TheDarkness

I'm not really looking for "how to make the system simple". Merely "How to get rid of glitches that make weirdly complex messes of simple things for no good effect". So more the smoothing around the edges than simplifying the whole thing.

Oh, I forgot the 'does not affect peas' limitation.

Clinging, food products only, OAF?

I forgot to mention, that one of the reasons this came up for me is that I'm slowly messing around with putting together a pick-up scenario set in the Harry Potter universe, and the light spell Lumos made me think of it.

My thought was that the basic power implied choosing either UV, IR, or visible spectrum(but no blinding, that's flash, and no spectrums capable of causing damage to any but those with vulnerabilities), plus choosing the shape(to avoid everyone having to buy a limitation in order to make it some particular shape), but within that range, you may vary its wavelength(so, to make it specifically one quality would be a limitation). I hadn't thought about what would be required to allow choosing AOE, so, now a cone, now a beam, now a sphere, but it would be an advantage. And no, you cannot intensify it by 'compacting' it, but you could effectively make it do so by brightening it as you shrunk the AOE. Aside from what spectrum it is and what shape it fills, the player has absolutely no control over the light itself, so, it behaves as light behaves, if it lights up the area of a football field, from a distance, it looks like that sort of area lit up. I really think this would be hard to munchkin.

I think we're in mostly talking about different things here. I would say that total overconfidence is well into a pathological realm, and is not depicted in most of the sources you're citing as teams except, possibly, in very narrow sets of circumstances, which is not a big issue for me. I brought up units and should have specified 'tactical units' to clarify a small group with severely limited autonomy. I've been a player in such games, but don't generally run them. On the second part, I would say that, I don't actually think that it is tactically sound to live in a world where all relationships are based on tactical advantage. It is advantageous to have people and allies who actually care about you for more than expediency, and building those relationships takes a lot more than favors. Further, since I award experience for role play more than experience for knocking someone out the exact same way the character always knocks someone out, I will clarify my position to say I don't actually equate "my character always does whatever is tactically best" with good tactics in a game run by me.

Does the Ediner still exist at Calhoun Square?

I feel slightly guilty that my curmudgeonly nature derailed the thread!

I can understand this, there is a point where simplifying would sacrifice flexibility, definitely. However, a build's cost should reflect it's value. A flashlight does not. So there's an issue. But, I really don't think it impossible to make a case for making simple light, not controllable except for what area of effect it can occupy for the points you spend at wavelengths that have no damaging properties except for to characters who take some sort of vulnerability, at an appropriate point expenditure, without opening a can of worms. [bracing self for followup build showing how horribly such a power could be turned to munchkin purposes]

There is a balance. In a tactical game, it is poor character development to give a character a trait that would absolutely preclude them from being part of the well oiled team. This does not mean that they cannot have flaws, or that those won't ever come into play. I find the best tactical play comes not from expecting perfect plans to happen, but from good plans and good improvisation. In a tactical game where the team is some sort of military style unit getting orders from above, role play may well go by the wayside. If they are their own, and have no chain of command or constant source of intel, they have to actually meet NPCs to learn about things they need. They have to develop trust and a good reputation with some, tolerate others, and oppose some, and they have to determine which category the people they deal with fall under. That kind of game drives a lot of role play, in my opinion, and makes that role play have meaning and drive the story in ways that the characters influence greatly. I would argue, in such cases, that the presence of some tactics enhances role play more than the absence every could. As for my character being played as overconfident, I was providing that example to show that I was not lacking in previous bad character role play. He was not played as much of anything except a murder hobo after only having played D&D games where murder hobo was the only real class that was being played, an expectation that that wouldn't go anywhere bad, and a fair bit of min-maxing instead of actual character development. Placed in a game where there was actual tactics and consequences and role play. He wasn't really a character, just a bunch of stats with gear. The situation with the guy crisped by the dragon was entirely based on his idea of overconfidence, which, apparently, up to that point had only been head canon. After two years of playing that character. In a game that had far more role play than combat. During which the feared bad guy, who they'd pursued for two years of gaming, when they finally caught him, turned out to be only slightly more powerful than they were. But also a game where they'd had tough fights against less powerful NPCs. So they knew combat could have repercussions. So yes, my guy would have attacked the dragon, but it would have been because I would have had zero experience at gaming beyond the lowest order of power gaming. The entire game that that guy got killed by a dragon in began with a group of players who had only played a few murder hobo games, and didn't like it. In my game, they were pursuing an evil cleric across the desert who had murdered a local caliph's daughter as part of some dark ritual. In their pursuit, he laid traps in his wake. At first, the characters were fighting off these traps to great effect, but, through role play, discovered that the cleric, being a cleric of a corrupt god, was using often innocent or good people, if possible, putting them in situations where if they did not attack the characters, something bad would happen. Subsequently, the characters became quite clever at sneaking into areas, finding out what his real plans were, and solving the circumstances that would lead whatever local power to attack the party. The whole time, I was worried about the final confrontation. I very specifically wanted the villain to be more clever than powerful. But I didn't want the final confrontation to be anticlimactic. I struggled greatly with making the final battle seem grand enough. Had a whole plan, the perfect place for it to happen, when, where. The players outwitted me, after two years of pursuit, knowing the city he was going to would have many of his supporters, I had been so focused on week after week of them pursuing him, when they figured out a way to break ahead. He'd been throwing his henchmen in their path for ages, and was down to a handful. Two party members infiltrated the camp, bought off his hired swords while he slept, and the party was standing over the villain when he woke. The player in question, however, was more concerned with his player being at the center of attention. Plus, he was not a 15 year old gamer playing in what would be the first well crafted role playing campaign ever, he had gamed a lot, he was really a power gamer more than a role player. Nor was I the only GM who had this problem with his part in games. You almost had to put up a giant sign that read "You are low level and this is a balrog, I don't actually expect you to fight it", and even then, if it were Hero, he couldn't read it because he would have traded his literacy points in in some desperate bid to min-max. This is really the crux of it, for me. Certain players, if they say they're going to play an overconfident character, I'd be excited to see how they're going to play it. But there is a significant number of people who choose it to be the center of attention, not for the role play opportunity, or as a shorthand for "I'm role playing" when they're really not. So it's not overconfidence per se, it is that that complication attracts certain people who do not use it to really role play. That's why I look at it as a red flag. If I get such a player, I usually try to stress that the role play is a much larger part than power gaming in my game, and if they want to try it out, they're welcome, but red flag role playing things for me, like overconfidence, I try to make them think about how they play out before we even play, and I make it clear that the game is not likely to ever become power gaming, so if that's more their interest, they might consider a different campaign. And, to be clear, I am not unpleasant with the player, I just make clear what sort of game they can expect, if they don't want to play that sort of game, that's fine. That's funny about the giant's cave!

Then why is it so notoriously hard to build a headlight? Honest question. I suppose the better topic would be, what are things that are ridiculously difficult to build that should be simple, and how would you simplify the process.

As the thread title states, anything you think would solve issues. Emit Signal: The character with this power is able to emit an ordinary signal, type determined at purchase. 2 pts. This power is always bought with AOE. Examples would be a flashlight(light, with a line or cone AOE), or a walkie talkie(with the limitation signal only receivable by something reading the same frequency), or pheromone(scent, with a radius)

I'm also working on how I'll build counter throws. I'm leaning now towards a bonus to DCV and DC with a STR bonus(or HA) for knockdown only, only usable when the player normally could act first, not abortable. So, the villain tries to throw our hero, a quick character who tends to counter a lot. The hero's DCV is pretty good, made higher by the bonus, cost kept down a little by the limitation and being in a pool(since the DCV bonus and its modifiers can be placed in a pool, along with the DC bonus). The attack fails as the counter succeeds(assuming the hero succeeded in their attack roll), the DC bonus represents the fact that a counter, by definition, takes advantage of the attack it is countering, in this case, using the motion of the villain's failed throw to throw the villain harder than the hero could on their own. I'm sort of slowly trying to figure out how I'll model these builds, then I'll work on how they'll fit in a pool. As stand-alones, their cost will be horrible, but, if there are enough options that add value, the pool may make it work, I guess I'll see.

Adapting block was initially a problem. It simply has such trump effects(allowing a low strength character with higher OCV to block the Hulk's punch has a LOT of hidden costs hand waved away for reasons of play, as does rewarding first attack. I understand this move is seen as part of the foundation of the hth system, like a sort of system physics, but having that physics obscured in the nebulous costs of the hth system creates issues). I've since moved to making sure that the game balancing function of block is preserved somewhere, but there is no need for me to tie it to that specific move, or do it in the same way. The main thing for many players is it allows lower speed and/or lower dex characters a chance against their counterparts. If we summarize block as a build, it is, essentially, using OCV plus modifiers versus OCV, and, if this succeeds, adding infinite DEX with the limitation of being only for initiative and only for when the opponent shares the same segment for their next phases and only versus THAT opponent. And it is aborted to. Obviously, this would cost infinite points. Not doable. But, assuming defensive actions can be aborted to is a sound game physics(which I think it is), the main thing for me now is figuring out how to model the roll for the block, assigning a reasonable value to the DEX bonus that could reasonably outpace most others, etc. The reason I have to do so is because if one is building martial arts using powers, the first time one adds a naked advantage to a maneuver from the lists, they need to know the AP in terms of powers, and the maneuvers do not tell that. Plus, it's fun messing around with the builds!

Thanks for that explanation! One issue I have with the martial arts system(and my issues are mostly build and maneuver related, I think for making a quick martial artist, it is good) is that it looks sneakily like skills in a pool, because that's what it is. Yet, unlike every other pool, we cannot replicate that pool for our uses. But, I don't want to derail the topic. How we build martial artists. I've been messing around with using a trigger to make a proper counter strike. Trying to examine it from the perspective of game balance at this point. Although, I've also been playing with the idea of making it simply be a move with a minor limitation in which it can only be used if normally the character could act first in the segment, without the trigger.

I also think that, at least Champions Complete(I don't have 6th edition Hero, though I'm intending to get it next month) has some really nice sections on role play in general, types of adventures, villains(not meaning write-ups, but archetypes), etc. I mean, really good compared to a lot of games.

This, also, I agree with. It's the fact that a significant number of people DO play it as the 250 point guy taking on Dr. Destroyer. Also agree that it's not a problem with the Hero system. It's common in many games, and has more to do with specific players than anything else. But, there comes a point where playing fair to everyone else is letting the suicidal character do his schpiel one too many times and facing the consequences, imo.

Oh, I agree. The reason I see the complication as a red flag is not because I don't think the disadvantage should exist, but because way too many players role play it as something it's not.

This is why I think, more than a new edition, games made FROM it that involve buying packages in order to make characters would be good. Most gamers like making characters, but many don't want to spend forever doing it. Get them playing Hero using characters made through package systems that don't read like aramaic, and they get the chance to get a taste. Have them make characters only to discover, no, sorry, that's really not the kind of pool you want for that, and yeah, that power would be cool, but you need to put three quarters of it in this mpp, but this part, well that's a naked advantage, but it's okay, you put it outside of it, now remember to keep in mind that part of that move is over here in the pool, but the other part is over here out of it, and no no no no, that's not how you make a walkie talkie, here, let me show you the seven accepted ways to make a walkie talkie, I favor number three, as it doesn't go past two paragraphs, and, okay, just, I know you want a speaker and a headlight on your motorcycle, but let's just keep this simple... It's marginally simpler than having to learn all the code for lol before you can play it, there is that. But lol has the advantage that you might not have to actually sit in the same room as the other players, savoring Thad's frito breath.

Wouldn't +x STR, Only for Knockdown, do exactly that? I mean, you lose the automatic part, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Actually, simpler still. Instead of +x STR, just x STR(or I suppose X points HA) only for knockdown. Then the normal Strength is the damage(speed and force of the throw), the points under the multipower are solely for determining knockdown. This is one of the things that I think gets fudged by the patch that is the martial arts system. It should be a no-brainer to determine what makes someone fall, there should not be a discussion of whether or not to use change environment, but, because the martial arts point system is entirely unrelated to the overall point system, it clouds the issue. There's a game mechanic for falling, that SHOULD BE the basis for determining how falling can be made to occur. Instead, there's knockdown, there's throws, there's trips, there's sweeps, and of those, only knockdown is not composed of a system that doesn't involve a mystery when looked at in comparison to how points work in everything in Hero that is not the martial arts system.

I think this post here is a good solid description of it. Nice.

And this actually brings up an interesting aspect of this. Comics being a fairly wide spectrum, one person may enjoy being in an elite group, another may be more enjoying the sort of snappy patter hijinks, another may want grimdark. I think overconfidence works best in that middle group, though the example you give above is actually solid tactically, win or lose, the opponent would be tied up for that part of the fight. I must confess to having often been in groups that focused a lot on roll play and tactics. Sometimes, when playing with another group, I have to tone the latter down. I recall doing a dungeon crawl, sprawling underground cave system filled with all sorts of stuff, likely to spend weeks of game time in there. The first time the party decided to rest, one of the members said, "The chamber we're in seems like the perfect spot," and in my head, I'm like, "There's five unexplored tunnels off of this chamber, three of which are closer to our exit than where we are camped, if they come in any numbers, we'll be cut off from escape. We need to go back one chamber, only two ways into it, with a pit in the middle we could use to cut off our encampment from a direct charge from one of those two passages, tie a line across the other entrance with a bell on it to alert us, watches of two, at least one should have a significant missile weapon..." We slept in the chamber with all the tunnels connected to it. I did not visibly shake when I said, "sure, yeah, let's camp here." Context is king.

I think the reason I disagree with the latter part is from a particular game, but could have happened in any game I run. Two characters go to parlay with a dragon(Chinese dragon), as they need information that only that dragon can give. A number of people more powerful than they give them advice on what not to do for fear of angering the creature. The general tone given is that this is something beyond their power to defeat. One of them plays his guy as overconfident. He attacks in literally the least favorable conditions for surviving the encounter. The second guy steps in to back him, though he would have not done so otherwise. This goes badly for them. Now, yes, I could have done a little hand waving and made the dragon do some funkiness that magically made the combat not happen. But, considering I had spent a great deal of time having people the group trusted and believed in telling them, "Okay, don't do these things, this creature can be reasoned with if you approach it in the right way, but if you don't, it's beyond dangerous," it kind of takes away the color that the creatures add to the narrative, it takes away the credibility of the NPCs who the characters had dealt with for a long time, and everyone, I mean everyone in the group would have immediately recognized the hand waving for what it was. The whole group knew the two were going to die while I was struggling with the decision. Considering that this party had not lost a single member since the beginning, the narrative that everyone had contributed to was so solid in everyone's mind that they were like, "Dude, those two dudes say do this wrong and no one can help you, no one can help you." Now, I did do a little hand waving. The group still had to parlay with the dragon. When they went, they were greeted by the second character, the poor bystander who was with the wrong guy at the wrong time. His last words, as the dragon's breath came upon him, where something along the lines of, "now I've seen everything". The dragon, amused by this, brought him back so that he could see how wrong he was. Now, Hugh brings up a good point. Supers games don't involve quite so much death. I think the threshold is whether the overconfidence, if the scenario is played out as written, would lead to repeated capture or unconsciousness, something many players seem to hate. I am not of the school that says that anyone they might encounter should be possible for them to beat, and of those who they have actual combats with, I think some combats do not need to be clear victories for the group, in order to make the actual victories stand out. Now, generally, the ones that they might not win because they have slightly less power than who they're facing, I usually use things like the villains attempting to steal something, so the heroes perhaps are not able to stop it, but they encounter the foe, learn more about them, and later in the scenario, come out on top. So, in such a game, a player who is likely to get captured over and over is going to make coming out on top rather difficult for the group unless I hand it to them. But, this is in the context of the fact that I like to run a game heavy on role play and heavy on problem solving. This sort of overconfidence seriously hampers both, because it becomes more and more a matter, for the rest of the group, of, "Yeah, glad we came up with a good approach to deal with this situation that captain look at me fouled up AGAIN." In a game run for light fun, where it's about a break from life, it's really not a big deal, especially since such games, almost as a given, are probably going to have some hand waving. I probably sound like a curmudgeon at this point. Don't even get me started on the whimsical character who likes to wander off from the party to investigate dead camel entrails or some odd bird, which they totally need to role play every session, and doesn't understand that, yes, you made your stealth roll to split off from the party, they didn't notice, but you ARE still in a desert plain with nothing(save camel entrails and a bird) for miles and high visibility, so they're eventually going to notice and be like, "Hey where's...oh, never mind, he's over there." Although, in fairness, when I first played Traveler, I was an obnoxious combat monster player. BUT, the GM was awesome, and he solved this problem by way of burning plasma to the chest. My next character was actually thought out in more ways than, "Thogg hit more, hurt more." But, at least Thogg didn't make his GM run a split group for no reason every week. Thogg no do that. Thogg just shoot shoot shoot, stabby stabby until bad men make Thogg pudding.

I agree 100%. The lousy part is not being able to have skills in multi-powers, which would make the whole process so much simpler. The thing that most lead me to this conclusion was the counterstrike. It isn't a counterstrike, at least how they work in any system I've encountered in 30 years in martial arts. Unfortunately, the thing most like a counterstrike would involve a trigger.

If the GM repeatedly finds themselves fudging a whole lot of rolls to let someone survive because they repeatedly enter into obviously suicidal situations as part of their overconfidence, then it's a suicidal overconfidence. Otherwise, yes, there's a lot of room, but suicidal is suicidal. I would normally not let someone take that level, simply because it's a character who is likely to die, plus a trait that most teams will not want on their roster, plus, if I help them not die, it almost always totally screws with the game for everyone, encourages less planning(as the players who abuse overconfidence seem to often use it as an excuse to actually disregard the team actually having any say in how a battle might go), and, in general, creates a situation where that character gets a level of plot armor that others do not have. I know people with a strong sense of overconfidence. They are still alive, and not generally jumping into suicidal situations every time they come up. Now, I make this clear in my game. You are not allowed to have suicidal overconfidence, here's the reasons why, if you take overconfidence, I also generally want to hear what circumstances it tends to play out in. I've seen it role played well. Unfortunately, I've more often seen it played as suicidal, no matter what level they actually took of overconfidence. If someone really wants to take it to the suicidal level, and understands that they will almost certainly die, then I suppose no problem. Otherwise, if their character is intelligent enough to see a situation is clearly suicidal, it is not ignoring the complication to not jump in, because they did not buy the suicidal level of the complication. I've had plenty of players in the past(fortunately, never more than one at once), and seen players in other GMs' games, who, save for the GM not wanting to deal with the hassle of captured or dead characters, would be captured or killed in almost any of the sessions they are playing in. In my opinion, that strains the entire role play and the suspension of disbelief for everyone. Now, I would allow it if there were something that allowed for some control, whether a friend PC who could reign them in, or some other thing. THAT I could see being a good opportunity for role play. Otherwise, it begs the question, exactly how does the player see this character as being a viable long term member of a team? Players I've had who did it well generally recognized the difference between a situation that they MIGHT not be able to win, and rushing in, and a situation in which they would ALMOST CERTAINLY not win barring the most bizarre luck in the universe.