Cause Based Powers
Apr. 10th, 2008 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
subplotkudzuSomething that came up in another thread that I wanted to yank out and discuss separately. It's both long and technical so it goes
behind the cut.
Bothmylescorcoranand notthebuddhaused the term "Effects based" to define systems like GURPS and CHAMPIONS, where powers are defined entirely by what they do, not how they do it. My 10d6 laser beam is mechanically identical to your 10d6 lightning bolt. From a game mechanics perspective it's a reasonable enough way to handle powers.
However, both then contrasted it to Narrative Based. Now, I don't see Effect being contrasted by Narrative - I see Effect as contrasted by Cause. In a Cause Based system, which is where I’d put Villains & Vigilantes, my 2d8 laser beam is substantially different than your 2d8 Lightning Bolt. It generates different outcomes, is more or less effective against different defenses, because the Cause - light vs. lightning - is just as important than the mechanical Effect of delivering 2d8 damage.
In most cases those attacks are defined as part of broader powers - Light Powers and Lightning Control - that give a variety of different effects. If I want to illuminate a room I can do it with Light Powers rather easily, radiating light of any intensity or hue; you can do it with your lightning control as well, but by making an arclight between your fingers for harsh glare and heavy shadows. I can precision melt a steel door, you can't, but you can short out a computer, or perhaps even control it. Some of these would come naturally, and there would be clear mechanics written on the character sheet; some would not, and would have to be invented during play - the system had rules for inventing as well, which were manipulated to this purpose.
To me, this is a better system, as it cuts closer to the reality of comics, and it's what I'd like to see in my supers setting construction kit. I see it as containing a certain comic book logic in the setting that the players can define. I know from experience that this definition will occur anyway in a long term, maintained world. The vagaries of dice and player choices over 20 years of the Variants universe meant that Lightning Control was nearly always tied to increased strength and agility - the lightning controllers would electrify their reflexes and galvanize their muscles. Light control was nearly always tied with heightened intelligence, as their thoughts moved at lightspeed. Flame powers carried super strength and endurance. This just fell out over time, and became an engrained part of the setting, as regular as people with flame powers being able to immolate themselves and fly. It made the Variants universe distinct from the Marvel and DC ones that it inevitably sprang from. That's what I want to present in the kit - the chance to build a distinct world that is not hindered by how useful someone else somewhere thought an energy blast would be compared to invisibility, or that everyone who can run fast can vibrate through walls. Maybe they can. And maybe invisibility is incredibly rare and useful, or common and predictable. But it's the players choice.
But the decision that light powers makes me smarter or lets me carve holes in walls isn't related to the Narrative in any way. Since by simple inference on the term Narrative, Narrative based powers means I can use my light powers in whichever way best improves the story. If that means thinking at lightspeed, I do that. If it means flying on a stream of hard photons, I do that too. I might not remember to do it next session when it wouldn't serve the narrative, but, hey, that happens in comics all the time. But I'm not interested in Narrative based powers because it's too free-form. I want mechanics on the sheet indicating how good I am with my Light Powers and what I have learned to do with it, with a broad understanding of what I won't be able to get it to do. I know the Cause, and I want the Effects to tie to that, not to be ends unto themselves or be dependent on the current story.
Mylescorcoran as said this " but it is very much in the broader sense (in the hobby) of Narrative as player-empowerment."
When did Narrative become player empowerment?
Narrativist means you're trying to craft a compelling, or at least interesting, story. Gamist means you're trying to set a enjoyable challenge within the rules. Simulationist means you're trying to accurately create a reality (even if that reality has rules totally unlike our own). In a Gamist setting I have the most player empowerment because I have, written on my character sheet, exactly what I can and can't do, and the GM is obliged to give me a puzzle I can solve. I have taken away power from the GM to do whatever he wants and given it to me in the form of crunchy bits on my character. In a Simulation I still have rules, and an even greater sense that the rules will be followed because they define the reality we're trying to simulate - I have been given no explicit or implicit promises that I won't be led by circumstance into events entirely outside my ability, but the world will work the way the world works. But in a Narrative game my power only extends as far as the GM's sense of the story - if we're at odds, I have no recourse other than leaving, and can get railroaded wherever he wants or be put through hell because it's more "dramatic". Any control I have is part of an implicit agreement that the GM will take my wishes into account in the direction of the story, which is only as good as the GMs word.
Now, I can guess that the mutation started because people enjoyed the Narrativist style but not the loss of control under a bad GM, and started developing rules for player empowerment to let give players more control in the direction of the story. Fine and dandy, but that's a Gamist solution - there are now contractual rules for setting an enjoyable challenge. Don't try to sell me that the enjoyable challenge for Narrativsts is "telling a good story" because in my youth I spent many a Gamist afternoon setting enjoyable challenges that, when we were done, made good stories - they weren't classic stories, but they also weren't always the ones told at cons that make no sense to the people who weren't there' because they're all about HP loss and Backstab opportunities. I'll accept a blending of the two under a new term (just like I prefer Genereist for games that blend Narrative and Simulation) but it takes some through-the-looking-glass logic to get to the point where Narrativist means Player Empowerment when it's the least Player Empowering of the styles.
Both
mylescorcoranand notthebuddhaused the term "Effects based" to define systems like GURPS and CHAMPIONS, where powers are defined entirely by what they do, not how they do it. My 10d6 laser beam is mechanically identical to your 10d6 lightning bolt. From a game mechanics perspective it's a reasonable enough way to handle powers. However, both then contrasted it to Narrative Based. Now, I don't see Effect being contrasted by Narrative - I see Effect as contrasted by Cause. In a Cause Based system, which is where I’d put Villains & Vigilantes, my 2d8 laser beam is substantially different than your 2d8 Lightning Bolt. It generates different outcomes, is more or less effective against different defenses, because the Cause - light vs. lightning - is just as important than the mechanical Effect of delivering 2d8 damage.
In most cases those attacks are defined as part of broader powers - Light Powers and Lightning Control - that give a variety of different effects. If I want to illuminate a room I can do it with Light Powers rather easily, radiating light of any intensity or hue; you can do it with your lightning control as well, but by making an arclight between your fingers for harsh glare and heavy shadows. I can precision melt a steel door, you can't, but you can short out a computer, or perhaps even control it. Some of these would come naturally, and there would be clear mechanics written on the character sheet; some would not, and would have to be invented during play - the system had rules for inventing as well, which were manipulated to this purpose.
To me, this is a better system, as it cuts closer to the reality of comics, and it's what I'd like to see in my supers setting construction kit. I see it as containing a certain comic book logic in the setting that the players can define. I know from experience that this definition will occur anyway in a long term, maintained world. The vagaries of dice and player choices over 20 years of the Variants universe meant that Lightning Control was nearly always tied to increased strength and agility - the lightning controllers would electrify their reflexes and galvanize their muscles. Light control was nearly always tied with heightened intelligence, as their thoughts moved at lightspeed. Flame powers carried super strength and endurance. This just fell out over time, and became an engrained part of the setting, as regular as people with flame powers being able to immolate themselves and fly. It made the Variants universe distinct from the Marvel and DC ones that it inevitably sprang from. That's what I want to present in the kit - the chance to build a distinct world that is not hindered by how useful someone else somewhere thought an energy blast would be compared to invisibility, or that everyone who can run fast can vibrate through walls. Maybe they can. And maybe invisibility is incredibly rare and useful, or common and predictable. But it's the players choice.
But the decision that light powers makes me smarter or lets me carve holes in walls isn't related to the Narrative in any way. Since by simple inference on the term Narrative, Narrative based powers means I can use my light powers in whichever way best improves the story. If that means thinking at lightspeed, I do that. If it means flying on a stream of hard photons, I do that too. I might not remember to do it next session when it wouldn't serve the narrative, but, hey, that happens in comics all the time. But I'm not interested in Narrative based powers because it's too free-form. I want mechanics on the sheet indicating how good I am with my Light Powers and what I have learned to do with it, with a broad understanding of what I won't be able to get it to do. I know the Cause, and I want the Effects to tie to that, not to be ends unto themselves or be dependent on the current story.
Mylescorcoran as said this " but it is very much in the broader sense (in the hobby) of Narrative as player-empowerment."
When did Narrative become player empowerment?
Narrativist means you're trying to craft a compelling, or at least interesting, story. Gamist means you're trying to set a enjoyable challenge within the rules. Simulationist means you're trying to accurately create a reality (even if that reality has rules totally unlike our own). In a Gamist setting I have the most player empowerment because I have, written on my character sheet, exactly what I can and can't do, and the GM is obliged to give me a puzzle I can solve. I have taken away power from the GM to do whatever he wants and given it to me in the form of crunchy bits on my character. In a Simulation I still have rules, and an even greater sense that the rules will be followed because they define the reality we're trying to simulate - I have been given no explicit or implicit promises that I won't be led by circumstance into events entirely outside my ability, but the world will work the way the world works. But in a Narrative game my power only extends as far as the GM's sense of the story - if we're at odds, I have no recourse other than leaving, and can get railroaded wherever he wants or be put through hell because it's more "dramatic". Any control I have is part of an implicit agreement that the GM will take my wishes into account in the direction of the story, which is only as good as the GMs word.
Now, I can guess that the mutation started because people enjoyed the Narrativist style but not the loss of control under a bad GM, and started developing rules for player empowerment to let give players more control in the direction of the story. Fine and dandy, but that's a Gamist solution - there are now contractual rules for setting an enjoyable challenge. Don't try to sell me that the enjoyable challenge for Narrativsts is "telling a good story" because in my youth I spent many a Gamist afternoon setting enjoyable challenges that, when we were done, made good stories - they weren't classic stories, but they also weren't always the ones told at cons that make no sense to the people who weren't there' because they're all about HP loss and Backstab opportunities. I'll accept a blending of the two under a new term (just like I prefer Genereist for games that blend Narrative and Simulation) but it takes some through-the-looking-glass logic to get to the point where Narrativist means Player Empowerment when it's the least Player Empowering of the styles.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 04:34 am (UTC)In a model of superhuman conflicts, if some characters have power X, and others have power X/10, the ones with power X/10 are likely not to have a meaningful effect on the outcome, and can properly be disregarded. And conversely, too powerful a character, say 10X, is going to have an overwhelming impact, like doing a model of the early solar system with a superjovian planet in place. So it's legitimate to set a restriction on the power levels that well be considered, a restriction not of kind but of magnitude. And the point budget of games such as GURPS is an attempt to approximate such a restriction. It may not work perfectly, but what it's trying to do is a legitimate goal.
And my goals in running a game aren't pure simulation; they also have game and narrative aspects. From that perspective, an engine may give us the tool to simulate "anything," for certain values of "anything," but that doesn't mean that I want to simulate anything; I may want to simulate something in particular. What that something is may be shaped by the goal of having a narrative in a certain range emerge from play; it may also be shaped by the goal of having balanced conflicts—which is a gamist goal, but also a narrativist one: the moment when the dice come out is the rpg version of the agony of classic epic and drama, the point where the struggle becomes totally serious. If one side in the conflict is so much more capable than the other that there's no chance of meaning opposition, then I don't have a conflict, or a game, or a dramatically interesting climax for a story. And having that sort of thing is what I'm using the simulationist tools for in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 07:22 am (UTC)What I'm arguing is that point systems impose problems based on the mechanisms the designers used when determinging power cost. I don't know GURPS well enough to easily pick out specific cases, but here's an example from Tri-Stat (with the SAS costings): my hero with Power Flux (Light Powers) has a 5 Flux Points for use with Light Powers. He can, if he so chooses, turn completely invisible to normal sight (Invisibility costs out a 3 points per sense), fire lasers with more damage potential than a handgun (special attack, 4 pts for 20 damage), fly on a stream of hard photons with perfect control at 10 mph (flight, 4 pts per level) or glide on them at 50 kph (gliding, 2 pts per level), construct a hard photon shield that will block small arms fire (force field, 4 pts per level), sense the presence or absence of light in distant areas (sixth sense, 1 pt per sense) and even convert his body into a swarm of photons similar to a cloud of mosquitoes (swarm, 2 pts per level). What he can't do is absorb light (damage absorption 8 points per level, or damage conversion, 6 points per level), or craft holograms with a radius of more than 10 cm. (projection, 3 points per level, with level determing radius.) However, while he can't make a hologram that would cover his body, he could coat himself with a hard photon sheath with a varying appearance to make himself look like other people (alternate form, shapeshifting option, 2 points total).
That sort of distinction is where my problem comes in. How is it that the character can do so many other things with light but can't make a moderate sized hologram or absorb light? And the reason why he can't is not because of any appeal to the physics of the universe (if we were doing that, I would have chucked out the photon swarm idea toot sweet), but because the Tri-Stat design team decided that the ability to convert minimal amounts of energy into character points was twice as costly as being totally invisible to sight. That's my concern with point systems in Cause based power systems. It's not an insoluable one, but it is nagging.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 01:25 pm (UTC)Sorry, got a hard photon in my eye.
Which brings me to the rubber science here. The character can "manipulate light" -- that's the Cause. Okay. So lasers, invisibility, holograms -- I'll give you all of that.
But the "hard photons" for flying and armor just reek of game mechanics. That's bending the Cause to allow game-essential abilities (if he can't fly and stop bullets, he's not going to be much of a superhero, so we come up with "hard photons").
It seems that doing Cause-based powers should include some kind of ground rules about how much rubber science you're going to allow. Can a super-speedster like the Flash accomplish pretty much any damned thing by running around in a circle really fast?
This is why we have effects-based systems, I think. Nobody wants to spend the game arguing about "hard photons" or what you can accomplish with a superfast vortex.
There ought to be some way to keep the best of both worlds -- let the guy with light powers bend the searchlight beams even though he never bought Darkness or Suppress (Change Environment: Light) or whatever. But also allow the GM and any right-thinking player to call BS on the hard photons.
Maybe allow a certain number of "power schticks" based on the Cause? Plausible ones are cheap or free, but ones which require lots of handwaving are expensive? So to get "hard photons" out of your light powers costs a lot of accumulated experience, but learning how to bend light beams is free?
Cambias
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 01:54 pm (UTC)Well, it would if it weren't the power basis for Dr. Light, the long standing Green Lantern/Teen Titans villain, and used in other places in the DC Canon. (And there's little Thor can't do if he spins the damn hammer fast enough! He used it as a cyclotron once, for pity's sake!)
But yes, I agree that it's a load of hooey if you're sticking with conventional physics at all. I should probably do a more proper post of the grounding for my supers setting construction kit idea (which has been discussed more extensively in A&E), but the basis of it is that when the campaign begins there is no pre-set powers list. The players say what they want their characters powers to be and how they work - they define the powers as a set of causes. They can then apply a Scarcity cost to them - how much people have to pay to even get the power at all (which I posted in a Pyramid article some time back). This discussion gives the framework on roughly how powers physics work in the setting.
Players then purchase those powers by defining their Potency and Versatility. Characters with the highest Potency Super-Strength will be able to lift and throw the greatest amounts of weight available for super strength, defined when the players hashed out the causes. But if he buys the highest potency with the lowest versatility, he won't be able to do much with it - the player has signed on that his character won't use his vast strength in a wide variety of ways. Someone with a lower Potency Super-Strength might crank up the Versatility and use it to tunnel, flick ball bearings at supersonic speed, give gusts of super-breath, leap vast distances and so on - he's not as strong but he is more versatile. Versatility has weaker boundaries than Potency does in the initial dicussion, but the outside edges have to be sketched so that everyone knows what they're working with. Right now I have a player pick a number of standard shticks based on a powers Versatility, with higher versatility making it easier to develop new ones.
There's a fourth component - Frequency - which determines how often the character relies on the power. As with versatility, this is a formalization of a player contract - it's why Superman starts with his strength and invulnerability rather than solving every problem with super-speed. Flash has all his points tied up in a high Potency, high Versatility, high Frequency super speed, and it won't do for Superman to also solve all his problems with his super speed, even if it is nearly as good.
That's where things stand right now. I think it's pretty close to what you're suggesting.