VPPs -- what's the logic?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

The thing of it is, speaking from my absurdly limited experience but equally absurd amount of time understanding this, is that each Power Framework really does have its place. For example, you can build a VPP which uses Charges on everything, thus limiting the Real Points available in a given day with a minor workaround, without reinventing the wheel. You can also do it as "Known Powers Only" which reduces the option of "Crazy whenever" that most people put with the structure.

 

And, using "Known Powers Only" you can individualize the powers, making them more adjustable and more user-friendly (for example, a VPP framework that allows you to learn all sorts of spells, but the spells have lims and must be slotted into the framework). True: you don't have to spend CP on the spells in the VPP, because you've paid for the right to cast them, but the casting is limited (Real Points per day, for example) so you aren't committing balance suicide.

 

In a multi-power, you can buy multiple multipowers at varying strengths, with charges on them, and have them simulate all sorts of things (spells per day, for example, or the classic "arrows in a quiver.") If you do that, and build it with the appropriate lims, then all you need to do is cost out the most powerful arrow in the quiver, and use that as your AP cap for the multipower. If you want to ever buy more powerful arrows, you can improve the MP over time.

 

I'm not a HERO math guru, so I'm not going to go over all the nitty gritty math here, but Killer Shrike has some really rock-solid mathematically sound magic builds on his site that cover a lot of what I'm saying. Individual MP abilities are cheaper, and can be just as cost effective as a VPP without the messy time change functions. "I have 10 charges of Yadda arrows in my quiver, or, 30 total charges in my quiver and Yadda arrows to choose from at any given moment."

 

It's all reasoning from effect. You can give an Archer a Cosmic VPP for arrows - but why would you when you can stack plenty of lims on it and control it that way instead? Just a thought.

[kuoshu]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

Thanks to everyone for helping me to get a better understanding of VPP and MP potentials, differences and the math behind them. I tend to approach running games from the art side. Which is all the more easily done because of rather than in spite of the math heaviness of the Hero system.

 

As far as the logic behind VPP's I think it makes perfect sense in certain situations. As was said it's the green lantern ring flexibility that it allows you to do so well.

 

On the fly use of power is so difficult to do in most other systems. As an example my latest fav cartoon series "Avatar: The Last Airbender" is so difficult to do well and get the correct feel with a multipower or "spell" based system. But with a VPP it is extremely logical and eligant.

 

I have a player in my current campaign that wanted his character to learn how to use her powers in different ways. Same power, different advantages based on the situation. He wants her to learn them gradually based on the situation she is in and likes the idea that if she makes her 6d6 transfer ranged, she will only be able to perform the transfer as a 4d6. As he learns how to use something she records it on his character sheet.

 

While this is possible with the variable advantage advantage, it just feels right with a VPP restricted to transfers, only one slot, etc...

 

What does the math matter if the game is fun and everyone involved is content and happy?

[OddHat]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

My view of the logic of a VPP is to simulate the Green Lantern effect. Within the confines of a special effect, the character is able to do things on the spur of the moment.

 

If a giant carnivirous Space Bug is attacking, the Green Flyswatter is manifested. The horde of one foot tall Alien Abos get dealt with by the giant Green Bowling Ball. The actual damage of these are naturally defined by the advantages necessary to replicate the particular SFX of the individual attack.

 

Ultimately, allowing a PC with a VPP requires some ability to think on their feet by the GM and the player running the character involved, but it can be a lot of fun.

 

Yup. I do think it is possible to do Green Lantern, Reed Richards, Zatana, Doctor Doom, John Constantine, most Marvel and DC spellcasters, many Mad Scientist characters, etc, etc without a VPP, but in the end it tends to be clumsy and counter-intuitive. Much simpler to just set the up the VPP rules that will work in your campaign and go from there.

[Gary]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

Yup. I do think it is possible to do Green Lantern' date=' Reed Richards, Zatana, Doctor Doom, John Constantine, most Marvel and DC spellcasters, many Mad Scientist characters, etc, etc without a VPP, but in the end it tends to be clumsy and counter-intuitive. Much simpler to just set the up the VPP rules that will work in your campaign and go from there.[/quote']

 

 

Not only that, but it would definitely be very expensive. You would need to purchase at least 15 or so base powers in a multipower, and most of them would have from +1 to +3 worth of Variable Advantage on them.

[tesuji]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

---

 

Got me there -- thanks, don't have the book with me. But I'll just add on a couple more slots and the effect will be the same.

 

Which goes to the point of cost directly.

 

At some numbers of slots, MP is the cheaper way to buy the power you want.

At greater numbers of slots, VPP, maybe a limited one, is the way to go.

 

This doesn't mean EITHER is mispriced,

 

As number of slots goes up, the utility of them goes down. The fourth Eb variation is likely not as potent an addition to the charcter as the first or maybe even the second.

 

Now, as to VPPs, I stopped allowing anything but "significantly limited" VPPS a long while back. basically, there have to be usable limitations on both the siwtching of powers and the types of powers or i don't approve it.

 

A couple times i allowed a magician with "magic spells" vpp where he ended up being the universal answer man "lets let warlock dial up a spell for this" proves less than satisfying. It really wasn't the tactical issues as much as the strategic and logistical ones.

[OddHat]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

A couple times i allowed a magician with "magic spells" vpp where he ended up being the universal answer man "lets let warlock dial up a spell for this" proves less than satisfying. It really wasn't the tactical issues as much as the strategic and logistical ones.

 

I use the -1/4 "Spells Only" limit to cover that. If the VPP using magician has never used a given spell before and it isn't written on his sheet, by default he doesn't know it. How long it takes him to research it depends on the needs of the story.

[Gary]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

One place that a VPP really breaks down is with regard to expanded Change Environment, Summon, or Transform.

 

For example:

 

4d6 Transform into anything (+1). Cost 120 pts and 12 End per shot.

 

60 pt VPP Cosmic (+2) Transforms Only (-1 or -1.5). Net cost 96 or 105 and 6 End per shot, plus enormous additional flexibility and utility in what's allowed.

[Mentor]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

One place that a VPP really breaks down is with regard to expanded Change Environment, Summon, or Transform.

 

For example:

 

4d6 Transform into anything (+1). Cost 120 pts and 12 End per shot.

 

60 pt VPP Cosmic (+2) Transforms Only (-1 or -1.5). Net cost 96 or 105 and 6 End per shot, plus enormous additional flexibility and utility in what's allowed.

But is there not a Metarule requiring the use of the more expensive version of an effect if it simulates an existing power?

[Gary]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

But is there not a Metarule requiring the use of the more expensive version of an effect if it simulates an existing power?

 

Considering that a full VPP for Adjustment Powers Only (-1/2) would cost 120, and a VPP for Attacks Only (-1/4) would cost 132, it seems that a 4d6 Transform to Anything for 120 is pretty excessive.

 

Anyway, if that Metarule were followed, then no one could ever purchase a multipower since a more expensive option would be to purchase each power separately with a Lockout limitation.

[ghost-angel]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

One place that a VPP really breaks down is with regard to expanded Change Environment, Summon, or Transform.

 

For example:

 

4d6 Transform into anything (+1). Cost 120 pts and 12 End per shot.

 

60 pt VPP Cosmic (+2) Transforms Only (-1 or -1.5). Net cost 96 or 105 and 6 End per shot, plus enormous additional flexibility and utility in what's allowed.

It may be book legal but it borders on abuse - and that's the GM and Players jobs to stop; not the Systems because for some people that may be a perfectly allowable construct.

[Gary]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

It may be book legal but it borders on abuse - and that's the GM and Players jobs to stop; not the Systems because for some people that may be a perfectly allowable construct.

 

 

I'm not sure it's abusive. Clearly a VPP that's limited to transforms is more limited than a VPP for attacks only, adjustment powers only, or magic only. And thus should be cheaper.

 

What appears to be the problem is that either the Expanded Class advantage is too expensive for Change Environment, Transform, or Summon, or VPPs are too cheap as they're currently configured. One or the other must be true.

 

Perhaps one solution might be to give a VPP wielder a "default" version of each of these 3 powers, and the wielder must pay for the Expanded Class advantage if he switches from the default. For example, a Demonologist might have Fire Demons as his default. If he uses his pool to summon a Fire Demon, it's normal. If he summons an Ice Demon, it might be a +1/4 advantage on the summon (so he'd have a weaker demon, or a less loyal one). If he uses his pool to summon a vampire, it might be a +1/2 to +1 advantage depending on how closely related the GM thinks it is.

 

This solution would give an edge to the dedicated summoner or transformer while not appreciably weakening the VPP wielder.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

I'm not sure it's abusive. Clearly a VPP that's limited to transforms is more limited than a VPP for attacks only, adjustment powers only, or magic only. And thus should be cheaper.

 

What appears to be the problem is that either the Expanded Class advantage is too expensive for Change Environment, Transform, or Summon, or VPPs are too cheap as they're currently configured. One or the other must be true.

 

Perhaps one solution might be to give a VPP wielder a "default" version of each of these 3 powers, and the wielder must pay for the Expanded Class advantage if he switches from the default. For example, a Demonologist might have Fire Demons as his default. If he uses his pool to summon a Fire Demon, it's normal. If he summons an Ice Demon, it might be a +1/4 advantage on the summon (so he'd have a weaker demon, or a less loyal one). If he uses his pool to summon a vampire, it might be a +1/2 to +1 advantage depending on how closely related the GM thinks it is.

 

This solution would give an edge to the dedicated summoner or transformer while not appreciably weakening the VPP wielder.

 

Or, Option C:

 

The advantage is costed for usage in Multipowers and Elemental Controls, and is thus fine, as if it was cheaper you would start getting 'stacking' issues.

[ghost-angel]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

What WhammeWhamme said.

[actingkeith]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

Now' date=' as to VPPs, I stopped allowing anything but "significantly limited" VPPS a long while back. basically, there have to be usable limitations on both the siwtching of powers and the types of powers or i don't approve it.[/quote']

 

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do as a GM. For me, the VPP just has to make sense, meaning that it has to be pretty clear that the player and I have the same understanding with regards to what it's capable of... Although, truth be told, that's a basic component of any concept/character/power that I allow in a HERO game.

 

A couple times i allowed a magician with "magic spells" vpp where he ended up being the universal answer man "lets let warlock dial up a spell for this" proves less than satisfying. It really wasn't the tactical issues as much as the strategic and logistical ones.

 

They way we got around this issue in the games I've had a say in was to make the VPP *PLAYER* come up with the build of the power, on the spot, in less than 5 seconds, including Active and Real costs... or the *CHARACTER* would not be able to put the plan into action. This is especially fun if the VPP is something like a magic VPP that has a Side Effect of 'Magical Backfiring.' It really raises the stakes.

 

It provides a lot of fun at a gaming table to hear a player choke out a power, it provides a real sense of stress for the players in combat (given that HERO combat can be slow), and it sends players off during 'down time' to do real 'spell research' as they churn various powers in their heads.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Keith

[tesuji]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

I use the -1/4 "Spells Only" limit to cover that. If the VPP using magician has never used a given spell before and it isn't written on his sheet' date=' by default he doesn't know it. How long it takes him to research it depends on the needs of the story.[/quote']

 

While i would tend to give that a higher lim, it being more than just "of given SFX" it would seem to just encourage the player to assemble in his own off time, possibly before campaign starts, a large list of "known spells". But regardless, it really doesn't fit/didn't fit the comic book magic style we were going for.

 

They way we got around this issue in the games I've had a say in was to make the VPP *PLAYER* come up with the build of the power, on the spot, in less than 5 seconds, including Active and Real costs... or the *CHARACTER* would not be able to put the plan into action. This is especially fun if the VPP is something like a magic VPP that has a Side Effect of 'Magical Backfiring.' It really raises the stakes.

 

This might serve well for combat, but combat wasn't the problem. The problem was more the strategic issues where taking a few minutes here and there to get thespell right is perfectly reasonable and forcing the character to a 5 second spout would be inappropriate for.

 

In combat, with the time to switch powers and all, he played fairly fine, if a little underpowered. Out of combat, he could take his time a devise the spell-for-the-moment.

 

But, like i said, no more such broad ranging, easy to change variable powers for me.

[OddHat]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

While i would tend to give that a higher lim, it being more than just "of given SFX" it would seem to just encourage the player to assemble in his own off time, possibly before campaign starts, a large list of "known spells".

 

You could, as GM, just point at any spells he'd already written down that you didn't like and say "no". I don't see any down side.

 

But regardless, it really doesn't fit/didn't fit the comic book magic style we were going for.

 

Comic book magic varies from character to character and writer to writer. However, your game your tastes.

[actingkeith]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

This might serve well for combat, but combat wasn't the problem. The problem was more the strategic issues where taking a few minutes here and there to get thespell right is perfectly reasonable and forcing the character to a 5 second spout would be inappropriate for.

 

In combat, with the time to switch powers and all, he played fairly fine, if a little underpowered. Out of combat, he could take his time a devise the spell-for-the-moment.

 

Ah right... I remember this problem. The solution that we ended up with was the player taking the genre seriously and purposefully not having the character come up with an "I'll save the day!" reaction...

 

Rather, the player would do something like this... "Yes, there's a spell to make this work... I believe it's called Mar-alarka and I don't know how to do it. The only being that I know who knows the spell is my enemy, Dr. Draconis, and he's in the prison dimension of Oblivion... If you really want pursue that course of action, you'll do it without me..."

 

Great role play... and no stepping on your plot points. If your crew don't see the fun in that type of gaming, then your solution of limits is what I'd do...

 

Peace,

 

Keith

[Gary]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

Or, Option C:

 

The advantage is costed for usage in Multipowers and Elemental Controls, and is thus fine, as if it was cheaper you would start getting 'stacking' issues.

 

 

I doubt very much that you'd have much of a problem if Transform to Anything was a +1/2 Advantage. Or Summon or Change Environment. At +1, it becomes almost impossible to model a true Summoner or Transformer without a VPP, even using another framework.

[Mentor]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

Considering that a full VPP for Adjustment Powers Only (-1/2) would cost 120, and a VPP for Attacks Only (-1/4) would cost 132, it seems that a 4d6 Transform to Anything for 120 is pretty excessive.

 

Anyway, if that Metarule were followed, then no one could ever purchase a multipower since a more expensive option would be to purchase each power separately with a Lockout limitation.

While I would argue that a Power Framework organizes rather than recreates existing powers and that they are already by definition existing powers tructures, thus not applicable, I would ultimately defer the decision to GM discretion. And I do agree that VPPs are not the appropriate framework for all, or even most, IMHO, characters.

[stan da ork]

Re: VPPs -- what's the logic?

 

I agree with Gary on this one. I was designing a character who could cause anything he imagined to actually happen (sort of like the old "magic crayon" cartoons, where the characters could draw anything and it would become real). I started by using Transform with "Improved Results Group", but ended up just switching to a cosmic VPP. In doing so, the character became more versatile and cost less. It makes no sense to me that a VPP that can create any Transform plus some other powers (Gary's Adjustment Power Only VPP) should cost the same as an equivalent sized Transform with Improved Results Group. And yet, it does. This implies to me that Improved Results Group does, in fact, cost too much, as Gary said.