iamlibertarian

On 4/10/2021 at 3:23 PM, pinecone said:

I Think I would build it in two parts. First a "Combat Comp" that uses a VPP to "load" programs like OCV/DCV and the like. Then a "Skillsoft" suite of Enhanced Cramming say twice, so you can add two skills, one is likely to be a "mission brief" knowlage of the location etc, and the second a skill soft of choice. A small VPP of skill and tactics: Changes take time/chipset, should be fairly cheap, and the Cramming does the rest

I like the concept, but still run into the "no skills in a Framework" problem.

14 hours ago, Opal said:

Y'know, it's funny, I hadn't really thought about it before, but it's just in the nature of skills that you probably can't use all that many of them at the same time.  

 

Focused (and maybe some other limitations) Overall Skill levels could get you close to what you want.  You'd still buy the skills - maybe you need a foundation to benefit from the chipped data, or maybe repeated chipping leaves you with something - but you'd be a lot better at the skill that the levels are distributed too at the moment.  It's already in the nature of skill levels that you need to distribute them, but you could put an added limitation of a little extra time to distribute the levels and or make them all/nothing, you can't put some levels to one thing and some to another, and of course, limited to adding to the skills you have a chip for.   Rather than buying each chip, having a chip or not is a matter of dealing with that limitation. 

 

...hm... that last bit may be better suited to a cyberpunk campaign.  If you're unique and only have the chips you came here with, yeah, that'd be more like having a fixed set of skills through the focus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is how I am picturing it...

Have a computer or AI in the character's head. Have a set of "slots" into which I could slip chips with skills, data, "powers" (like GPS or Detects or Skills, or yes, skill levels (like targeting or OCV/DCV) or whatever.) Let's say 4 slots.

But the character can also make more "chips." Let's say he gets into an enemy's database. Can download all the data onto a "chip" for later recall. But then he senses the enemy is near, and takes that chip out and installs an general OCV/DCV chip and a pistol +Targeting chip, along with chip #4 being a Spatial Awareness chip (to go with his CyberEyes already paid for). Each chip taking a half-phase or a phase to insert. When the combat still isn't going well, takes out the +Targeting Chip and slips in the "Wired Running" chip to add speed to his escape. Once he gets to a safe place, he slips out the general OCV/DCV chip and replaces it with his Surgeon chip to take care of his wounds.

Now, let's say he's not Entirely unique. What if it were in a superhero level Cyberpunk game. How about stealing chips from other characters/NPCs?

All of this would be easy in a Framework, easiest yet in a VPP, but still very viable in a Multipower. But no Skills or Skill Levels  are allowed in a Framework.

This is why I am leaning toward a Multiform in a VPP. The time it takes (and the roll to do it successfully if in combat) is to "switch chips" (that being the SFX). And, to represent X# of slots, build the base form (AI/chip receiver in the brain, "wired reflexes", cybereyes, etc.), and for each "slot" the character can make one GM pre-approved change to the base character. This would even cover finding/stealing other targets' chips (because they would be pre-approved by the GM already.

15 hours ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

 

Technically, no; you'd need to use a small VPP or something for Characteristics and other miscellaneous Powers.  This ability can easily get expensive.  But then, that's probably fair, because it can also easily get super-useful!   

True on the super useful. Now if only skills could be put into a VPP...

12 minutes ago, Opal said:

Iron Man is a little unusual in growing notably through his early career.  It seems like most supers come into their full power right away and they experience crazy variations over time, rather than steadily get better - presumably because of writing/marketing/publishing with retcons and different writers and reboots and whatnot.

 

And I'd never say /couldn't/ do something in Champions!, just that IMX, running some multi-year campaigns, and having a few character accumulate hundreds of exp over the years, a character built at a high-power/cosmic level is very different from a more typical one with the same number of points due to accumulate exp.   Points you spend a few at a time, or maybe save up tens of for a 'radiation accident' (though i can't say I've seen a lot of that), just seem to be spent differently than points spent all at once in chargen.

 

The specific example of a high-fantasy (Fantasy Hero/D&D-esque) wizard with tons of exp, yeah, it'd be nothing like Dr. Strange, not even a little bit like him.  Campaign norms, for one thing, are totally different in kill-crazy, treasure-grubbing, S&S or quest-driven high fantasy (which you honestly don't see so much of in TTRPG thanks to D&D) vs either regular super-heroes, or the 'mystic' variations typified by Strange.  

Makes sense...which is why it would be nice once in a while (for me) to start at a higher level. I mean, I don't have to play a full on, multiverse saving Dr. Strange, at his power levels, but it would be nice to be able to play a somewhat powerful mage that can at least have an effect on the entire world (after some xp even) 😆😇  I can make a pretty potent Wizard with 400 points, but with 600, damn! lol

4 minutes ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

I would probably build something around Cramming (using the Optional Expanded Cramming rules from Hero System Skills, page 145), and something like Speed Reading, or Overall Skill Levels to reduce the time it takes to Cram.

I will definitely look into the Optional Expanded Cramming. Would that work with the more Physical options though, like +OCV/DCV or Sharpshooter? Or 'wired reflexes'? Or add to INT, or add active GPS to the character? I am trying to put together some sort of true Cyberpunk character that would then be fit into a Champions game.

Thanks! DC

I just had a thought... you could Multiform your own character, with a Chip Jack in your head for the main character, with each Form requiring a particular chip or set of chips (OAF Fragile, with each chip recreatable from a main (or backup) database if the time is taken... Sorry, just thinking 'out loud'.)

DC

Chip Jacks, with skills (physical or mental or knowledge or the like) on the chips: How would you create them? Super easy if a VPP can be used, less easy but still viable in a Multipower. But without explicit GM exception to put skills in a framework, would be prohibitive to build (imho) without a framework. But then my experience is limited along this line of thinking. So, suggestions?

You know, plug in the chip with world history at x-level, or a GPS chip, or a Mental Focus chip (+4 Int), or a 'skill wire' chip if your character is 'Wired' (+2 DEX or OCV/DCV or Sharpshooter or the like), or the Chemistry 18 or Surgeon 16 chip, or the Lockpicking 15 chip, and so on.

Thanks!

DC

On 3/29/2021 at 10:29 PM, Opal said:

Back in the day I ran the 3E/BBB equivalent, 'cosmic' level, for a number of years.   Also the other end of the spectrum, 'street' level.   The group was mixed, from serious Hero mavins to relatively casual players.  Both extremes worked well.

 

One thing I noticed was that even with lots of XP, low-power heroes wouldn't cross over to become like their higher-power equivalents.  

 

Basically what you are saying is you couldn't take a high fantasy mage (built as one), campaign for 8 real-life years, and turn that character into a Dr. Strange like character?

How about (movie versions) an early Iron Man with the short-lived suit built in a cave...could it in a really long campaign grown into the Iron Man in his last movie, AI assisted, large number of "duplicates", etc.? Would the characters just not grow that way?

Would an early Dr. Strange pretty much have to start out very close to a later Dr. Strange?

On 3/29/2021 at 5:42 AM, HeroGM said:

I've had games run from 2 weeks to 8 years.

I would Love an 8 year game... Even if breaks were taken, or the occasional Guest GM helped out, or rotating GMs within the same campaign setting.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Sounds like a negative adder is another option for popping the desired ability into HD at the same price as two VPPs, one limited and the other not.

I went with the Negative Adder. It was soooo easy :):)

On 3/29/2021 at 2:09 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

Practically:

 

 - you can build a multiform with massive doub;lings of forms, or a VPP of Multiforms, and have a sheet for each form, adding new ones at your discretion.

 

 - you can have a Multipower and put a configuration of multipower slots together for various standard forms, adding new ones at your discretion.

 

 - you could even have a VPP of animal powers and put a configuration of multipower slots together for various standard forms, adding new powers and new configurations at your discretion (wait - I need an NND vs Smell Flash Defense for my skunk).

 

All three require advance preparation to avoid slowing down the game.

The VPP Multiform-only idea doesn't even take much prep ahead of time if you have a copy of HSB, or whatever source book(s) you need in front of you or in PDF right in front of you. Of course unique/specialty builds are a different story. But if you are truly closely duplicating Beast Boy, you can just open HSB at the first game in which the character is played, and build other animals not listed between games.

On 3/29/2021 at 6:44 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Almost 7 years of thread necromancy...at least it's for a topic that comes up on occasion.

Lol, I am building a Beast-Boy-resembling character, and googled Hero System Beast Boy, and voila, here I landed. I prefer to read older stuff already hashed out than start a new topic When I can.

5 hours ago, Opal said:

I empathize, but I think I get what the 6e experts are trying to explain to us.

 

We're used to "you can't put a limitation on the pool" meaning just that.

Now, though, you can limit the pool, you aren't required to, and you don't call it that, but you can.

Agreed. I am not trying to argue that you Can put a limitation on the Pool (to save character points). I am arguing (with just one person) that putting a focus on the VPP does not Reduce the available points in the pool, and using the example of Technon (6E1 page 410).

Technon has a 30/30 VPP. 

Technon applies OAF to the VPP.

This OAF reduces the CP cost of the Control.

After the OAF, Technon still has a 30AP Control and a 30 point Real Point Pool to work with.

Unclevlad appears (to me) to be saying that the Size of the Real Point Pool is decreased because of the OAF, but the Technon example shows this not to be the case.

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

If you put a limitation on the control, you can go ahead and buy just enough enough points in the pool to hold one power with that limitation.  It's not a limitation on the pool, per se, but it's exactly the same real points as if you did slap that limitation on it.

 

In fact, if I'm following, you can just leave the pool, itself at 50.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

The control cost would be purchased to allow 50 Apts+50 Apts OAF-1.  That's 37 Rpts for the up to 100 Apt control, plus the 50 Rpt reserve, for 87 pts.  With that, without the staff you can put a 10d EB, no limitations, in the pool.  With the staff, you could change that to a 20d EB, OAF, because that's also 50 Rpts.

Exactly!

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

IDK how 6e handles shifting pts in a VPP while a limitation is making a power in it unavailable, though.

9 hours ago, dmjalund said:

it almost seems simpler to have a multiform each with it's own VPP, one is 60 AP OAF, while the other has a plain 30 AP VPP

 

Simpler, yes, when done on paper. But in Designer, it doesn't work. Designer will reject any power with a AP cost above 30.

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

LoneWolf:  There's no such thing as a negative adder on a VPP.  A custom power?  It can be used to define one, yeah, but IMO that's not supportable here.  And it isn't needed, IMO.  

There is such a thing. The fact that everyone claims that if you can do it in Designer, it is legal proves it. And it does exist in Designer.

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Basically what I suggested parallels yours.  50/50 character VPP.  Staff is 50/50 which goes to 25/50 because of OAF.  So the combination is 75/100;  and what you do isn't some arbitrary, unsupported adder, but a straightforward "Limited Power" class of limitation on the VPP:  that exceeding 50/50 requires the OAF.  I think that's much more clear, and makes the conditions obvious.  And for me, importantly, it's within the language of the system, which an oddly-constructed adder is not.

Emphasis is mine. The example of Technon shows that this is an incorrect assessment. He paid for a 30 CP for a 30 Real Point Pool. After applying the OAF to the VPP, he still has a 30 Real Point Pool, allowing him to slot 30 RP of powers at the same time. The available pool does not decrease because of the application of a Limitation to the VPP.

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

No, not at all.  You're misunderstanding how it works.  

 

First:  the fact that the real and control costs are the same is coincidental.  You can define a 30 real, 60 active;  a 60 active power would be required to have -1 in limitations, but they could be whatever the player desired at this point because I haven't included a Common Modifier.  Or a 30 point power with no limitations whatsoever.  Or a pair of 30 active point powers, each with -1  in limitations.  Note that a 30 pool, 60 active "magic pool" can be explained as "low level spells are easy to cast;  higher level spells need support, such as Gestures/Incants."  Or whatever your pleasure...some others might take Extra Time instead of G/I.

There is nothing here with which I disagree. I used 30/30 both because that was what 6E used in its example, and for sake of ease during discussion. But nothing in your explanation shows that the Available Pool Pool Points decrease because of application of a Lim (in this case an OAF) on the VPP.

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

You need to think outside the box.  Due to a software limitation you cannot have a partially limited VPP without some work arounds.  So instead of trying to put a VPP into a compound power which hero designer will not allow you to do you adjust the cost of the VPP by adding a negative adder.

 

Assuming you want a 100pt pool 50 of which is with no limitation and 50 is with an OAF.  This works out to be 112 point.  So what you do is to create a VPP in hero designer with 75 point pool and a control cost of 100.  This will come to 1125 points.  So add an adder with a value of -13 to adjust your cost.  Now the VPP cost 112 point like it should.  This will allow you to put in a 100 point active cost power with a real cost of 75 which is what should be allowed in the pool.  

 

If you want to use hero designer to figure out the math for a more complex pool it is fairly simple.  Start by creating the portion of the pool with the least restrictions.  Now create another pool with whatever other limitations you want.   Make sure to adjust the pools point to account for the limitations.  In the above example you have a pool cost of 25 (the real points after applying the OAF) and a control cost of 50 (the maximum active cost).  Now use a calculator to add the two pools together to get the real cost.  Next create still another VPP with the pool cost of the combined pools and a control cost of the combine control cost.   This will be more expensive then then it should be.  Use a calculator to subtract the cost of the cost you got by adding the two pools together from the cost of the third pool.  Go into the third pool and ad an adder with a negative value equal to the number you just got.  Now delete the first and second pool.

You now have a VPP that does what you want it to.  When you create a power in the pool create it as a compound power and apply the appropriate limitations to each part of the combined pool.  

 

The only important things in a VPP from Hero Designers point of view are is the real cost of VPP, the total points in the pool and the control cost.  As long as those are correct you do not have a problem.  You may need to explain this to your GM but once he understand what you are doing it should not be a problem.  
 

I just started something with pieces of both, though I did not think of the adder part, which is probably easier. I created a VPP in the actual character .hdc with the true cost of the VPP at half no-lims, half limited. Then I created a separate .hdc with the actual Pool/Control levels I wanted to achieve, and started building the powers/slots in that one (with the Compound Powers like you suggested), with a note in the Real .hdc explaining this. But since I only barely began that process, I think I will restart and use the negative adder suggestion you made. Thank you!!! So much simpler, while still being able to create powers up to their max level in a Single VPP.

40 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

The total of REAL points can't exceed 30.  Real point cost is *after* applying limitations.  

 

A 30 point active-cost gadget that's OAF costs 15 real points...so he can have 2 such.  Or he can have 3 gadgets, each 20 active.

Look further at that text, reformatted by me a bit for clarity here:

 

A total of 61 active --> 30 real thanks to the OAF limitation.  

Yes, he paid 30 CP for a 30 Pool, and can have 30 RP worth of slots active at the same time. Before AND after the application of the OAF. The RP *cost* of each -power- is decreased. But it read to me like you were saying that the -available- real points in the VPP was decreased by the OAF.

The AP is meaningless. He can have 12,000 AP if he wants, as long as none of them individually exceed 30.

We are probably saying the same thing, just differently

11 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

As a GM, and by that I mean I have much more experience as a GM in hero than a player, I don't like (and generally disallow) VPP's that have very short periods needed to change the powers because they interrupt play, not because of the things they produce. Players need to be expert in the rules, good with math and not try questionable things for those to work at all.

 

If you come to me with a VPP that has defined powers that you switch out quickly (i.e. no creating new things on the fly that I have to spend game time checking) I don't care if it's magic, skill, gadgets, cosmic energy, "the void" or whatever else that powers it, you are not interrupting other players and my flow and I am good.

I *always* come with a handy list of prepared spells/powers that the GM can easily look over before gaming/accepting the character, with the entire point being good pacing of the game. I never, ever create a true Cosmic VPP. If I have a thought for a power necessary to the scenario, I *might,* during a break in the game, create it for GM approval, but even then, I have Designer with me so that I can both create it quickly for approval and have the math done and "is it legal" stuff done by Designer itself.

11 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

 

 

Personally as a player, I enjoy playing both gadgeteers and mages although because of genre I have a lot more experience with mages than gadgeteers. In the games I have been a player in Hero I have not seen the discrimination you have experienced but have no doubts in some groups it would go one way or the other depending on what had caused the GM pain in the past.

Agreed! But I am glad my personal experiences are not 'all-that-is.'

16 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

What you're missing:  the pool size is REAL cost.  So 50 active becomes 25 real because it's OAF.  You don't reduce the pool *cost*, you get to reduce the pool *size*.  That's why, with the staff, it's 75 real, 100 control, and the staff limitation kicks in at 50/50.  So, any time the control cost exceeds 50...the staff's in play.  Any time the *total* real costs exceed 50, the staff has to be involved.  That's not on one power, that's on all powers in use.  You couldn't have 30 points of defenses and 30 points of Flight w/o the staff because the pool size without it is only 50/50.

 

I love building VPPs that are, let's say, 120/60, with Requires a Skill Roll as a common modifier.  It means the maximum real cost is never over 40, so I can have 3 full-strength powers up and ready simultaneously.  Or make it, let's say, 100/60...60 attack, 60 defense, and 30 special-purpose (e.g. invis) or mid-level movement (flight 24m, 1/2 END) that I can transition to non-combat movement readily enough.  I don't typically need an attack power at non-combat speed.

I definitely am missing that. I have been at this since Fantasy Hero and Champions first came out, intermittently, and have never known such a thing, or I am totally misunderstanding you. The Technon example in 6E1 pg 410 (quoted below) does not agree with what I Think you are saying. Technon has a 30/30 Pool/Control. He limits his VPP with OAF (-1). It directly states that his POOL (real points) remains 30, as does his 30 AP of Control.

"Example: Technon has a Gadget Pool with 30 Pool, 30 Control Cost. All of his gadgets are OAFs and must take that -1 Limitation, so that Limitation can also apply to the Control Cost if Technon wishes. Technon pays 30 points for the Pool Cost and (15/(1+1)) = 7 points for the Control Cost, for a total cost of 37 points for his VPP. The total Real Point cost of all gadgets in the VPP cannot exceed 30 points, and no gadget can have more than 30 Active Points."

10 minutes ago, Opal said:

One thing I do to re-assure GMs when I bring in a VPP is to have a goodly list of sample powers handy, particularly any squirrelly stuff you plan on, like NNDs and Desols & the like that need a 'counter,' if you pin down the counter ahead of time, that'll smooth things in play.

Totally! I have said elsewhere that half the fun for me is character creation (as long as I have at least a hope of playing that character in the future). So I like to have Many "spells" created for the character ahead of time. It also helps the pace of the game if the spells/powers are already figured out. In fact, I like to create the same powers at different power levels for the same pacing reason (Blast Major 20D6, Blast Medium, 10d6, Blast Minor 5d6 as an example).

10 minutes ago, Opal said:

 

One interesting observation I had playing early on, BTW, at first I very much wanted to play characters who did cool stuph, who went desolid while attacks passed through them, or selected from a big MP or VPP or whatever, and thought, having not played one, that the basic brick would be boring.   But, no, it turns out being able to do cool stuph is not nearly as cool as to still be conscious and have your next phase available to actually do said cool stuff.  And, it also turns out, there's no end of cool stuff the brick can do with just STR and any environment less sterile and featureless than empty space.  In play, bricks get to be creative, cool, and awesome, it's only in chargen that they're a bit meh.

Especially true if you also happen to enjoy Bricks in stories, making them in other gaming systems (like Paladins in AD&D) and so on. Personal tastes

10 minutes ago, Opal said:

(That said, my eponymous favorite character totally has a VPP.)

 

Same, lol.

I would also be interested in your take on my other Thread...I wish I could remember what Title I gave it, but it is the one where I asked about different starting levels for Supers campaigns, 400-vs-500-vs-600. In it I mentioned something to the effect of I don't mind starting at a lower level, like Tony Stark creating his first powered armor in a cave, but I also want to Eventually be Tony/Iron Man with a much more advanced suit, with AI assistance and backup, and able to Duplicate into a small army like in Iron Man 3. But campaigns never seem to last long enough for that growth to happen, so yeah, sometimes I like to start at the 600 level, which is *still* less powerful than Iron Man at the time of his death, but I also know that power level is twice the headache for GMs.

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I wasn't saying Skill Roll to activate;  the VPP will require the skill roll to change slots, unless you're paying the +1 advantage to eliminate it.

I didn't catch onto that, but I agree on the skill roll to change slots. And yes, it can get expensive, either to take the +1 advantage (which I never do) OR to buy the skill roll up (expensive either way).

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

I would be very averse to letting you have a plain Characteristic Roll that wasn't subject to an active point modifier, when you're tossing around powers of this size.  Skill roll at -1 per 20 points would still be at -4 or -5, and you only get -1/4 for that.  That'll still call for a decently pricey skill to earn that limitation, so I seriously doubt a plain Characteristic Roll would be worth anything.

DOH! That's what I get for not reading ahead before replying. I just agreed with this above, lol.

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Why not 2 VPPs?  Because many of us can turn that into something truly, tremendously ugly...and what you're trying to do is a really good start because you're trying to get the actual pool size down (common modifier:  OAF staff cuts the pool size in half) and the control cost as well.  There would be other ways.  Plus, it's trying to manipulate the skill roll rules, as the pools are easier to roll because they're smaller.  And push comes to shove:  the LImited Power limitation I built *is* effectively expressing 2 joined VPPs.

 

Honestly:  I suspect many of us view the staff as nothing more than SFX to increase your pool size, and thus is worth NO limitation whatsoever.  If you're looking at fantasy/comics?  That is all it is;  how often does the staff get taken away?  90% of Green Lantern's power is the power ring;  even as OIF, how often is it at risk of being lost?  The 24 hour limit?  Only when the writer wants to add fake worry, or put GL into a dangerous position for a bit.

Well, I can't use the Staff to take down the cost of the Pool, just the Control. And, the cost savings isn't that much, at least not to me. I could have just built (and have many times) the VPP as 100 Pool / 100 Control to begin with. But I just yesterday had this thought it would be more fun/enhance the story if the GM could take the staff away once in a while, thereby reducing (but not Eliminating) the character's power. Retrieving the staff would make a great storyline (to me).

As for Green Lantern, that is the fault of the GM? (author) for making it OIF rather that OAF in Hero terms. It didn't have to be that way.

I don't want to have overpowered characters (relative to the rest of the team, whatever power level that may be). I just enjoy being Involved in the story, a lot (who doesn't?).

Any time, give me a character with less power and more variety, over, say, a simple Brick who can do only two things (very powerfully): take hits and pound things, and has one or two memorable one-liner quotes. Said Brick to me is very boring to play.

10 hours ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

In your examples, the mage is also using "gadgets;" they're just gadgets with magical SFX instead of technological. I agree with LL that I don't necessarily buy the premise that GMs generally don't like Power Frameworks; I think it depends on the GM, and maybe even more so on the player using the Power Framework and the speed and ease with which the VPP can changed.

I am hoping that you are correct, and that my experiences are just that: mine. And that I don't always find that bias in my future.

Quote

 

However, in my experience, when I have seen what you describe, it's typically because a gadget-based VPP is a bit easier for the GM to plan around, often because it takes at least a bit of time to change. The VPPs that give some GMs heartburn are the ones that can be whatever whenever, as LL notes. Those tend to magic spells, not gadgets. I've never encountered a GM who would frown on a VPP of a wizard's magic items, but be fine with a VPP of technological gadgets, for example.

I have, but like I said, I am glad to hear that is my limited experience. Though I have seen several gadgeteers who could change their gadgets as fast as a mage can change their spells. Changing their gadgets with a Skill Roll in a phase. But Personally, I like creating/playing what you would call a magical gadgeteer. For example, rather than casting a simple Clairvoyance Spell, I like to have that pre-magiced sliver of mirror with a god's symbol on it for which I have to pray to that god (OAF Fragile + Incantation) and hope that he hears and responds (requires a roll) which sometimes fails (adds to the story), but still sometimes gives the GM a headache, because I just discovered the bad guy's lair and plans, and communicate that to the rest of the team 😆

3 hours ago, Opal said:

Sorry to pile on, but my experience, not just in Hero, is that GMs & players alike are more blythely accepting of 'magic can do it' than 'tech can do it' (and a lot more accepting of both those than 'skill,' darring-do, courage and the like).  

Never be sorry for piling on...when I ask a question, it is to get as many viewpoints as I can. I want to know if *I* am the one being unreasonable.

3 hours ago, Opal said:

 

In particular, I've often had GMs balk or at least look askance at a gadget granting Power Defense, so I was quite surprised by that example.

I am glad to hear that my experiences are all that there is out there.

3 hours ago, Opal said:

 

That said, and perhaps for that reason, many GMs might be more willing to allow a gadgeteer PC than a mage PC in the first place, precisely because they feel they can keep a tighter leash on the former.

Key word is 'feel,' I think. They can require as many limitations on a magic vpp as they do on a gadget vpp, or require fewer lims on a gadget vpp as they would a magic vpp.

I know frameworks give GMs headaches, and vpps even more than multipowers. I just happen to love playing Dr. Strange types, more for role-playing purposes than anything else. Sure, Dr. Strange can reverse time, create mystic shields and blasts, but what is Really cool, is when he can, nonchalantly, Summon a chilled mug of beer into Thor's hand, then after Thor drinks the beer, almost thoughtlessly refill the mug. 😆 And he has a cloak that not only lets him fly, but also reaches out to defend him. And he can create portals to elsewhere. For me, and for my characters, I don't need any particular power to be very powerful, but the variety of things which can be done...enchants me (I know, groan). Compare that to playing a version of The Hulk. Watch bullets bounce off, and then SMASH. I like character with depth...not in their history, which Bruce Banner/Hulk has, but in the Play.

Another example: A fantastic gadgeteer like Batman is Much more interesting to me than Robin, who is nothing more (to me) than an acrobat with combat skills.

16 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I haven't seen that personally, but if it's your experience, my first thought is that "gadgeteers" typically have more Limitations to their VPP as a logical consequence of defining it as "gadgets": Focus or available materials, Extra Time, RSR with appropriate technical Skills or Sciences, and the like. Such things can apply to magic, of course, but particularly in the comic-book genre they aren't considered necessary. "Super magic" usually functions like super powers, just with different SFX. Players may want a magical VPP so they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. That can be a genuine headache for a GM.

It has been a while, but I have seen magic be poohpooh-ed when the super mage created exact duplicates of what a gadgeteer made, including limitations, while the gadgeteer was cheered on. Ok, I admit it, I created the mage, and copied some cool ideas off a gadgeteer from another gaming group.

But I have also seen gadgeteers create a gadget pool that allowed them to do just about whatever they want, whenever they want. Same headaches for the GM, but somehow still more...'accepted?'

Take Tony Stark. Massive gadgeteer. But he can do just about whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and then can also "Duplicate" making an army out of his gadgets.

For me, half the fun is character creation, as long as I have hope of eventually playing said character. But just like gadgeteers, when I create mages, especially super mages, I have fun duplicating in magical form what gadgeteers create scientifically. Change the GPS device into a tracking device? I create a mystical tracking bug...say, a lodestone (magnet) I have to Summon a spirit first for, bind that spirit to that lodestone, then throw that lodestone at the target and hope I hit (as opposed to just casting a simple Clairvoyance spell).

10 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

The system says you can't join powers from 2 frameworks.  Period.  

I don't really Want it to be 2 frameworks. Every single thing else in the Hero System can be partially limited, so why not a VPP? 6E doesn't rule it out, so I think Designer should be adapted to handle it?

From a Comic Story standpoint: Joe Magus can naturally cast spells like a young and less powerful Dr. Strange, handled by Hero System as a magic VPP. 50/50 Pool/Control. Joe's Master gives him a gift of an OAF Staff that increases his natural magical talent (handled by Hero System boost to his natural talent (adding directly to the VPP another 50/50 Real Points to the Pool/ Active Points to the Control). I may be biased, but this seems reasonable to me, and I can find nowhere in RAW that this is not legal.

10 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

What would work is something like this:

 

VPP:  Pool size 75, Control Cost 100

VPP only modifier:  Must use OAF Staff, or pool is restricted to 50/50.  I'd call this -1/2, but it might depend on the campaign, and how often you're exceeding 50 points.  It might only be -1/4.  It'd never be more than -1/2 because it's only applying to half the pool.  

He would be exceeding 50 points most of the time...the extra points were gifted to him so that his power level would increase.

10 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

So you buy the whole pool and take a *lesser* limitation on the whole thing, describing that part that's the staff only.  The spells with the staff gain OAF on *that* part, so, yes, everything has to be defined technically as a compound power.  There's an implicit -0 Limitation that the staff's component has to match the core pool's component, with the exception of END.  I think the staff should have an END Bat, and when you use the staff, it's drawing from that.  So you can do 1/2 END from personal END and full END from the staff.

It's a personal thing specifically: I hate END batteries because that is just one more thing to track. I often by powers for a character either on Charges or at Reduced END 0 not for the END Savings or the power boost, but just specifically so that I have one less thing to track, lol.

10 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Also:  when you build a true compound attack like, say, a 8d6 Blast and 8d6 Flash, nominally they have to be split, but I don't have a big problem with saying...ok, it's 80 active;  I want 40 from me @ 1/2 END, for 50 total, and 40 from the staff at full END.

 

Note that, unless you're buying No Skill Roll (and doing so would have to cover the entire 100 point control cost)...the skill roll's at -9.  Oh, and if you try to buy skill levels with OAF Staff?  The VPP limitation is almost certainly going down to -1/4.

As lazy as I am, I often buy things with no skill roll, and have no problem with or disagreement with you on it being on the entire 100 points. But I also often pay the extra to make it a Characteristic Roll, if I want that Lim.

Again, I think that Designer should simply be made to have the Frameworks to be able to be Partially Limited, in a Compound, like everything else can be.

Here is how I created a power within said VPP, for reference. The Staff that adds extra power to the VPP, as Hugh mentioned, does not change the Cost formula for the enhanced VPP. The staff adds directly to the VPP itself as a VPP-Only Modifier and does not require the individual slots to take that limitation. He just needs the OAF Staff to get the extra CP and RP for the VPP. And here is a sample power within that VPP, for clarification (created in Designer).

Mind Control - Animals:  (Total: 38 Active Cost, 25 Real Cost) Mind Control 1d6 (Animal class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Cumulative (48 points; +1 1/4) (15 Active Points) (Real Cost: 15)

plus

Mind Control 1 point (Animal class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Cumulative (64 points; +2) (7 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

plus
Mind Control 1d6 (Animal class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Cumulative (96 points; +1 1/2) (16 Active Points); Lockout (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Gestures (Minimally forms the desired shape; -1/4), Incantations (Charm the  ___; -1/4), Requires A Roll (Skill roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; -1/4)

In other words, without the Staff or the Spell Casting, Magus could cast Mind Control on animals for 1d6 all on his own. If he uses the staff, he gets another Pip. If he also takes the time and effort to commune with his ghods (cast the spell), he gets yet another 1D6. 

I hope that helps with clarification of what I am trying to do.