Doc Democracy

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. 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... 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. 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.

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG] 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. 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.

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG]

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

Re: OCV bonus or extra roll? In this case it is better to look at the probabilities of missing. In the case of the one 11- roll the chance of the attack missing is 37.5%. (there's a 62.5% chance to hit with an 11-) In the case of the two rolls at 9- (which I'll tell you is 37.5%, so you're close enough) then the chance of both shots missing is 62.5% of 62.5% or roughly 39%. Thus the chance of one shot hitting from two 9- rolls is 61% - slightly worse than the 11- roll but obviously with a chance of hitting twice. The chance of hitting with both is 37.5% of 37.5% or 14% Again you have to look at the chance of not rolling an eighteen at all then subtracting that from the 100%. The cance of not rolling an eighteen on 3D6 is 99.54% and so the chance of not rolling an eighteen in two rolls is 99.54% of 99.54% or roughly 99%. So the chance of rolling an eighteen in one of those rolls is roughly 1%. I can see that the problem of the autofire is increasing the chance of hitting because there is so much lead flying about but not ensuring that lots of shots hit - a machine gun is inherently less accurate. Why not decrease the chance of multiple hits as the number of shots go up? That would mean as you use more shots you are almost guaranteed to hit at least once but not necessarily more than that. So - in your system where 3 rd burst +1 OCV 5 rd burst +2 OCV 10 rd burst +4 OCV 15 rd burst +6 OCV 20 round burst +8 OCV You might also say that 3 rd burst +1 hit for every 2 below 5 rd burst +1 hit for every 2 below 10 rd burst +1 hit for every 3 below 15 rd burst +1 hit for every 4 below 20 round burst +1 hit for every 5 below I haven't thought through the consequences of that but obviously given a normal 11 or less chance to hit, with a 20 round burst then there is a guarantee of hitting once, 91% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 15 round burst then there is 99.5% chance of hitting once, 84% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 10 round burst there is 95% chance of hitting once, 74% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 5 round burst there is 84% chance of hitting once, 62.5% chance of hitting twice, 37.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 3 round burst there is 74% chance of hitting once, 50% chance of hitting twice, 26% chance of hitting three times... Hmm - doesn't look too bad. Anyway - the percentages all change quite drastically depending on what the initial roll to hit is. If you were using autofire because you're opponent was difficult to hit then it all changes. Say you needed 5- to hit: with a 20 round burst then there is 84% chance of hitting once, 26% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 15 round burst then there is 62.5% chance of hitting once, 16% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 10 round burst there is 37.5% chance of hitting once, 9% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 5 round burst there is 16% chance of hitting once, 4.5% chance of hitting twice, 0.5% chance of hitting three times... with a 3 round burst there is 9% chance of hitting once, 2% chance of hitting twice, no chance of hitting three times... You might find it useful to look at the 3D6 to percentile chart at: http://www.sysabend.org/champions/rules/3D6Percentiles.html Doc Democracy

Re: Stunning the target without damaging it Well, the whole idea is to keep the target immobile while not causing damage so ti initially sounds like an Entangle to me. However it might be a case where you could justify an entangle based on CON - if the target makes a good CON roll then they'd break out of the entangle (recover from the stunned condition). I guess you'd have to buy it so that others could damage the entangle - though I'd love to see the justification of teammates using _their_ CON to attack the entangle! It would be a simple thing to make this an instant effect rather than a constant one if you were looking for the stunned effect. IMHO obviously... Doc

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...? I guess I see my work as GM as work. I get a certain amount of satisfaction out of the work I do when the rest of the group aren't there and during the session I get as much fun as anyone else. For me the kick-back is that other people GM to allow me to play. It's kind of like a social contract - I do my work so that _we_ can enjoy ourselves and then someone else does their work so that _we_ can enjoy ourselves. If I was doing all of the work then I'd feel a bit more justified in doing what I wanted to do with the proviso that if someone else really wanted to play _any_ other system then I'd be delighted to be a player in their game. Doc

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...? I reckon that I'm with the folks that think that the GM should decide the system he's willing to run. I think that the GM should run that system in the style that suits the players though. For example, if I'm going to run superheroes then Champions is the system that I want to run. My particular favourite genre of supers is 4 colour Golden Age but none of my players like Golden Age and few of them are four colour fans. Thus we play a more street level champions than I'd like but we don't play another system because using Champions makes my life as GM easier. Doc

Re: Help me build a force field please. Would it be better to replace the FF with a Force Wall? Thus unless the field is overloaded (ie hit with more body than it can take) it would give effective invulnerability to laser fire. Doc

Re: Selling people on Hero system when they're already inclined against it...?

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? I've been following this with some interest. As I've said before, I run a group in my local church hall every Thursday and the issue of racism has come up more than once. Teenage boys seem at times almost inherently racist and I've been using the system to reflect their attitudes back at them. They, as the system almost encourages, choose demi-humans (I'm including half-orcs in that) as characters coz of all teh cool stuff that they get. I tell them as they choose it that the region dislikes and discriminates against demi-humans. Which they choose to ignore due to the cool stuff. I then reflect their language about other people back at them in game replacing real world terminology with in-game stuff bad mouthing orcs, dwarves and elves. They get really annoyed but I've noticed they are far more thoughtful in their language use real-world than they were before. Hasn't improved their instinctive terminologies though!! Don't know if that is a for or against point... Doc

Re: Implications of single-aspect magic on game worlds

Re: Implications of single-aspect magic on game worlds

Re: Implications of single-aspect magic on game worlds

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? Sorry - completely off topic - please ignore but I was interested...