Doc Democracy

Re: So I'm thinking of running a Western HERO scenario...

I love westerns an understand what you mean about the gunfights. However - as has been pointed out - if PCs get killed lots they often don't enjoy the game as much!

I played a fantastic skirmish game called Once Upon a Time... which was a fanatastic simulation of the Old West - we played out the final scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid on tabletop - they got away...

Anyway - that system used three kinds of protagonists in the game:

I Protagonisti

- like the "Man with no name", and the "Old Man" and Sundance Kid. These are the main men and everyone knows who they are. They are quicker, more accurate and more durable than everyone else (the superheroes of their day)

Cowboys

- like Butch Cassidy and other competent characters but not real gunfighters. These are the guys that get everything else done and support the gunfighters with rifles behind barrels.

Peons

- everyone else - the nameless hordes and townspeople that are only fit for rifles on rooftops - guaranteed to die if they get involved in any gunplay.

I'd suggest having different rules for different roles. If a player wants a steely eyed gunfighter then he should be playing an I Protagonisti but shouldn't be much use for much else - there should be a maximum of two of these in any party. All of the rest of the group should be cowboys.

I Protagonisti should not die with one shot - these are the characters in films that get hit at least twice before they die - unless it is the final duel - one shot should always be enough there - though an I Protagonisti should always get an opportunity to spit out a curse or a question before they gasp their last.

Cowboys should not die with one shot but should often be taken out of the fight for a prolonged period of time. They often are able to bringthemselves to at opportune times to save their I Protagonisti from being shot int he back by some sniper or another - though rarely from an opposing I Protagonisti.

Peons die when they are shot.

The mechanics? Personally I would use the hit location chart and allow the players to alter the hit location by one for every one that they score below the required to hit roll if they are I Protagonisti - for every two if they are cowboys. If they have points over after getting the location they want then let them use the points to add 1 BODY for every two points - or even to alter the hit location of a shot hitting them...

I would also allow the heroic healing mentioned earlier. In the films the healing time was rarely mentioned and often glossed over when another fight started. Have them put in bed in bandages for a couple of days before they get out - completely healthy (or perhaps with a temporary physical limitation - gimpy or can't use left hand)

I think the major thought has to go into the duel. I can't remember the Western Hero options being that cinematic. I'd probably try to come up with something similar to the aerobatic rules in Justice Inc where they manouever and stare before going for the draw. It shouldn't come down to damage and BODY totals - simply who wins - both gun blaze and after staring a bit more one of them falls over. Not sure how I'd do it though...

Doc

Re: Golden Age GM Wanted

If a replacement is not found by the 20th' date=' we'll shut the game down.[/quote']

 

Oh, please someone volunteer!!!

 

I was just getting around to being a lurker and sorting out a character. Golden Age is my favourite genre and I wanted to play!!

Some comparisons

OK

I've tried to convert some of the power sets from CKC to the proposed

system. Personally I think the exercise has highlighted some structure

concerns. I'll come to those later.

THUNDERBIRD

Thunderbird is based around weapons and has two multipowers, one for

blasters and one for grenades. In addition he carries a back-up blaster

bought straight and a combat knife. This comes to a grand total of 164

points...

Under the new proposal Thuderbird would have a weapons framework power with

four slots, two static defined and two static fundamental.

A 90 point reserve.

An 80 point blaster static fundamental [OAF] costing 13 points and two for

the slot.

A 90 point grenade static fundamental [OIF] costing 20 points and two for

the slot.

A 60 point static defined slot for the back-up blaster costing 3 points and

two for the slot

A 30 point static defined slot for the combat knife costing 1 point and two

for the slot.

This cost 135 points, 29 points cheaper and a bit more flexible than the

original. The converse argument is that the new situation requires skill

rolls and if the slot costs were doubled to remove the need for skill rolls

(x1 advantage) then that would cost 37 points - bringing the cost to

slightly more.

THORN

Thorn becomes a man-plant hybrid with plant features and an ability to

control and manipulate plants. In his original form he has a Plant Attacks

multipower and a Plant Control EC with a series of powers that didn't fit in

either framework [bark-like skin, burrowing, tendrils and vines, rapid

growth]. all these powers were OIHID. This cost a total of 171 points.

After due consideration I thought that the whole bundle of powers could

easily be converted into a 130 point reserve and three static fundamental

slots [60pt Plant attacks, 60pt plant characteristics & 70pt plant control].

That cost a total of 154 points, if skill rolls were required to change

powers and 204 if no skill rolls were required.

GRAVITAR

Gravitar is a high point villain - I thought it might be instructive to see

what might happen at high levels. She has a gravitic powers MP,a gravitic

mastery EC and two powers that did not go into either framework - Gravitic

manipulation (large TK based power) and Gravitic defence (missile

deflection).

This cost a grand total of 571 points.

Using the new framework proposal I decided on four static fundamental slots

(I've found myself repeatedly using them which might indicate something

wrong somewhere). Three of the slots are 135 point slots and the fourth is

90 points. Gravity Field Manipulation, Tidal Stress, Gravitic Shields and

Gravity interaction manipulation.

I found that some of the powers would be grouped differently under the new

framework than under the old set. There is a slight limitation on the

nuimber of powers available at any one time but far more flexibility. The

reserve would have to be 360 for the power set to work. The whole thing

came to 467 points with skill rolls, 558 with no skill rolls required.

DISCUSSION

So. The cost structure of the new framework would appear to be fairly good.

It has a cost roughly similar to the old system but I have seemed to overuse

the fundamental slot - especially the static form of it.

I have also noticed that I'd rather have a big slot that could contain a

couple of powers than a couple of slots containing just one - the problem

there is that it makes the slots large enough to have bigger powers. In the

case of Gravitar I had to have a slot of 135 for the TK power when most

other powers would be 90 active points - increasing the slot also provided

opportunity for other powers to be bigger.

I propose that one good use of static defined slots would be to provide for

higher cost powers that are manifest in fundamental or universal slots.

I'll have a look at the costs etc but I think there is a definite need for

something like this.

Anyway. So far so good. Will try other power sets to see what comes up. I

haven't done anything that has a VPP yet.

Doc

Re: What do you think is the best way to balance armor use?

What do you think is the best way to balance armor use? Armor in my campaign seems to be a little on the strong/common side, so i'm looking for a MINOR way to inconvenience these players for this powerful effect they are getting without paying any points.

I always thought that Fantasy Hero was the most fantastic system I ever used for balancing heavy armoured types versus light/no armour swashbucklers.

Do you use Long Term Endurance rules? That was the most insidious penalty on heavy armour users - the longer they fought the less END they had available to them - even if they were recovering all of the END they actually used. If the swashbuckler could prolong the fight he was almost certain to win!

Re: Your superhero games, comic-based or comic-opposed?

Generally' date=' as a GM or player selecting games, do you prefer to play comics as they are (whatever era or style that might be) or as you wish they were but (by and large, there may be exceptions) are not?[/quote']

 

You trying to find out how many genre fiends there are out here?

 

Personally I think that I want to play comics as they are. I wanted to play superheroes coz I liked reading hte comics and I want the same feel when I play the game.

 

I think most people do, that's why you get the arguments about combat luck and whether Batman and Cyclops could survive in a Champions game. They _want_ the feel of the comic and if the mechanics do that less than seamlessly then they are disappointed in the game.

 

 

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

PS - I thought that Universal slots were essentially VPPs and could have any number?

 

And sorry, I had already forgotten it was one power per slot. I think at least in Universals that may not work; in any case I think it would be an incorrect step to totally ban such constructions, given the role of VPPs and how they work currently, and the need to maintain that (reasonably proven) functionality.

I am now convinced that we should allow multiple powers in undefined slots. I also think we should limit the number of powers by making more powers more expensive - there should be a breakpoint somewhere that would make two slots cheaper than continually increasing the number of powers you can have in one slot.

I think I'll have to convert a few characters before going any further on this...

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

[ Minor clarifications ]

So, while ECs got more expensive, the combination of two or more frameworks into one for a character gives point savings.

The reason for that being that the reserves are combined into one and the benefits of having a large reserve realised by the larger powers in the EC.

I understand why the powers in the EC got cheaper, and understand that using the system to replicate an EC directly would result in higher costs but the system would discourage anyone from taking a straight EC and suddenly the character gets more powers for less points - it just seems contrary to the whole basis of the system where you pay for functionality.

Now frameworks are also contrary to this but they provide a way of tying together powers in a coherent fashion - a bonus for having a good consistent theme for your superhero. I was trying to avoid increasing the benefits provided while streamlining the frameworks into a single construct.

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

I daresay Doc has it more correct than HERO has had it since inception

 

Why? Not because Doc is such a genius and we're all dummies. Not at all;

Gee Zornwil - you were doing fantastic until you got there!

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

Bigger problem:

 

Currently, a character with a 60 point VPP and -3 worth of Limitations can put 4 60 point powers in the VPP at once (60 Active, 15 Real). OTOH, a character with a 60 point MP can only have 1 60 point power going, regardless of Limitations.

 

With this framework, the MP model is used, making it difficult/expensive to duplicate the existing VPP functionality. The only way you could really do it would be to buy the pool up, which also increases the Active Point total.

Like I said - Zornwil envisaged more than one power per slot. Taking the simple example of a 60 point VPP and a framework power with a single slot.

60 point VPP -3 worth of limitations costs 90 points. 4 powers going at once.

Framework power

60 point reserve

4 point slot

60 point static universal slot with -3 limitations

60+4+8 = 72 points

More limited (possibly) but 18 points cheaper. I'd be inclined to suggest it should not be this much cheaper - neither should it be as bad as you suggested. We need something in between - though closer to what I suggested than what you did...

Doc

Cost comparison

I thought that I should look at the costs of 60 point active powers within a range of slot types:

combined limits sequential limits

static defined, OAF 60/(1+1+9) = 5 (60/(1+1))/(1+9)=3

static fundamental, -1 limitations 60/(1+1/2+4) = 11 (60/(1+1/2))/(1+4)=8

static universal, -1 limitations 60/(1+1/2+2) = 17 (60/(1+1/2))/(1+2)=13

fluid universal, -1 limitations 60/(1+1/2+1) = 24 (60/(1+1/2))/(1+1)=20

Now that I have come round to having more than one power in a slot I envisage that a framework power would have one universal slot and a range of defined and fundamental slots.

I was considering making slots cost 1 point + 1 point for every extra power that a character would want to include in the slot. So a two point slot would allow two powers, a three point slot would allow three powers etc etc.

I was thinking about Hyper-man's example where all the powers were 50 active points except for a TK AA grab weapon manuever that cost 100. In my vision of Hyper-man he would have a 100 point reserve, one defined power of 100 active points and two 3 point universal slots of 50 active points.

That would give him an option of using the 100 active point power or the two universal slots that allow six powers at any one time.

Costs? Well a 100 point VPP would cost 150 points - I suppose maybe 125 after limitations.

The framework power?

reserve 100

slot 1 - 10 points

slot 2 - 17 points

slot 3 - 17 points

151 points plus 7 slot points - so 158 - more expensive than the VPP and more limited....

What about in real life Hyper-man? You done a conversion?

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

I must admit that each time I've tried this, I've meandered down different paths.

 

[snip]

 

20 Elemental Control (Fire)

25a Forcefield (15, 15), 0 END

20b 20" Flight

70c 6D6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield, 0 END

 

[snip]

 

22 Forcefield (15, 15) 0 END free slot

20 20" Flight free slot

45 6D6 EB Continuous Damage Shield 0 END free slot

Well Tom - I like the idea up until the EC part of it - you can see that all of the cost savings come from making the EC powers cheaper. The main problem with that is that all of the complaints about frameworks tend to be about how ECs are too cheap...

If you can sort that aspect out then I reckon you're framework is better than ours. The cost of the free slot needs to be almost the same as normal buying of powers - I'd probably limit the powers by making them subject to the adjustment powers for -1/4 or -1/2. That might actually work out not too bad.

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

Talon - thanks for looking at this. It needs lots of people to give it a good kicking to see where the stuffing comes out.

Cosmic VPP:

 

60 60 point pool

25 5 universal slots

30 power #1, 60 points (universal, fluid)

30 power #2, 60 points (universal, fluid)

30 power #3, 60 points (universal, fluid)

15 power #4, 30 points (universal, fluid)

15 power #5, 30 points (universal, fluid)

 

Holy crap! This as a VPP would cost around 90 (and have unlimited slots), this costs 205.

 

Comment: If the cost to reduce switching time and the skill roll is on each slot, the cost will be even higher.

This is where Hyper-Man and Zornwil's thoughts on allowing individual slots to have more than one power available at any one time would come into its own.

If a 60 point universal slot was available then you wouldn't need more than one (if the reserve was 60 points) - thus you could remove 70 points of cost almost immediately. Probably you'd remove the 30 point slots as well bringing the cost down by another 40 points and thus it would cost 95 points - or very close to the VPP as it stands. Where the universal framework comes into its own is adding defined slots to the universal ones - or more particularly adding universal slots to what would otherwise have been a fairly staid multipower.

Your example tends to convince me that you should allow the universal and fundamental slots to have more than one power in them...

It seems like this doesn't do as good a job with VPPs -- you have to worry about how many slots you are going to need' date=' plus the cost is just plain a lot higher[/quote']

 

 

I think there is a possibility of VPPs being more expensive - but that GMs may be more willing to allow them into a game in the belief that they will be less problematic. I think it is better to have something a bit more expensive that will be allowed than something less expensive that will be vetoed...

 

Turning the slot power cost reduction into another Limitation is good because it simplifies the rules, but also greatly reduces the effect of other limitations on the slot – i.e., you have less incentive to take other Limitations on slots.

 

The language for applying other Limitations to slot powers is confusing, I'm not sure what it means.

 

You're right. I'll have a look at that. I think that I need to think about the whole limitation thing - perhaps applying limitations and advantages before talking about slot limitations. Will do that tonight. What I can see is that defined slots benefit little from further limitations while universal slots gain a more substantial benefit.

 

It needs costs to reduce change time and skill roll (as with VPP).

 

Universal slots need that same control as VPPs do just now. In the universal framework the skill requirements etc are not as onerous as the VPP stuff is.

 

Unifying the frameworks is definitely a good idea' date=' but I think the result would have to be numerically close to both MPs and VPPs -- or at least achieve similar design goals -- for it to be worth using.[/quote']

 

Keep chippin in Talon - its appreciated. The values presented have been done to give us a starting point rather than a finishing one. I'll amend what we have as we see problems (or have them pointed out to us).

 

 

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

So anyway' date=' if we proceed from my thoughts (and I hope DD's as well on this but am certainly open to discussion), to directly answer your question, the Fundamental Static slot could be apportioned so long as: the slot is ALWAYS taking up its points in the overall Framework (even if you're using less power in it); and the powers fit the proper predefined category and SFX.[/quote']

 

I guess its one of the things we can discuss. I hadn't ever thought of a slot containing more than one power at a time. I can see why it might but I think I'd go the way of your earlier post - "Most slots should only ever have one power at any one time. If a player wants a character to have more than one power active at one time then they should buy more than one slot."

 

I can see the argument for multiple powers within a slot though.

 

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

I am curious about (Fundamental, Static) -4

since the character has a 150 point reserve can the character use 2 different powers out of this 'slot' or would a second identical slot cost have to be purchased to do this?

 

I ask because my 'signature' character (hyper-man) is built with a 100 point reserve with all powers except 1 built on 50 active points. The 100 point power is a TK AA grab weapon manuever that's about his casual STR [20] defined as a hyper-speed multiple move by/grab. All of his slots are 'ultra' at the moment but with experience the first thing I would do is change the slots I want to eventually increase to 'multi' slots.

I know this is different from Zornwil's take but I was thinking of one slot one power at a time. I think it would give the GM a better handle on the power as he would know how many powers a VPP style character might have available to him at any one time. It _is_ more restrictive than than the VPP but I think a bit less messy.

In fact - this might be offset by the cheaper costs of powers indicated by Intrope.

Another good point though. Will look at it in more detail.

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

Thank you very much Intrope. Good grist for the mill.

Notes on the Framework itself:

I'd suggest Flexible rather than Fundamental for the middle slot type.

Yeah - I'm open to better names. The defined and universal seem good enough but the fundamental was an attempt to get away from elemental but flexible might be a better option. I will not defend the titles of these things to the death.

Small limitations on Defined' date=' Static slots tend to have no effect on the cost. That might be a good thing, actually; you're already getting a huge point break![/quote']

 

Well - Zornwil's suggestion would change that - making defined powers cheaper than a similar power in a universal or fundamental (I'll keep calling it that as a working name to avoid confusion) slot. I have no problem with that as a way of keeping the number of defined slots up.

 

BTW' date=' I assumed that the VPP control-like limitations and advantages would apply to the cost of the slot, rather than the cost of the power. Is that what you intend? If so, that does leave one problem area: Cosmic VPPs go from 2.5x base point down to 1.33x base points + 12. Applying the advantage to the slot cost probably won't work either; it would make it far more expensive than before: 4x base points + 4 (because the reserve has to be base points, cosmic (+2) in size). Maybe all control cost advantages should be halved? at +1 for Cosmic, and applied to the slot cost you get 2.66 x base points + 4 for a cosmic slot, which is just about right.[/quote']

 

I'll look at this in a bit more depth. You might have given me the solution that I'll choose though.

 

 

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

I would just change the quoted sentence to something such as "Generally' date=' a character should have one framework power though possessing two is not entirely uncommon; GM's should review and specifically grant permission for more than one framework power." - Don't know if you agree, but I think that, aside from a few characters with very distinct gadgets versus elemental pools, typically this should encompass most characters needs in Fantasy or Champions or most other genres.[/quote']

 

Yeah - I suppose it puts the focus on one framework rather than a host of them without ruling anything out.

 

 

Not concerned with documenting this in the current "working rules"' date=' but as a comment, Defined Powers shouldn't have Limitations placed on the slot but rather typically only on the occupying power itself. For example a Defined Static slot that contains a power built on a Focus should not take the Focus Limitation on the slot but rather on the power. Thus, following this example, the occupying Defined Static power of, say, 60 points, would take the Focus Limitation and be valued appropriately, while the 60 point slot cost would have a -9 Limitation (NB - the Limitation values above should be "-" not "+" for rules consistency). The slot would not have -9 and the Focus Limitation. The only situations where slots would typically take Limitations would be where the Limitation will not be redundant to powers in the slot, typically in the case of a Universal slot in which any power can be placed but the slot itself has, for example, a Charges Limitation where no matter what powers are used the slot may only be used for "x" Charges.[/quote']

 

Hmm. I had looked at this. The current situation with multipowers (if I remember properly) is that they work out the active cost of the power - apply the slot limitation for ultra or multi - then apply a further limitation based on those limitations placed on powers. Thus a power with 60 active points in an ultra slot and an obvious accessible focus would first be reduced to 6 points due to the ultra and the to three points due to the focus.

 

In our new framework, the way I have structured it, the focus would add to the ultra slot and the final cost would be 5 points - 60/(1+9+1).

 

If I get you right, you would work out the real cost of the power and then apply the slot limitation? Thus giving the same cost as the current multipower. I can go with that! The question arises about fundamental and universal slots that have taken a commitment to have -1 limitations. Does the -1/2 apply before the slot or after. I'm assuming that a 60 active point universal slot would take the power limitation before the slot limitation. So a 40 real point power would have the slot limitation applied to it?? Yes?

 

 

Minor' date=' just noting I think you didn't intend the comma after "changing"?[/quote']

 

No. As far as my grammar stretches I have to put a comma at both ends of the and changing or not put commas in at all. I know my boss would prefer none at all and I'm slowly coming round to his way of thinking...

 

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

OK Zornwil

You'll recognise the bits you've written - an improvement on the original? I think the next step has to be a few comparisons. I'll try it for FlameGuy now.

The Framework Power

A framework power is a way of rewarding tight character concepts by introducing flexibility into a character’s powers. The framework collects powers that are related via special effect, type or power source. Each framework would have a theme, like flame powers or nanotechnology gadgets or armoured exoskeleton.

A character can have as many framework powers as they wish, each one following a different power theme. Powers within one framework should not add to similar powers in a second.

A framework consists of a power reserve and slots that contain powers. The size of the reserve determines how many powers can be active at any one time; the active points of active slots cannot exceed the reserve cost.

Slots

Slots within the framework can be fluid or static. Static slots always draw the same power from the reserve regardless of how much power the character uses. That is, a power costing 75 active points will draw 75 points from the reserve whether or not the character is using the power at full effect. Fluid slots enable the character to draw only as much power from the reserve as required to use the power at the desired level. FireGuy has a slot with a 12D6 Energy Blast at half endurance. That is a 75 active point power. If the slot is static then FireGuy uses 75 points from the reserve whether or not he uses all 12D6. If the slot is fluid and he wishes to use just 6D6 then FireGuy only draws 37 points from the reserve.

Slots within the framework can contain defined or undefined powers. Defined powers are those where the effect and power are known and fixed, e.g. 12D6 Energy Blast (special effects – fire) ½ END. Undefined powers come in two forms: fundamental where the powers follow a broad outline, e.g. flame projection and universal where any power might be available within the overall theme of the framework.

Fundamental slots probably require most guidance. Defined slots are simple and universal slots almost unrestricted. A fundamental slot must have a specific special effect. For example, "weather" is too broad but "fog effects" or "rain effects" are fine. Another example, "mental powers", is too broad but "telekinetic effects" is okay (which doesn't mean the power Telekinesis must be selected; it could be that the power assigned at a given moment is "Naked Advantage Increased Knockback", representing that whatever the target is hit with by the character, the character will use his basic TK skills to throw the target further). Powers selected for a fundamental slot MUST be from a SINGLE category:

Adjustment,

Attack,

Body-Affecting,

Defence,

Mental,

Movement,

Sense-Affecting,

Sensory,

Size,

"Special" (GM Attention, "!"), or

"Standard" (Again, GM Attention, "!").

It is important to note the GM may allow a select hybrid or specialized category created by mutual GM/Player consent as these categories undoubtedly won't cover all desired groupings. For example, the GM and Player may agree that a "Moving Others" slot that has a special effect of "telekinetic effects" is Movement category only with "against others" but also includes Telekinesis.

Buying a Framework Power

The power reserve costs 1 point per point in the reserve. Defined powers are purchased as normal, calculating the active points of the power but the real cost may apply not only limitations chosen for the power but also the slot limitation. Slot limitations are as follows:

Static Fluid

Defined Power +9 +4

Fundamental Power+4 +2

Universal Power +2 +1

FlameGuy wants to be able to shoot fiery bolts of energy, to manipulate fire as if it was a solid substance, to cause changes in temperature, to fly, to make the surrounding environment match his own body temperature thus rendering him invisible to infra red vision and to reflect the fact that his power over flame could render him immune to extreme heat and cold, poisons and diseases would also be voided by his burning metabolism. This is five slots. Two slots would be defined powers for flight and darkness (IR only) and FireGuy’s player decides these two should be static slots. The other three slots are undefined. Fire projection would give the ability to shoot fiery bolts and this is tight enough a concept to be considered fundamental to the framework, fire manipulation is also tight enough to be fundamental, a fiery body would be universal useful for life support when necessary but also for burning those that touch him. FireGuy’s player decides to make the fire projection slot static but the others fluid.

Each slot costs points to establish. A defined slot costs 1 point, a fundamental slot costs 2 points and a universal slot costs 4 points. Thus FireGuy spends 2 points on two defined slots and 4 two on fundamental slots and 4 on a universal slot.

10†Flight at 0 END costs 30 active points for slot one, 6†Darkness (IR only) costs 30 active points for slot two, the player decides to buy 75 active points for slot three (allowing a 12D6 energy blast at half endurance), 60 active points for slot four (allowing 20 STR area effect TK, 0 END) and 24 active points for slot five (giving 24 points for life support).

FireGuy’s plater also decides not to apply limitations to either of the fundamental slots. If the player had decided to reduce the slot cost by applying limitation then the slots would have had to apply a generic limitation and any powers bought through the slot would have to apply limitations of twice that, as in the variable limitations limitation. For example, if the Flame manipulation slot needed a limitation of +½ to reduce the cost then all powers in that slot would have to apply limitations to the value of +1.

FireGuy’s fire framework power would therefore look as follows:

Fire Framework Power – Reserve 120

Power description Active cost limitations Real Cost

1 10†Flight, 0 END (defined, static) 30 +9 3

2 3†Darkness, IR only (defined static) 30 +4, +1 5

3 Flame projection (fundamental, static) 75 +4 15

4 Fire manipulation (fundamental, fluid) 60 +2 20

5 Fiery body (universal, fluid) 24 +1 12

The total cost of the framework power would be 120+10+3+5+15+20+12 = 185 points.

Switching Slots

Defined slots can be activated as a zero phase action. They are powers that the character uses easily and are second nature. Fundamental slots can be activated as a zero phase action while using, and changing, powers require a full phase action. Universal slots can also be activated as a zero phase action but using and changing the powers require a full phase action and a skill roll (-1 per 10 active points).

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

OK – I’ve been working. I think I have a decent description written out but I wanted to see whether I could address some of the details that have to be straightened out for more detailed use of framework powers.

I think the current description stands up for straightforward usage but that the framework might be most interesting in what it allows different from the current three framework situation. I think many of the questions have been brought up by Zebediah and Zornwil (is there something about Z names?)

The differences that I changed from the original proposal are:

1. Slot costs vary dependent on the type of slot. Defined slots cost 1 point, fundamental slots two points and universal slots four points. I’m not sure whether those costs are enough but I think that they are good starting points.

2. I have changed the ‘slot limitations’ applied to powers in framework slots. An ultra in a current multi-power essentially takes a +9 limitation on its active point cost while a multi slot takes a +4 limitation. I have suggested that static fundamental slots cost +4, fluid fundamental slots cost +2, static universal slots cost +2 and fluid universal slots cost +1.

3. I have taken the hint about switching costs and included them as follows. Defined slots can be activated as a zero phase action. They are powers that the character uses easily and are second nature. Fundamental slots can be activated as a zero phase action while using, and changing, powers require a full phase action. Universal slots can also be activated as a zero phase action but using and changing the powers require a full phase action and a skill roll (-1 per 10 active points).

4. The reserve pool costs one point per point in the pool.

Questions

What about Elemental Controls? - This is one of the things I was continually grappling with. I was wondering whether you might buy a slot a ‘default’ whereby a framework defaults to that power after a certain period or when the character is unconscious. What that cost might be I’m not sure. Another option is that any slot that takes the adjustment power limitation may apply the limitation to the active point cost applied to the reserve (thus making it more likely to be able to use more ‘elemental’ powers at one time).

I’m not entirely sure that I want to emulate ECs – they seem to be the thing that people complain about most strongly. I reckon I’d be most in favour of applying the limitation with regard to adjustment powers to make the framework cheaper and leave it at that.

Slots that are difficult to use? - I think that this would be easy to do by changing the properties of the slots identified in point 3 above. I’d have to think about what the limitations would be to make slots more difficult to activate and change/use.

Variable Power Pools? - I’d be inclined to use all of the limitations for VPPs for fundamental and universal slots where appropriate – adding those limitations to the limitations on the slot cost.

Do we have other issues that I should try to address before going forward? I’ll post a comparison of similar groups of powers bought through the frameworks currently available.

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

Very nice work Doc Democracy.

As Zornwil pointed out 'Universal' in the name could be a little confusing.

For name suggestions how about:

 

• Neo-Framework
  
• Root-Framework
  
• Base-Framework
  

Actually I was thinking of just calling it a Framework Power. If there is only one framework then the Framework Power would be a decent way of distinguishing it from simple powers bought directly.

I've been thinking a lot about this over the weekend - I've been away at the in-laws - trying to take into account what people have said. I've got a couple pf pages and have ben trying to compare a simple example of group of powers.

I've been looking at costs etc and how these should be distributed. With any luck I should get some time this evening to sit down and convert things from my notebook into electronic text and post it here.

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

New Cost: 35 + 11N

 

Old Cost: 70 + 14N

 

the new framework would always be cheaper, and just become more and more of a better deal as you gain more slots.

Would a quick gain be to require the power pool to be bought point for point and give the +1/2 for adjustment powers to the individual slots? That would mean that the single power framework would _have_ to cost more than buying it straight.

It still makes straight multipowers cheaper than before - but not excessively so. There is also the point that while the opld system would allow powers to be bought such that each slot costs 1pt. A slot under the new system would never cost less than 3pts - 1 for the power an 2 for the slot.

Doc

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

New Cost: 35 + 11N

 

Old Cost: 70 + 14N

 

the new framework would always be cheaper, and just become more and more of a better deal as you gain more slots.

Good points - like I said (I think!) I hadn't completely thought through the costs but I wanted to get the principles down before I got distracted (painting the house in anticipation of a new baby!)

If the costs are the only problem then that's easily fixable. I meant to compare and contrast but didn't. Will think about costs - but what about the principles of the idea?

Doc

Zornwil brought this up some time ago and raised it again in the Polishing the Hero System thread. I must have been mulling this over in the back of my head because as I travelled home from work in the train this evening this came to me. I haven't done any detailed analysis of costs as yet so they are likely to be a bit all over the place but I thought that the denizens of these boards would be the best people to knock it into shape.

Now some people may not think that a universal framework is a good idea - that's fine, I wouldn't force one upon you - but I would like to keep this thread to discussion on how you might make one work rather than on why it wouldn't work.

Zornwil's idea was to scrap VPPs, multipowers and elemental controls and replace them with a universal framework that might be customised (in true Hero fashion) to fit the framework envisaged. He had proposed a multipower type construct that I _think_ I have improved on.

My proposal is as follows:

A framework power is a coherent set of powers that are linked in some way intrinsic to the character. This may mean that the powers are a result of some uber-skill of the character (such as a gadgeteer) or are due to powers of the character (such as a flame based character). Regardless, the coherence of these powers suggests that some flexibility is required.

The framework power is bought as follows.

Buy the POWER POOL. This limits the total amount of power available to the character. 1 character point will purchase 2 points in the power pool. The pool can take a limitation whereby adjustment powers that affect its special effect would affect all powers active within the framework (+1/2)

Buy SLOTS for the framework. The more slots there are in a framework the more flexibility that framework can provide and therefore the more powerful it is. This should be paid for. Each slot costs 2 character points.

Buy SLOT POWERS for the framework. This is where the discounts are applied. For every slot power that is to run from the power pool there must be a slot available, though a character can have empty slots he should not have more slot powers than slots.

The framework provides particular discounts for slot powers. When a power is bought it should be decided whether the slot power will be FLUID or STATIC and DEFINED or UNDEFINED.

A STATIC power always costs the same amount of points from the power pool regardless of whether the character uses it at full power or not. A FLUID power draws only as much from the pool as the character is using.

A DEFINED power is one where the actual power, e.g., Energy blast is chosen right away. An UNDEFINED power can be FUNDAMENTAL or UNIVERSAL.

A FUNDAMENTAL power is always based around the same power type, e.g., attack or entrap but may use different powers to achieve that effect. A UNIVERSAL power may be anything at all.

A defined, static slot would attract a bonus +9 limitation (just like an ultra slot in the current multipower).

A defined, fluid slot would attract a bonus +8 limitation

A fundamental, static slot would attract +7 limitation

A fundamental, fluid slot would attract a +6 limitation

A universal, static slot would attract a +5 limitation

A universal, fluid slot would attract a +4 limitation (like a multi slot in the current multipower)

The player would be able to activate powers in the framework as long as the active points in those slots did not exceed the points in the power pool.

EXAMPLE

Fireguy has a fire framework power. It has 150 points in the pool and contains 5 slots. Those slots are all affected by adjustment powers that affect heat/flame

1. 10" Flight, 0 END - this is a 30pt defined static slot. Cost - 3pts

2. Darkness (IR only) - this is a 30pt defined static slot. Cost - 3pts

3. Flame Projection - this is a 75pt fundamental fluid slot. Cost - 11pts

4. Flame Manipulation- this is a 60pt fundamental static slot. Cost - 7pts

5. Heat Effects - this is a 60pt universal fluid slot. Cost - 12pts

The overall cost is 50+10+3+3+11+7+12 = 96 points.

The effect is that the flame projection slot would provide Flame Guy with attack options that were based on shooting flames at people - this would obviouslyu include EB and RKA type powers; the Flame Manipulation slot would allow Flame Guy to use powers that would manipulate flames to douse fires or move them aside or whatever and the Heat Effects could be any power that had heat as an underlying concept - melting metal, oxygen starvation etc etc.

Obviously the costs of the slots could be subject to other limitations to reduce costs.

SUMMARY

As I see it this framework would allow a range of different powers to be bought for the character that would fit within an overall power concept. It gives some of the flexibility of the multipower and provides some measure of control on the proliferation of slots by making those slots themselves cost to buy and imposes some order on VPPs by ensuring that, even if the slots are all universal the GM would have a rough idea of how many powers the character would have active and the size of those powers.

As I said, I think this is basically Zornwil's idea tidied up a bit...

Doc

Re: OCV bonus or extra roll?

The point I am trying to make is directed towards Toadmaster's stated goal. I am saying that under standard rules you can't look at Autofire and OCV bonuses as one concept' date=' they MUST be looked at seperatly. The power advantage Autofire only gives the ability to direct more attacks at the target in a given period of time. Area Affect is the advantage to use if you want to give a flat bonus to the chance to hit. Suppression fire is a type of Area Affect [u']Manuever[/u] similar to Sweep.

Hyper-Man, there aint no MUST about it. We began by discussing a house rule and the statistics of that house rule and how those statistics might change under certain circumstances. Our, however interesting discussion on the relative merits of autofire granting OCV bonuses, is a bit to the side of things.

Personally, I have no firm commitment to autofire giving an OCV bonus but I can see an argument for it.

If you just give Autofire OCV bonuses beyond this it ends up making the advantage far more powerful than its given cost currently reflects. If Toadmaster wants to house rule this its fine but as I stated in one of my earlier posts this is in effect giving everyone access to a manuever that would otherwise be a 5 point skill and in doing so he should consider making ALL autofire skills everyman.

The OCV bonus comes along with a reduced range disad as well...

I don't think that allowing one skill as an everyman skill necessitates granting any other skill.

Re: OCV bonus or extra roll?

please read the rest of my post.

I did! I thought I was agreeing with you - obviously not...

User skill is the only way to take advantage higher rates of fire to increase the odds of "a" hit. A gun's rate of fire by itself cannot accomplish this with out feedback signals from the operator of the gun. Giving a flat bonus of +4 in effect is changing the equivalent of a 5 point autofire skill to an "everyman" skill.

I'd disagree with that. User skill is _not_ the only way to take advantage of higher rates, though the tracking option as a combat manouevre is an excellent way to reflect the skilled use of autofire to improve a chance to hit.

If you put enough lead in the air then there is an increased chance that a bullet is going to hit - its quite simple - it is the basis for the suppresion fire manoeuvre.

I agree that someone skilled in the use of machine guns is better able to use that advantage but I don't agree that someone unskilled with a pistol will have an equal chance of hitting a target as someone unskilled with an automatic weapon.

Anyway - neither of our opinions has much to do with the mechanics under discussion. Toadmaster likes the mechanic of increased rates of fire improving the chance to hit - he was interested in other mechanics for changing the statistics for hitting.

Doc

Re: OCV bonus or extra roll?

I am also curious how the act of firing 3' date=' 5, 10, 20 etc.. shots can give a bonus to the FIRST shot's chance of hitting? It can't. What a continuous stream of bullets DOES give is the opportunity to adjust aim based on previous 'tracer' fire. The person firing the gun and watching the shots hit changes the aim of the stream of bullets to increase his odds of hitting his target. What different rates of fire WOULD adjust it the rate at which extra OCV vs DCV is used to determine how many extra shots would hit. [/quote']

 

You are right. It doesn't make it more likely that the first bullet from the gun would hit but the logical thought is that the more bullets fired the more likely that one or more will hit.

 

As far as the system is concerned we are talking about the chance of the first bullet to hit rather than the first bullet to leave the gun.

 

 

Doc