New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

[sindyr]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I just discovered multi-quoting, yay!

 

You are not going to get it without skewing point balance (which is at the heart of HERO).

 

If you want a cost for infinite damage then the answer, in HERO terms, is infinte points. Otherwise you want to cost by campaign - so, as has been suggested, cost an absolute power at some proportion of the character cost that is going to dissuade a player for opting for more than one at a time.

 

So, you will not get a fixed cost but a cost fixed by campaign. I would suggest 1/3 of points, so if the GM says you have 350 points to spend and you want an absolute ability then he writes that absolute ability on your character sheet and you have 240 points left to spend on everything else.

 

Doc

 

How do I handle different point costs for Absolutes with different scopes or different numbers of Absolute Aspects?

 

You set the maximum allowable range, (Anywhere on Earth, Earth to Moon, Within the Galaxy etc) add +X (2-5) levels and it becomes infinite range.

 

You set the maximum allowable penetration add +X levels and it becomes always penetrates.

 

The idea is universal and it scales. It does require you to define campaign limits a little more rigorously than you may have normally but if you are allowing absolutes you should have wanted to do that anyway.

 

I think that this is another form of the "Fix the Universe Instead of the Character" fallacy, which I address at several points on this thread, and specifically here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1679263&posted=1#post1679263

 

Basically, while that is one solution, it's not what I am looking for.

 

So in essence, you want absolutes that aren't actually absolute?

 

This is the core of this argument, I think. If you allow actual absolutes, then you also allow paradoxes. If - as you have done - you build a system for ranking absolutes, then they are not absolute - at which point it's not celar what the utility is.

 

To take your own example, with the teleporter who wants to teleport anywhere - if someone (anyone) builds a forcewall that cannot be teleported though, then you still have to tell him "no".

 

So it looks like you've gone to a great deal of trouble and introduced potential balance issues for ...... well, for nothing, really. You still don't have absolutes, you still have relative levels of power. You've just expanded the upper end of that power.

 

In the end, if you want absolutes in game, then you have to accept that it's always going to be a GM fiat deal and then live the paradoxes.

 

This is a misunderstanding, I am trying to create "mechanical" absolutes, not "dictionary" ones:

 

As far as I can see, this is another form of the "It's a game, not a dictionary" fallacy, which I address at several points on this thread, and specifically here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1679263&posted=1#post1679263

 

 

There's a point here: many of the "absolute powers" discussed can be built using the rules as is. Your stated goal, an is unattainable. No such thing can be built (in Hero, or any system) because more than one total absolute can't exist: this paradox has been recognised for thousands of years (or on the Hero board for several years )

 

cheers, Mark

 

Again, my goal is to build a *mechanical* Absolute, which is completely attainable. It is not vital that such an Absolute is never trumped, just never trumped by non-Absolutes.

 

Just to make sure you understand' date=' everytime you start a hero campaign one of the defaults is that you define campaign limits for players and that the suggestion that's being made is that by exceeding the defined limit by a set amount the character is then able to use the ability as an absolute and not just as defined by the points.[/quote']

 

Yup, but I still need to know relative costing for different scope or depth Absolutes.

 

Do you really anticipate that your players will ask you for an Absolute ability? Does the idea of saying "No" to a player cause you so much terror that you have to anticipate accommodating anything they might even remotely ask for? (Although I strongly suspect your real intent here is to create abilities which can always defeat your opponents; be they player or GM. You want a trump to anything.) There are already plenty of system-legal combinations in Hero that should seldom if ever be permitted because they are unbalancing. Congratulations; you've now created one that by definition will be unbalancing.

 

Have at it, man. All I can say is thank God I'm not in a campaign with you as a player or as GM.

 

Sorry man, that came across as one big "WAAAAAAAAA..."

 

As far as I can see, this is another form of the "People should only want to game like me" fallacy, which I address at several points on this thread, and specifically here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1679263&posted=1#post1679263

 

 

Thanks.

[sindyr]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

OK guys, I nhave to take some time off now. Gonna consider some of the good ideas and criticisms. I think one of the issues is that I called these Abilities "Absolute" and that is confusing people and causing people to see problems in accomplishing some things I never was trying to do.

 

Gonna rework and rethink the system when I get a chance, as well as ponder a few alternate approaches, such as charging a percentage or a flat fee, or an adder.

 

Thanks all. Might not be back for a few days or so, but see you when I do.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Sorry man' date=' that came across as one big "WAAAAAAAAA..."[/quote']

 

Sorry man, that came across like "I'm a troll and this isn't a conversation worth continuing...."

 

It is not a good idea to be antagonstic; if you want people to positively engage then you have to positively engage with all responses...

 

 

Doc

[Trebuchet]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

As far as I can see' date=' this is another form of the "People should only want to game like me" fallacy[/quote']And as far as I can see, this is another form of the "People should agree with my brilliant idea or they're stupid" fallacy. In other words, that came across as one big "WAAAAAAAAA..."

 

EDIT: I'm done here.

[Utech]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

sindyr,

 

I'm seeing a real lack of progress here. This is what I've tracked:

 

1. You asked for help in building a system that allows for absolutes and suggested one.
   
2. Help was given in the form of both criticism and alternative suggestions.
   
3. You mistook the criticism of your suggested absolutes system as a criticism of you and/or your desire to game the way you want.
   
4. You tossed out all alternative suggestions although they seem to do precisely what you wanted.
   

 

I'd like to go back to the beginning. What are your essential qualifications for a system that allows for absolutes?

[Maelstrom]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Then it's not really an Absolute, is it? So what's the point of this exercise again?

 

This idea would be better addressed as schtick: Character A's schtick is that he's the fastest, so no one gets to be faster. Character B's schtick is that she's the toughest; so no other (non-)player character has as good defenses. That way it scales to each campaign and genre individually and it doesn't require inordinately complicated rules but rather cooperation between players and GM. Sounds like win-win to me.

 

I like this approach. Reminds me of Amber, and is a great deal simpler.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

They will often *seem* to conflict' date=' but if written in proper detail as I indicated, very few true conflicts remain[/quote']

 

"I cannot be injured"

vs

"My attack always kills its target".

 

There are two very easy conflicting absolutes.

 

"Nothing can penetrate my Force Wall"

vs

"I can teleport anywhere"

 

"I never miss"

vs

"I cannot be hit"

 

Competing absolutes are pretty easy to envision. If you allow each player in a typical 4 - 6 member group to select, say, one absolute, I can't imagine you will not end up with at least one conflict.

 

This is a very good thinking point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. It does not of course deter me from pursuing the goal, but it brings up a true pitfall that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

This has been suggested multiple times above and below' date=' and there I have explained why this does not achieve my goals.[/quote']

 

Perhaps we are speaking past each other. To reiterate:

 

Fantasy Hero has a fine structure for Absolutes. Buy enough of the ability that, given the structure of this game, it results in impossible, or near-impossible (must have a roll less than 3, or more than 18, for it to fail). Agree between GM and Player that this is now an "absolute". You bought enough defenses that no sword can inflict damage on you, based on the game world in question capping sword damage at 4d6 KA (so you have, say, 24 rPD and 120 PD, much of it only vs swords). You are invulnerable to swords. If someone with a 6d6 sword attack comes along, tough luck - this was agreed to be "invulnerable to swords".

 

This character is now Absolutely invulnerable to swords. He paid for 24rPD and 120 PD, but if someone comes along with a 20d6 HKA Sword, rolls 120 BOD and 600 STUN, the character who paid for Absolute invulnerability to swords is completely unharmed. This is an absolute.

 

This addresses scaling - in a 1,000 point game, the required buy-in will be higher because attacks are higher. It addresses scope - being immune to all physical attacks would cost more (no "only swords") limitation. Being immune to all attacks costs more still (multiple defense types).

 

It still leaves competing absolute, but that can't be avoided.

 

If your goal is to have a single cost structure which achieves absolutes from "I can remember anything about 1960's comic books" to "I am completely indestructible", then I suggest that the relative value of these abilities makes it unlikely, unless you start at 50 points and eyeball advantages and limitations from -10 to +1 million.

 

It is true that in the extremely rare cases when two such characters come together' date=' one character will be happier than the other. However, the Absolute Ability system does not promise literal Absolutes, but mechanical Absolutes when up against non-Absolutes. Think of it this way - in math, and this is true, there are different kinds of infinities, and some of them are bigger than others. However, ALL infinities are bigger than any single number, no matter how big you make it. It's the same thing here.[/quote']

 

So this is only an Absolute until another Absolute arises. Seems to me there has been a recent thread in this regard (the "Primal Order" - that was the game system which lead to the discussion, IIRC - anyone recall the thread?). AHHH...6e Discussion; General Rules Issues; search for posts by Chris Goodwin.

 

Start here:

 

I'd like to see a real way to honestly do absolute effects such as true invulnerability' date=' automatic hit, and automatic kill, without kludges that make it not really absolute. I always hear "It would be unbalancing to the game," but in 5e, the trend has been to give power to the rules and trust the GM to not let it get out of hand. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce absolute effects to the game.[/quote']

 

But now, as you allude to below, you need a further cost structure to allow an Absolute to trump another Absolute. I want to be SO GOOD with a sword that I can not only kill any target with one strike (one Absolute paid for), but I can even kill that guy with Absolute Immunity to Swords (buys Tier 2 Absolute). This, of course, means tiers of Absolute power. This is what the Primal Order discussion ultimately lead to.

 

My goal is that Absolutes always trump or prevail against non-Absolutes. And even in Absolute vs Absolute (which as I said will be very rare)' date=' the majority of the time neither power will be overruled, since the outcome can be determined from how the Absolutes work themselves. Therefore, while one side may be happier than the other, both sides will the majority of the time know that their power wasn't working at less than full Absolute Strength.[/quote']

 

Your mistake here is that what you quoted were outlines of the character's Absolute Ability, not their Absolute Ability itself, which I did not contruct for every single example idea.

 

To understand how conflict amongst Absolute Abilities is resolved, you need to read the section called "V)Absolute versus Absolute"

 

That section makes me think of the old jokes about D&D Wishes that needed a team to lawyers to draft. The semantics of the power mechanic description will determine whether two powers are, in fact, in conflict.

 

If the Brick envisions his character never being hurt, then the Energy Projector hurting him is something he envisions as impossible. If the Energy Projector envisions his character's UberBlast destroying whatever it hits, then the Brick being hit, but not harmed, is something he envisions as impossible.

 

Now, if you make players write a treatise on the metaphysical logic and metamachanical structure of their Absolutes, I suspect the issue goes away, since few gamers will make that effort.

 

Are you trying to say that it needs to cost more? I could believe that may be true. Doesn't prove the that goal is invalid' date=' of course.[/quote']

 

I am saying that the cost needs to exceed the cost anyone else pays for a similar effect which is not Absolute. Returning to my Immune to Swords FH character, if both players purchased that 24 rPD, 120 PD vs swords, it is either Absolute for both or neither. That might mean, say, an adder to make this ability "Immunity".

 

This might dovetail with your approach. FIRST, you must buy enough of the base power to make it an "effective absolute" based on the expected structure of the game. If the scope of my game is "the universe", and you want to Teleport anywhere, that means enough Teleport/Megascale/whatever to Teleport anywhere in the universe. You then pay X points to make it Absolute - he can go anywhere Teleport could take him, in the universe or further afield. That Absolute adds little - I'll probably throw in a use once in a rare while to demonstrate his Absolute T Port (and justify the fact he spent points on it), but it should rarely come up if I accurately determined the scope of my game. 10 points is likely enough, perhaps subject to the same limitations for scope ("only swords; -2") as the power has. It now scales, AND there is an incremental cost to it being Absolute.

 

He also wants to Penetrate any barrier? I think Double Hardened is as far as that would go, so he can buy AP three times on his T-Port (enough to punch through a double hardened barrier) and pay an extra 10 points to make it absolute, so even a Hardened x10 barrier can be breached.

 

Now, ForceMan wants a Force Wall that cannot be breached, even by that Teleporter. He has to pay four 4x Hardened (more than the 3x AP already in existence) and buy an Absolute adder himself.

 

T-Port man can't get through...unless he wants to pay ANOTHER 10 points to make his T Port Penetration double absolute. I see a bidding war commencing shortly...

 

The FH solution seems best to me.

 

If the character has purchased enough (whatever) to have an absolute value in a given game world, there's no need to go farther. The character will never leave that world and so never encounter a situation in which the compact is broken.

 

I agree - but it does leave competing absolutes.

 

As some of the same issues keep rearing their head again and again, let me try to be as effective as I can be in addressing them:

 

A) People keep suggesting that the solution to my problem is creating upper limits to the universe, which will make the character the best.

This has two problems: first, it doesn't let the player teleport to anyplace, regardless of range (unless I make sure the universe is small enough). Second, this "solution" has the qualities of fixing a hole in a table by recommending that the table user place their drink elsewhere. Changing the whole universe to ensures absolutes is way to kludgey for me.

 

Actually, it shores the table up to hold up to 100 drinks, far more than we think will ever be placed there. But it will still collapse if six kegs are stacked on top of it. The Absolute adder lets it hold anything, however unreasonable to expect it would ever have happened.

 

You are not changing your universe. If an effect that is not absolute, but exceeds the agreed absolute, comes along, it still is beaten by the Absolute. OCV 25 Absolutely Always Hits Man encounters DCV 30 Man? Too bad - he still hits every time because his OCV is absolute. Unless DCV 30 Man shells out points to also be absolute.

 

People keep suggesting that Hero System works fine without Absolutes. However' date=' that is a matter of opinion, and mine is that the Hero System is becoming my ultimate toolkit for running or playing Supers, and as such, I want it to be able to deliver on any request - I don't want my response to a player to be "well, this game didn't come with that tool to build that, so I guess you can't" fallacy.[/quote']

 

"If God can do anything, how does he make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" There are things that realistically can't be done. Resolving competing absolutes, if they are TRUE absolutes, is one of them. Even with the "absolute effect" rules you suggest, or which are suggested as refinements above, we still have the issue of resolving competing absolutes. One of the two cannot truly be Absolute, so one of the players cannot get what he wants.

 

Unless you change the universe, I suppose, so no competing absolute can be purchased. Once T Port Man has his Absolute Penetration power, no one can buy an Absolute barrier against teleportation. But that still means the prospect of saying "No".

 

D) People keep saying that if two Absolute Abilities come into conflict with each other' date=' it's possible that one will trump the other, which means the other isn't Absolute at all, which means that Absolutes aren't even possible. However, this too is a fallacy. The Absolutes I am designing are *mechanical* Absolutes, that can cause something to be Absolutely true when other Absolutes are not in play. The fact that when two Absolutes are in play that one may trump the other has not effect on the Absolute continuing to function as a *mechanical* Absolute. People making this mistake are confusing the wider use of the word Absolute with the precise use of it in game mechanic terms as I am employing it. It's like saying that anyone who isn't free is a slave, and anyone who has a job isn't free. It's a contextual mistake.[/quote']

 

I think we adopted various tiers in the Primal Order discussion. Perhaps you should change the term "Absolute", since by its definition, it is utterly (well...) Absolute, and your Absolutes are not.

 

Perhaps we might add the "It's not me, it's you" fallacy, which would manifest in the dismissal of any comments or opinions you don't like as reflective of a failure to understand the issue, rather than a potentially legitimate concern related to your proposal?

 

As far as I can see' date=' this is another form of the "Fix the Universe Instead of the Character" fallacy, which I address at several points on this thread, and specifically here:[/quote']

 

It's a mechanism for a scalable price that permits absolutes to be purchased in low power games without making them auto-purchases in high powered games. Do you have an alternative solution for that problem? I don't.

 

To put in other words' date=' my goal is to give the player that requests it an Absolute Ability, which can be counted on to be Absolute at *least* if no other Absolute Ability is in play.[/quote']

 

What happens to the player who wants to override other Absolute abilities. [PS: Renaming them Ultra seems like a good idea, as the term Absolute definitely doesn't match your description.] This is where the discussion lead on the 6e thread I reference above.

 

As far as I can see, this is another form of the ""People should only want to game like me" fallacy, which I address at several points on this thread, and specifically here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1679263&posted=1#post1679263

 

I have been very clear (I think) as to what my goals here is - I want to know *how* to do this, not *if* I should.

 

Your initial premise, repeated a few times, was "I don't want to tell a player that he can't do it, or that it is too expensive". The flat cost means that the second problem is not solved. A scalable mechanic would better address that result. The need to resolve competing Absolutes negates the first. Conversion to Ultras means that the two competing players need to engage in a bidding war to resolve the issue. You can't have an "Indestructible" power and a "Destroys Everything" power at the same time.

 

[if I did make a Universal Solvent, what would I keep it in?]

 

"He will still have a limited distance" - then it doesn't help me achieve my goals' date=' does it?[/quote']

 

"My base is so far away that Absolutely no one can get there." However, your concern is easily resolved by making that Teleport Absolute. Because he has paid enough to go anywhere that would be meaningful, he can (for free or for a small adder) be able to go *anywhere*, even places that are not meaningful.

 

Of course, the first time you find a character with Extra Dimensional Movement, you may be in for a debate over the precise definition of "everywhere". Did our Teleporter gain the ability to cross dimensions by making his T-Port Absolute, or are there actually still places he can't go? Hey, didn't Flash have Absolute Running, allowing him to Run through time and across dimensions? The definitions are the toughest part. [simple answer: You want to cross dimensions, you buy EDM. That's a different mechanic for a different purpose. You only bought Teleportation.]

 

One quick thing I just noticed, Teleporting anywhere is NOT 50 points, even by my pre-Alpha of a system, is it? Where did I say that? I think it would actually cost:

 

1.Starting cost, 50 points.

2.The ability’s general effect is to move the character and from his current location to another chosen location.

3.No special limitations.

4.The Ability is Absolute with respect to Range, the user can use any number for range without limit.

5.The GM rates the scope and nature of this at an appropriate level, perhaps +¾

6. 50 x (1+ ¾) = 87.5 points for teleporting without any specific range limit. Note you still have to buy TP with any costs for it for non range options.

 

OK, apparently the 50 base cost is never the actual cost. EVERY ability gets an advantage assigned. So what is the TRUE base cost? Apparently, all costs range from 75 to 125, depending on how the ability is defined, unless its scope is limited (so if Travel Anywhere is 87, is Travel Anywhere on Earth 87.5/3 [Travel Anywhere at +3/4, Only on Earth, -2) = 29, or is it 75 ("travel anywhere on earth, +1/2" - guess I may as well shell out the extra 12 points!)

 

Now, I would suggest it would reasonably vary depending on the game. In most Fantasy Hero games, "Anywhere on Earth" may be "everywhere meaningful to the campaign". One continent, or even one city, may suffice in some games. In spacefaring Sci Fi, "Anywhere in this Galaxy" may be a very small subset of "everywhere meaningful to the campaign". But, if I suggest that, I am "Fixing the Universe, not the Character", aren't I?

 

I guess that means FH does not accomplish my goals - perhaps we can now leave FH behind?

 

From that, I can only take the assumption that the achievement of your goals requires ANY absolute be attainable, at a price that is affordable to ANY characters. With that in mind, your final model must allow me to purchase:

 

"My character automatically succeeds in absolutely anything he wishes to accomplish, instantaneously and effortlessly." at a price affordable to an Incompetent Normal character. Otherwise, there are some effects that cannot be acquired by some characters, right?

 

The approach of "if it's expensive or has any limits, it doesn't achieve my goals" simply results in "nothing can achieve your goals". My 25 + 25 low power fantasy hero can't teleport anywhere. Your system must have failed.

 

This is the "straw man" fallacy. It does not demonstrate that people who want absolutes in their superhero games are wrong.

 

It does demonstrate that, with fixed prices, absolutes become the norm at some point in time. I thought you wanted a system workable in any Hero game. If Absolutes are a small fraction of point totals in any game, then they become the only effective character build in that game. We seem to be back to the "It's not me, it's you" fallacy here.

 

Fine, just also don't waste energy coming in here being a wet blanket.

 

Or to put another way, you are obviously putting energy into posting, why not try to be helpful?

 

A lot of your comments don't seem to move any closer to achieving your objectives. If you think your original plan is workable, try it out and let us know how it goes. It may even have perfect results for your game and your group. I perceive significant flaws, but maybe your games have point levels at which your pricing works, and your players are of a mindset that any problems I, or the rest of us, perceive will not impact your game.

 

Clearly, you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, so why waste any more time trying to get constructive suggestions on improving your already near-perfect system from we gnats. Clearly, you have the "Absolute Game Design" power and we don't.

 

I never promised that either gets to be the best' date=' just that they can trump any non-Absolute systems.[/quote']

 

Doesn't that mean that, if a player comes to you as the GM and says "How do I build this power so my character gets to be the best", your response will be "You can't." This seems to contradict your statement in Post 8 of the thread, which was (emphasis added):

 

I suppose I am a firm believer in two guiding principles:

 

1) With a *real* toolkit system, a player can come to a GM and say "How do I build this power" and the GM's response will never be "You can't."

2) With 500+ points, a player ought to be able to purchase just about any power he can come up with.

 

Given this, and your comment above that no one gets to be the best, I can only assume you have given up the hope of achieving your objective. Why do the rest of us get berated for our lack of belief your objective can be achieved?

 

So the question is' date=' does the character want to sacrifice spending the points on many other powers to be nigh unstoppable in one, or would the character rather have a wider assortment of options? Who wants it more badly? And unlike the current system, this Absolute system has a minimum entry cost. It's not like saying, how many levels of Hardened can I afford, it's more about committing to an idea because you can't do it halfway.[/quote']

 

Apparently, you can, since the Absolute Defender will always succeed against your Absolute Attack. Unless you buy more levels of Absolute than he has. How many levels of Absolute can you afford?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

And as far as I can see' date=' this is another form of the "People should agree with my brilliant idea or they're stupid" fallacy. In other words, that came across as one big [i']"WAAAAAAAAA..."[/i]

 

EDIT: I'm done here.

 

Please may I keep using the "it's not me, it's you" fallacy to reflect that? It's quicker to type, Maybe we can rename it the INMIY fallacy for ease of reference?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Well, reading the page or so of posts made while I wrote mine, what can I add but:

 

WAAAAAAA...

 

What can I say, I'm a "joiner".

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Instead of being so defensive' date=' try reading what they're saying: The goal you want to accomplish is something they feel is not worth accomplishing, and they're trying to explain why.[/quote']

 

They're presenting it in terms of, "I don't like this thing, therefore you shouldn't use it in your game."

 

I'll tell you what, you give me one example is source material of an "Absolute Ability" and I'll concede. I'm pretty sure you're not going to find it because it doesn't exist.

 

Why? Do we have to prove to you that it's valid in order to be able to use it in our games?

 

Bullseye never misses: He's missed

Cannonball is Invulnerable while blastin': He's been knocked out while blasting

Juggernaut is unstoppable: He's been stopped.

 

Most of us feel your absolutes are not good gaming, so why waste energy "making them work"?

 

Why do you insist on projecting your preferences onto us? You're cold, so I need to wear a sweater.

 

I don't EVER want to play with a GM who won't tell a player no. That's just a recipie for disaster, but okay we'll play it this way. Tell me how you arbitrait the following scenario:

 

I don't have a problem telling a player no. What I don't like is telling a player no because the system doesn't support what he wants to do.

 

Player A wants a power where he can Teleport through anything.

Player B wants a Force Wall nothing can get through.

 

You talk to them before the game starts. Tell them, no, this won't work and you have to come up with something else. Or you try to figure out which one wins.

 

That's a philosophical difference more than anything. I do understand where you're coming from; I just don't see any need for (and lots of reasons to dislike) such a capability in a role-playing game.

 

So you don't have to use it.

 

There's no precedent I'm aware of for this kind of absolute in the source material and it creates a host of problems in a role playing game; the largest of which is it creates tremendous problems for the GM to create a suitable challenge to characters possessing such Absolute abilities as you've proposed.

 

Why not leave that to the GM?

 

 

There have actually been several suggestions about how to make it work' date=' it's just that apparently the idea that absolutes should be scalable is unacceptable.[/quote']

 

Not by me. I've posted explicitly to that effect in the 6e forums.

 

The problem is that non-scaling absolutes of the nature being discussed leads to poor game balance and is contrary to the stated assumption that these abilities would be rare and interact infrequently.

 

No. That leads to you thinking it's a bad idea and therefore I shouldn't be allowed to use it in my games.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

You mistook the criticism of your suggested absolutes system as a criticism of you and/or your desire to game the way you want.

 

No. The criticism has been of the form, "[x], therefore it shouldn't be in the game." Which is a backhanded way of saying, "...therefore, you shouldn't play with it."

 

Why don't we give the tools to GMs and trust that they'll use them, or not? You don't have to use them if they're there.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Chris, you're among the biggest proponents of more absolutes. What are your thoughts on how to implement them? I find the theory reasonable but the costing impractical.

 

eg. your "Always Hits" should always cost more than my "OCV high enough that it will practically always hit"; your "Unhurtable" should always cost more than my "Massive defenses", your "Attack always kills" should cost more than my "Attack with enough DC's to pretty much always kill".

 

One way around it is the NND approach, requiring an escape valve - something the Absolute can't affect. But that strikes me as markedly less Absolute.

 

I can't see a way to price Absolutes that are affordable in, say, a 150 point game or a 350 point game, without making them the only way to be effective in a significantly higher point game (moving from 150 to 350, or 350 to 750, for example).

[Trebuchet]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Please may I keep using the "it's not me' date=' it's you" fallacy to reflect that? It's quicker to type, Maybe we can rename it the INMIY fallacy for ease of reference?[/quote']By all means.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Chris, you're among the biggest proponents of more absolutes. What are your thoughts on how to implement them? I find the theory reasonable but the costing impractical.

 

eg. your "Always Hits" should always cost more than my "OCV high enough that it will practically always hit"; your "Unhurtable" should always cost more than my "Massive defenses", your "Attack always kills" should cost more than my "Attack with enough DC's to pretty much always kill".

 

One way around it is the NND approach, requiring an escape valve - something the Absolute can't affect. But that strikes me as markedly less Absolute.

 

I can't see a way to price Absolutes that are affordable in, say, a 150 point game or a 350 point game, without making them the only way to be effective in a significantly higher point game (moving from 150 to 350, or 350 to 750, for example).

 

I want to address this but can't at the moment. I will, though; I have some ideas.

[jtelson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

There have actually been several suggestions about how to make it work' date=' it's just that apparently the idea that absolutes should be scalable is unacceptable.[/quote']

 

Not by me. I've posted explicitly to that effect in the 6e forums.

 

Congratulations?

 

The problem is that non-scaling absolutes of the nature being discussed leads to poor game balance and is contrary to the stated assumption that these abilities would be rare and interact infrequently.

 

No. That leads to you thinking it's a bad idea and therefore I shouldn't be allowed to use it in my games.

 

No. You can feel free to use non-scaled absolutes in your game. But if you were, like sindyr, asking for opinions then I would point out that it leads to poor balance.

 

Non-Scaled Invulnerability means that X points makes you invulnerable in both 10DC capped and 30DC capped campaigns. Thus X points both has a greater utility and represents a lesser investment (expressed as a %) in a 30DC capped campaign this becomes a balance issue when the investment (%) to reliably inflict damage under normal circumstances does not change between campaigns.

 

If a suggested optional add-on only works or is intended to work for a specific set of circumstances (600pt campaigns w/ no campaign limits or the like) then balance issues, I agree, become less relevant.

[Markdoc]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

No. The criticism has been of the form' date=' "[x'], therefore it shouldn't be in the game." Which is a backhanded way of saying, "...therefore, you shouldn't play with it."

 

Actually I haven't seen anything of the sort. People can say "This is something we don't want to see in the rules" without saying "you should not use it in your game". I take this approach myself. Among the various house rules I use for games are some which I believe improve the game, which I'd like to see added to the core rules ("roll high" in combat, a standard pricing format for all skills, etc) there are other house rules which I obviously want in my game, but which I would never suggest as additions to the core rules (for example, I allow PCs in my current game to purchase some of their own (non focus limited) powers as "independant" to reduce cost.) The latter fulfills a specific goal I wanted in my game - but that does not mean I think it's suited to being added to the core rules.

 

Why don't we give the tools to GMs and trust that they'll use them' date=' or not? You don't have to use them if they're there.[/quote']

 

Because - as has been stated ad nauseum things which are in the core rules become the default. If 95% of GMs will never use the rules (and that looks to be a conservative estimate given the responses here), and they introduce a significant imbalance, then you are creating a problem for 95% of GMs to solve a problem that most games will never have. Isn't it easier to state - as the rules already do - that a GM can always add or subtract from the rules as he sees fit?

 

For me at least, the rules should be useable by a novice GM out of the box to design a reasonably balanced game. Some judgement is always going to be required with a ruleset as flexible as Hero. They should not, however contain things that are more or less guaranteed to blow up in your face if used as described. That's a sign of bad rules design.

 

So nothing that I have seen anywhere, suggests that Sindyr shouldn't use his mechanism as a house rule - in fact, several people have explicitly suggested he do so and see how it works in practice. People are merely pointing out - and giving examples of - the views that the rules suggested are broken cost and balance wise and saying they don't think it's a useful mechanic for the core rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I think, and I could be wrong, this is being approaching by two different directions.

 

The OP wants a Mechanic in the Rules that is Universally applicable to create an "Absolute" concept.

 

The problem isn't so much the idea (which I'm personally against, but I'm gonna go with it) but the execution.

 

First - scalability. As proposed in the OP it doesn't. As proposed by several people by using a percentage of Total Character Points, it does.

 

Second - "Fix the Universe Instead of the Character" fallacy. This has one inherent, major sucking chest wound of a flaw:

 

All Hero Games created using the Hero System do not interact well.

 

I am currently in three games, the basic underlying premises of each do not mesh. In one campaign a .45 Semiautomatic handgun is defined as a 3d6 KA. In another it's a 2D6 KA. You cannot reconcile the two Games without retooling one to fit the other - they are in conceptually different places.

 

You have to understand that the Hero System is a toolkit, but it is not universal. You mold, bend, mutilate, sculpt, glue on and otherwise define what you need to in order to create a feel for each Game.

 

This is why the Absolute Effect Rule in FH is actually a very good rule. It allows you to use the Tollkit to create the Game as you envision it.

 

Before anyone sits down at a Hero System Game they need to understand the basic laws of the Game being played.

-What is an average attack?

-What is the theoretical largest attack we'll see?

-What is the average defensive level?

-What is the highest defensive level?

-What is the campaign scope (city, planet, solar system, galaxy, dimenions)

-What are the other power levels?

-What are CVs like (average, highest likely to be seen)?

 

Answering these, and many more questions, will define the Game. And at that point you can look at your Game and go "Are absolute capabilities good? Will they be meaningful? How is the best way to implement them?"

 

The Absolute Effect Rule does an excellent job of answering the last question. But defining the Game you have no defined where you put your maximum level of capability.

 

Taking your "I can teleport any distance" character, if the scope of the game is going to stay on the planet then you really need to only purchase to that level. Now, the Player has stated they wanted the ability to teleport across the universe - but the GM has let them know that the scope of the game will never reach that, buy it high enough to get to the highest level, and we'll say that means 'anywhere' because it effectively is in the game. Somewhere down the line the GM has an idea for an adventure off-planet. Recalling that contract with the player for the one scenario the GM has in mind the Players ability to extended to that new maximum with no additional points being involved.

 

The ""Fix the Universe Instead of the Character" fallacy" is not a fallacy - it's proper use of the Hero Toolkit. Make your Game/Universe, then make your Character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

-What is the campaign scope (city, planet, solar system, galaxy, dimenions)

 

Taking your "I can teleport any distance" character, if the scope of the game is going to stay on the planet then you really need to only purchase to that level. Now, the Player has stated they wanted the ability to teleport across the universe - but the GM has let them know that the scope of the game will never reach that, buy it high enough to get to the highest level, and we'll say that means 'anywhere' because it effectively is in the game. Somewhere down the line the GM has an idea for an adventure off-planet. Recalling that contract with the player for the one scenario the GM has in mind the Players ability to extended to that new maximum with no additional points being involved.

 

The ""Fix the Universe Instead of the Character" fallacy" is not a fallacy - it's proper use of the Hero Toolkit. Make your Game/Universe, then make your Character.

 

An excellent post overall, by the way.

 

I would add that, if I spent enough points to move across galaxies so I could "teleport anywhere" and then discovered that the scope of the game was strictly earthbound and incorporated numerous other dimensions (to which my Teleport won't take me), I would be (in my view justifiably) irked with the GM not advising of the need to fine tune my build to his game milieu.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

I think, and I could be wrong, this is being approaching by two different directions.

 

The OP wants a Mechanic in the Rules that is Universally applicable to create an "Absolute" concept.

 

The problem isn't so much the idea (which I'm personally against, but I'm gonna go with it) but the execution.

 

First - scalability. As proposed in the OP it doesn't. As proposed by several people by using a percentage of Total Character Points, it does.

 

I've independently been moving in that direction, so I'm going to say it's a good idea.

 

Absolute Effects have to be scalable, in order to match up with source, and in order to be gameable. We see it all the time; the Human Torch is invulnerable to fire, except for the Ebon Fire At The Heart Of The Universe or some such. Juggernaut is invulnerable to everything and unstoppable, except either against someone to whom he has special vulnerability (Cyttorak?) or against someone on a higher "power level" (for lack of a better term) -- cosmic level beings and the like.

[Checkmate]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Before I respond, you answered a lot of questions that weren't directed towards you and sorta ignored what I was actually responding to but there are some things I wanted to say.

They're presenting it in terms of' date=' "I don't like this thing, therefore you shouldn't use it in your game." [/quote']

They're actually saying "This doesn't work because..." and giving their opinion. Given this is a discussion board, that seems logical. You're welcome to their opinion or to ignore it.

Why? Do we have to prove to you that it's valid in order to be able to use it in our games?

Because unless I understand what you're trying to simulate, I'm not going to be much use.

Why do you insist on projecting your preferences onto us? You're cold' date=' so I need to wear a sweater. [/quote']

Why do you insist on interjecting yourself into a group you obviously don't belong in?

I don't have a problem telling a player no. What I don't like is telling a player no because the system doesn't support what he wants to do.

 

 

 

You talk to them before the game starts. Tell them, no, this won't work and you have to come up with something else. Or you try to figure out which one wins.

And this is the part where you ignored what I was actually responding to, so I can't say much about this, because you're projecting your feelings and opinions onto someone else, and I'd have to hear their response, not yours.

[Checkmate]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Not so much. Most of the posts say little more than "Absolutes Bad! Must Smash!." A much smaller number point out some issues with my implementation of a solutions. Not a single post here has demonstrated (or even tried to) why it's wrong for my gaming group to try to add a feature we want to our toolkit for gaming.

 

Probably because that would be like berating someone for liking pistachio because everyone else likes chocolate.

 

In other words, dumb.

You're right you haven't heard that and no one will tell you that, because it is dumb.

 

I'll stop being a "wet blanket" and leave the discussion, but let me leave you something to think about: Role-Playing games have been around, what 30-35 years maybe? and no one has ever created an "Absolute" in all that time. Superhero comics have been around maybe 80 years (if you count pulp), and an "Absolute" has never been created in any of them. Does that mean anything to you at all?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Role-Playing games have been around' date=' what 30-35 years maybe? and no one has ever created an "Absolute" in all that time.[/quote']

 

This is not a true statement.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

Sindyr I think I see the problem with this discussion and I’ll try to explain it to you. Keep in mind that I’m not judging the relative merits of either your suggestion or the way that your group chooses play, I’m only trying to point out the miscommunication and misunderstandings that I perceive as taking place.

 

Point 1) You would like to see a method of adding Absolutes to the HERO System.

Point 2) You feel that there is not already a mechanic in place for doing this in the HERO System.

 

Here’s the problem, there IS, in fact, a method of handling any practical level of “Absolute” in the HERO System. As has been pointed out in multiple threads there is a method, detailed in FH, whereby the GM states “This is the most of X power that your character would need to achieve X effect. If, for some reason, the limits of X power were to be exceeded your character would not be affected by that occurance.”

 

I think the problem is that you don’t see how the above does exactly what you want it to. You are the GM. You set the power level and scale of your game. If a player comes to you and says “I want a character who can always hit with his pistol” and you feel like allowing such a character you then need only figure out what the maximum possible DCV will be in your game and tell the character that he needs to by enough DEX and Levels with pistols so that even if he were to roll an 18 while firing at someone with the maximum allowable DCV he would still hit. Then add in any advantages you think will would be needed (LOS, NRP, etc.). No new rule would be needed and if, for some reason, you created an NPC with a DCV higher than the agreed maximum it would be understood that the player’s character would still be able to hit him.

 

May I ask why that solution is unacceptable to you?

[Checkmate]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

This is not a true statement.

Prove it

[ghost-angel]

Re: New option: Absolute Abilties, help please

 

This is not a true statement.

 

Prove it

 

AD&D2E - Energy Drain Wizard Spell (9th) Level; target creature hit loses 2 Hit Dice, permanently, no saving throw.

It took me less than 5 minutes to find that, I am sure that if you really started looking through the myriad of gaming systems out there you will find other such Absolutes.

 

Look - let's keep it civil. This is a thread about trying to place such a construct into Hero. You have voiced your opinion that such a thing is very undesirable for you - if you have nothing else to contribute there are many other threads on the boards that will welcome your advice.