosely and then the main enforcement is the player himself roleplaying to that defined standard.

Still, imagine what would happen if a Player came to me with that PK concept I just described, and asked my how to do that in my game. Given that I've probably already told him that "Hero is the most awesome game, where you can build almost anything you can imagine," it would be nice to be able to give a more specific answer than: "this is outside the scope of the rules."

A limitation might be in order on the VPP, but at what level...that's pretty murky. Maybe you could go to Surbrook's Stuff and look at the Mage: the Ascension conversion done by Robert Harrison. His Paradigm limitations are about the best answer I could give here.

I'll definitely check that stuff out.

A cool thing about Hero is that I can use it to create characters for a large number of different worlds.

A cool thing about Variable Point Pools is that they can simulate a character with a very flexible power.

So let us imagine that I want to simulate (in Hero terms) a specific character concept from a specific world. This character has a very versatile psychokinetic ability. He can use this ability to accomplish a wide variety of tasks, only limited by his imagination and the raw force he can generate with his psyche.

It would seem that using a VPP for this character would be the perfect choice—but there is a problem: the logic of this world doesn’t match the logic of the game in terms of point equivalence.

From the “world view” the character is limited by raw PK force, but that force, used in different applications is not always equal value in Hero terms. . . .

For example, if the character focuses his PK into an almost infinitely thin blade, then it doesn’t take much raw force to do a HUGE amount of damage. Or the character could also very easily do massive internal damage with very little force by focusing his power inside a target’s brain. However, just hovering in the air requires lifting one’s whole body mass against the force of gravity which would be a significant application of force.

By the world logic, the character should be able to easily chop off a target’s head with a nigh infinitely thin psi blade much more easily that it would be for him to levitate, but by game-logic, an attack that would chop off a target’s head would be much more expensive point wise (massive killing attack), than simple levitation (small number of points in flight).

So how is the best way to create this character, in Hero terms, as he is in the source material?

I’m specifically curious if people have suggestions about setting up something like VPPs as a versatile pool of power. But in ways which do not follow Hero game point logic, and instead represent some other logic (like the pool of raw PK force which I mentioned above).

This same issue could apply to other situations:

For example, a gadget pool which is limited by tech level and materials. Or an expense account where things of equal $$$ costs are not always equal in Hero point costs.

I’m not expecting any simple answers here. And what I’m looking for is, in many ways, almost by definition, outside of Hero rule logic, but I am curious what people think. . . .

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

"a specific idea" ... "in a more general sense." OK.

 

I'm not so sure that the characters would ever see an "offense factor," because it doesn't mean anything by itself. In order to determine how likely it is to hit, you need both the "offense factor" and the "defense factor," or more simply, the difference between the two. It is this difference (between OCV and DCV) that especially observant and patient characters might eventually see. But for the sake of the discussion, I'll buy an observable "offense factor" for now, but only in conjunction with a "defense factor."

I'm not sure you'd ever directly see an offense factor, or a defense factor, but I think that their existance would be implied to the characters in the game.

If they were to accept the offense factor concept, then this offense factor is what is being increased by things like the amulet (which I mentioned before).

And this increase is reflected in contests between offense factors and defense factors, as some change in percent change to hit.

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Err... yes, that's right. On multiple levels:

• 
  
• It is doubtful anyone "really" knows exactly how much they can lift without noticably slowing down. It would vary from day to day, even from hour to hour on the same day.
  
• Leaving that aside, though, even if they can get Y kg of lifting ability that doesn't mean that can figure out that it's X points of STR. The latter has no meaning to the characters. At best they could rank themselves based on their ability to lift things or perhaps throw things. So what? It is a stretch to state that from that point they can reason through how much "STUN" or "BODY" they can do.

It seems likely that the character's lift would vary a bit between different times. The rules give us the basics, but in this case the GM could use his common sense to deal with specific situations where minor variations in lifting ability would be important. Although IMO ideally the rules would handle this situation.

I'm not suggesting that the character's would actually know their Hero STR score. The point is that this score actually has an impact on the game world. And that impact on the game world is something that the characters can experience. The scale in this case is the relationship between the abstract rules (which the characters do not see) and the game world (which the characters do see).

That's a slam dunk. Characters do not directly experience the "X", "Y", or indeed have any idea what "combat flight" means. Here again, realistically nobody runs the 100 metre dash at exactly the same speed every time. It's an abstraction, and as such it's not meaningful to stare too closely at it.

Again, as above, I'm not suggesting that the characters would know what combat flight means---but they could experience the impact of that ability as it applies to the game world.

And again, it seems likely that the character's running speed would vary a bit at different times. The rules give us the basics, but in this case the GM could use his common sense to deal with specific situations where minor variations in running ability would be important.

But in any case, what do either of those points (even if I agreed with them) have to do with whether or not CV is a linear scale or not? Or do you now agree that this is the case?

These points are an answer to one of your statements (see below).

Phil isn't describing the reality that they see; he's describing the abstraction that we use to simulate it. Differences between "reality" and the model means that questions about the former don't necessarily have any relevance to the latter.

My point was that "scale" is about the relationship between the world of the game mechanics and the actual effects that the character in the game would see.

Example

GAME MECHANICS: "30 Lifting STR" (characters do not know about it in these terms)

GAME WORLD: "Ability to lift 1600 kg" (characters do know about this result)

The question is, what is the actual impact that "+1 OCV" has from the perspective of the characters? Does it represent a linear increase in game world offensive (targeting) ability? So far, Phil has dealt with percentages of targeting success in various contests, and that is great. But I want to go beyond just saying that "Character A has a +12% chance to hit Character B," and make some statements about the actual offensive ability increase. I'd like to look at what type of change in offensive ability would give that observed increase.

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

I responded to part of this quote above, but I also wanted to get the other part as well. . . .

Well, it depends.

 

If the world in which the characters "live" is actually constrained and described by the rules as laid out in the HERO system, then they might well come to such a deduction (it's certainly theoretically possible). However this is a strange world! It is a world where in a 100 metre dash, you see the runners run a bit, then stop for 3 seconds, then run a bit more, and stop for another 3 seconds... It is a world where two objects moving at the same average velocity do different damage on impact depending on how fast their "reflexes" are (with the "slower reflex" object doing more damage).

 

On the other hand, perhaps the rules are merely an abstraction of the way the game world works for the purposes of play. That implies a significant amount of realism in the game world that we (as the players) abstract away, but the characters cannot. So you have the same situation as in the real world, where there are myriad factors involved in the question "How accurate am I?". I am openly skeptical that results to a 1/216 accuracy could be obtained in a realistic setting (too much "noise" in varying conditions, even in a shooting range or other relatively controlled environment). And that means that even dedicated HERO-gamer-in-secret-ID characters aren't going to be able to work things out to the degree of precision we're using for the abstraction.

I do agree that there are some big problems with trying to look too deeply at the game-rules/game-world interactions. However, I also assume that these abstract rules are supposed to relate to a world that we can hopefully visualize, and which should "make sense" to us at some level.

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

Phil isn't describing the reality that they see; he's describing the abstraction that we use to simulate it. Differences between "reality" and the model means that questions about the former don't necessarily have any relevance to the latter.

So the fact that a given increase in X points of STR means an increase in Y kg lifting ability in the game world is not about what the characters see?

Are you suggesting that X points in combat flight results in Y increase in game world velocity has nothing to do with what the game characters directly experience?

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

Do you see how you unfairly assumed that his claim about a linear function still applies after changing it to exponential?

 

Sure enough, linear functions and exponential functions are different. They have different properties. That's why we have different names for them.

I think you mis-read his actual quote, I will remind you what he said:

Further, you will find that the relative difference between any two points of any function (regardless of scale) will show the effect you have noticed as your approach infinity. The relative difference between the two values will decrease.

( did you catch the part where he said "any function" ? )

I can repeat for you, and make it still larger, if you missed it.

He did refer to linear functions earlier in his post, but "any function" would include both linear and exponential functions.

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

In my last post, I made a few slight calculation errors in the last three values of the relative increases, I have edited the post to include the correct values. I'm not sure where the error crept in, but my results were pretty close anyway.

Your results were close enough.

How does that change the situation in any meaningful way? +1 from a magic amulet has the same impact as +1 from a purchased CSL, or +1 from a maneuver, or +1 from +3 DEX, etc. You don't have to answer this question. I don't mean to distract you from the main question, which remains: Why do you think CV is non-linear?

The amulet is helpful because it is an example of the characters being able to see the same increase being applied from one character to another.

And in terms of "why CV is non-linear," I'm getting to that.

Didn't we cover this already? They would describe it thusly: "This magic amulate makes my attacks slightly more accurate."

 

If they really wanted to go into more detail than that, they might say, "This magic amulet makes its wearer's attacks a little bit more accurate (that is, a little more likely to hit). For those attacks that are already very likely to hit, there isn't much room for improvement, so the accuracy doesn't increase very much. For those attacks that are highly unlikely to hit, the improvement is also fairly small. But for those attacks that have closer to equal chances of hitting or missing, the increase in accuracy is most significant."

I was sort of hoping that we could get to a specific idea. This idea I was trying for is that the characters in the game could see that there was some sort of "offense factor" which drives how likely one is to hit (although they probably would not call it OCV).

Having answered this question, I still don't see what your point is. How does any of this relate to demonstrating how the impact of CV is non-linear?

As I said above, I'm getting to that.

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

At best you are arguing that the world of the bell shaped curve means that nothing is linear' date=' and if you insist on that definition, what term are you going to invent in its place?[/quote']

My argument about the impact of increasing CV has nothing specific to do with bell curves.

 

As far as the bell curve goes, the characters might describe this as some "law of decreasing returns" type of thing.

 

 

You couch the above query as something that the individuals would find mysterious - "Hmm, it makes him X better, but me Y? I wonder what's going on?" However, that wouldn't be the case. If the individuals in question had studied things to the extent that they were able to figure out - in some sense - how the "combat system" worked (OCV vs DCV), then they would already have encountered many situations that were analogous. For example, they would have noted that with two identical individuals attacking the same target, the one that tries to Punch will hit more often than the one that tries to Grab, and they'll deduce the exact same difference in percentage that this amulet will have.

Yes, there are other examples of OCV enhancement than a magic amulet.

 

 

So, from the character's point of view, we have some sort of "offence factor." Also we can increase this factor by a set amount and look at the impact on offense/defense contests.