Removing the 'Add an Attribute' option

[ds]

The option that lets you add an Attribute to an Ability is flat broken, I think.

It has a precise cost trade off- if you've got three Abilities or Modifer at 7 or more, OR two at 8 or more, it's always cheaper to buy up an Attribute and then make up the difference with this Option.

For example-

Agility: 1 (1r)
Ranged Combat: 7 (6w)
Close Combat: 7 (6w)
Black Ops: 7 (6w)
vs
Agility: 6 (4w)
Ranged Combat: 1 (w/ Attribute, 4w)
Close Combat: 1 (w/Attribute, 4w)
Black Ops: 1 (w/Attribute, 4w)

Agility: 1 (1r)
Ranged Combat: 8 (9w)
Close Combat: 8 (9w)
vs
Agility: 7 (6w)
Ranged Combat: 1 (w/ Attribute, 4w)
Close Combat: 1 (w/Attribute, 4w)

These are extreme examples, that start by assuming that a character has universal 1s for their Attributes- if they have even one Attribute at 4, it's dramatically cheaper- then it becomes cheaper to take the Attribute option if just two Abilities are at 7, and it's even cheaper for just one Ability at 10.

Agility: 4 (2w)
Close Combat: 7 (6w)
Ranged Combat: 7 (6w)
vs
Agility: 6 (4w)
Close Combat (w/ Attribute): 1 (4w)
Ranged Combat (w/ Attribute): 1 (4w)

Agility: 4 (2w)
Ranged Combat: 10 (15w)
vs
Agility: 9 (12w)
Ranged Combat (w/ Attribute): 1 (4w)

Due to the cost and powerful effect, the option is far more than just flavor- it serves almost solely to specialize a character by basing their best Abilities off on Attribute.

Ergo, I'm just all for striking it on the general case. Any saving graces to this Option that I'm missing?

[Bankuei]

Hi DS,

Funny enough, that's one of the things I had a major question about myself, although I was more in favor of such a thing costing less, not more.

Now, granted, in the case of stuff like combat and powers, it makes sense to make it expensive, but I was considering a smart businessman who had a good grasp of human psychology, using his Int to boost his Social Skills. It seemed really high priced, considering that his Int was only 4.

I don't know, but I can say there'd be several cases in which I could see an Ability being outlawed against being used in certain situations. Such as having a high Agility doesn't help Black Ops in, say, breaking into an electronic lock, or estimating troop strength based on observation.

And of course, if you use Agility for Close Combat and get grappled, oops, you only have 1 in Close Combat...?

I do agree that the option to add Abilities to Actions should get some more guidelines, although I don't think I'm so concerned about the point issues of folks scraping by, as much as making it unaffordable to lower power characters who have average skill, but a little extra "oomph".

My suggestion is that it should be the GM's option to make that option range from +1-5 cost depending on how "useful" it appears. Obviously combat and power related Actions would be +4 or +5, with the understanding that certain situations(as I mentioned above) negating the Advantage. Stuff like Social Skills and Business would probably garner only +1 or +2 in terms of cost.

Chris

[ds]

That's just it, the Attribute added is ALWAYS available. You're not combining two actions (like you could if you hadn't taken Agility with Close Combat), with all it's 'subject to reason and logic'- your effective Action number is the total of your bought Action number and your Attribute.

And my issue is that it's universally better or worse- there's no trade off there. A character that appropriately uses this option simply becomes better than another without real trade off.

[xavier]

When i was looking for information about MURPG, i first find one of the yahoo newsgroup. It was amazing to see all those endless and pointless arguments about some minor rules. Then, i find this board and i was happy because it was free from those "hey, look at this, i've find a new problem with the rules" discussions. It seems i am wrong.

So, what about this Ability bonus problem ?
First, you've made a mistake: close combat is already fielded with an ability bonus. No need to buy one (except if you want a second bonus, but that's not the point)
Second, it seems that you forget one thing: your character is not just a sum of abilities and modifier. If you make a PC who is a real bloody killer with a gun with a Ranged Combat action of 1, as your GM, i will make you eat your CAD (with the stones). Why ? Because your characterics must be bought accordinly to your background.
Now, if you make a peaceful character with a high agility bonus in ranged combat, but with a very low AN, i don't see any problem.

[Bankuei]

Hi DS,

Wouldn't you be applying SitMod penalties against people's Abilities in certain situations? Such as a high Agility guy gets covered in tar, or perhaps Spiderman webs him up.

Although he may have Close Combat 1 with the Agility bonus of 7, I'd be pouring a lot of penalties on this guy, since by his own CAD, he's pretty much saying that this hero only can fight because of his superpowered agility, not really formal training.

The rules also say its in the GM's hands to apply SitMods appropriately.

The "trade off" as I see it, is mostly in terms of either these sorts of Sit Mods, or in the case of someone who simply has the actual Action at a higher level, at which point I'd give them a couple of stones bonus. So, if one guy has Inventing 1, Int 9, and another guy has Inventing 6, Int 5, I'd give the second guy some serious bonuses, like 3 or 4 stones, since he's smart and knows what he's doing. While the other guy, a genius, is going to be reinventing the wheel on many things.

Chris

[Bankuei]

Hi Xavier,

I agree with you in principle 100%. I just find that saying, "GM Fiat says your players should roleplay better" is not much helpful advice to folks.

Aside from that, as a GM, I'd definitely would talk to all of my players about any Advantages/Disadvantages they take and make them justify it in some sense. But in game, naturally heroes encounter all kinds of problems, some of which will limit their Abilities(hanging upside down in a room filling with water....), some of which will leave folks with heavy Sit Mod Penalties, which I would be applying to their actions. Agility doesn't do you any good when you can't move....

Chris

[xavier]

Bankuei said:

I agree with you in principle 100%. I just find that saying, "GM Fiat says your players should roleplay better" is not much helpful advice to folks.

Well, maybe i was a bit rude.
What i'm saying is that players and GM must work together. If a player is obviously trying to use all the shadow areas of the rules for the purpose of powergaming, well, it's simple: he won't play with me.

[ds]

Re: Xavier

Hm. So, things aren't broken as long as they fit the character background? Cool. Now I can propose that the cost for Invulnerability: Everything (1w) and the modifier No Defense Allowed (+1 CL) be allowed, but only if your backstory justifies it.

Course, given that being a Mutant can basically justify anything in a Marvel game ('What'dya mean why can he fly? It's a part of his mutant Force field powers!')

Additionally, some players enjoy crunching numbers. They enjoy the strategy and tactics of the game, the resource allocation and blind stone guessing aspects. You might not like that style of play, but you aren't everyone.

Or, put another way, a broken character with a good background is still a broken character. An aspect of the system which will only be used as a means of saving points is a broken aspect of the system. Illustrating why this is broken, requesting counter-examples that I have missed, and proposing a House Rule on the House Rule Board to get rid of it doesn't seem like a bad idea or thing.

Also, my math was marginally off- I was using Close Combat cause it was a CL = AN ability. The savings are more dramatic with CL = AN + X Abilities, and I didn't want to unduly bias the results- also the math was easier. If you'd prefer, substitute Athletics or Business or whatever.

Re: Banuki

If a character was in a situation in where they should be at a disadvantage, then they should be getting negative SitMods, sure. And if they haven't bought the Option and are just trying to normally combine an Attribute and an Action into one single action, then I can see that not working so well. However, that situation is irrespective of their Attribute being added to their Ability if they've bought the Option. If you've bought the Option for Intelligence to be added to your Ranged Combat, then it is Always On.

It would be, in my mind, similiar to someone buying, say, Telepathy and then giving every bad guy a Mental Defense one higher than the character's Telepathy total, because Mind Control can just take a bad guy out and lay the plot bare.

The system should make things relatively fair- gross, persistant imbalance should be dealt with harshly. Abilities should either get an Attribute bonus or not.

[Bankuei]

Hi DS,

I agree that cheaply nullifying a player's kewl powers (ala Telepathy vs. Everyone has Defense?!?) is completely cheap and stupid. What I'm trying to point out to is making situations that cripple Abilities not more common, but make them suck enough that the player will at least consider NOT doing it. I mean, if you use Agility as your cop out for everything, when you do have something that limits Agility, you're absolutely and completely helpless.

As someone who does enjoy the rock, paper, scissors aspect of strategizing and gaming, with any superhero game, you recognize that almost every power has some sort of Achille's Heel. The Telepath is great, but this time we just happened to fight robots...The Fire Guy is great, until the one time we fought magma dudes, they couldn't hurt him, but he couldn't hurt them either..., etc.

All I'm saying is that folks who build one dimensional characters, whether its a specific power, combat strategy, or else a point cop out, will find that when they do reach a point where their one-trick-pony is negated, they're really, really screwed in the game.

It may not stop all the min-maxing going on, but it definitely makes those players think twice. And of course, while it may not have to happen every game, said players may find a villian who preys on their weakness may be a recurring character...at which point they'll have to really rethink their tactics.

If nothing else, we can say what probably most folks are going to say, "It's your game, play it your way". I consider the occassional negation of powers to also be part of that strategizing aspect of gaming, just like what happens in CCGs when your Killer Deck that relies on one trick meets the one that can cancel out your trick.

Chris

[ds]

Mm... The comparison isn't quite apt. A killer deck in a CCG shouldn't have a weakness that can be exploited by a trick. If it does, it's not very killer.

And I just sorta disagree on principle with nullifying a game's mechanical effect based on flavor.

Finally, and personally, I vehently hate 'Golden rule any problem you see away' as a response on a message board. It's a completely non-productive response- of COURSE I'll run my game my way. Of course I can't make any one else change. But in a forum focused on discussion of the game, posting a system-break so that others can see it and try to mend it before a stealth badass gets into their game (if you've ever had one happen, you understand what I mean)- reminding everyone about the Golden Rule has very nearly the same static to noise value as dflgjsdl;fghsklhglksdh.

If we aren't supposed to critize the game's system and propose changes and alterations to it, getting meaningful feedback (rather than the Golden Rule or flat unsupported disagreement), then all that's left is fanboyism and what amount to fanfic writing. Which is fun, but if I want that, there's a dozen hundred Marvel Comic forums to lurk around at.

[ds]

Additional sidenote-

Most of the game breaks in the MURPG won't let a character get the One Uberability more cheaply. Instead, they let characters be VERY good at three or four things- like the Executioner. Watch the CCC- I mishandled him a bit, and he's still got about 60 functional stones worth of power out of 45.

In other words, they aren't one-trick ponies. They'll frequently look more 'balanced' than a character that doesn't exploit these weaknesses, because they'll have a broader sweep of abilities and modifiers at seemingly lower levels. This is even worse- they'll be able to usurp multiple roles within a given team, which throws off a lot of dynamics.

[Bankuei]

Hi DS,

I agree with you completely that saying, "Do it your way" without anything further is empty discussion. Perhaps I should have simply said, "We'll probably end up agreeing to disagree about HOW important this particular point break issue is"

Happy?

I'm very interested in discussing some variable options. But, if you look at what you are saying regarding making this Advantage pay off, its a lot of different Actions that are being Bonused by a single, high Ability, correct? I mean it only pays off if multiple Actions are benefiting from a singular(or two at the most), really high Abilities.

In this case, that one Ability is the "one-trick" that holds together the character. And it's not like you have to pull serious plot twisting devices to screw with that. If a hero is grappled, Agility and Speed are both negated. If a hero is bound, or otherwise entangled, they're going to have Strength penalties until they're freed. It's not like these are "unsual" cases for comic book stories, here.

I'm not saying this game is perfect. Check out my thread on some serious questions about some of the Action Costs(such as Concentration, or Prescience). What I am saying is that it's not like you have to be an ass of a GM to give these sorts of players their just desserts, this sort of stuff is pretty common.

How about this for an alternative rule: Adding an Ability starts at +5, and each additional time you take that Advantage, it cranks up another +2 levels(in other words, it goes +5, +7, +9, etc.

So, in this case, you'd have:
Agility 6(4 W)
Ranged Combat 1(W/Attribute 4 W)
Close Combat 1 (W/Attribute 9 W)
Black Ops 1(W/Attribute 15W)

total:31 W

vs.

Agility 1 (1R)
Ranged Combat 7 (6W)
Close Combat 7 (6W)
Black Ops 7 (6W)

Total 18 W, 1R

As you can see, if you choose to go for that 3rd + Ability, you pay through the nose, otherwise, you're paying about the same.

Chris

[i3ullseye]

OK, let me explain why I think the +5 for an ability bonus is NOT broken...

What is it really doing? All it is saying is you get 1 free action during that panel. Thats it really. And it can't be just any action, it has to be that particular ability combined with that particular action. Allow me to elaborate.

Say SuperThug has close combat based on strength. This means he adds his CC and his Str for all hand to hand. Now SpeedyGuy hjas his close combat based on speed. Ever attack or defense he adds his CC to his speed.

But if SpeedyGuy is grappled, and the GM rules that hsi speed can no longer apply, he is toast right? Well, no. He can still opt to put stones into Strength and combine them with CC to break a hold. Alternately, if SuperThug is in a straight jacket, but wants to apply his speed and run into soemone with his whole body, HE can do this too.

ALL the +5 is doing is picking ONE ability that combines for free with ONE action. It is nothing you can't do already without this ability bonus, but you can't do ANOTHER thing at the same time.

Speedy Guy can fight and also use another power if he had it, while applying his full speed. But if he has to combine it with his strength, that means no other actions for that panel. Thats all.

Further... even if you buy 3 attributes that can add to an action.... you are still, as always, limited to the finite number of stones you have to spend. The attribute bonus can NOD be added to modifiers, because these stones are NEVER free if based on an attribute (though that COULD be done for certain character concepts) so it all stays in check.

So for +5 you gain the ability with THAT action, to combine it with a SPECIFIC ability during that panel. The price is actually pretty steep if you ask me.

[psistrike]

One other thing to remember is that no Action may get more than two Ability Bonuses.It says so on page 42 under Choosing Actions For Your Character,paragraph 2,
fourth sentance.

[ds]

My main complain of the option isn't it's 'things can get turned WAY up', it's that it's a point multiplier- it will either always be taken or never taken, depending on what sort of a character you're building.

If a character has one or two abilities at 7 or less, then it will never make sense to take this option.

If, however, a character has three or more abilities at 7 or two or more at 8, then it ALWAYS makes more sense to buy up the Attribute, and then buy the abilities with the option. Every single time. Even if the Attribute offers no other benefit- and it always does, in some form or fashion.

I'm not worried about someone having two level 10 Attributes and then adding both of them to close combat to get a CC total of 20 something. I'm woried about a character being able to functionally halve the price of level 7+ abilities after a certain threshold of them have been purchased.

Re: Banuki

I think the problem I've been having with most of your counterexamples is that A) your situations wouldn't uniquely hurt the character with the Ability+Attribute. Yes, if someone has their Close Combat linked to Speed and their in a tar pit, they'll have negative SitMods- but they'd have the same negative SitMods if it was CC+Strength. Quicksilver might be hampered by the muck, but so will the Thing. and B) You're counterexamples, half the time, don't show a negation of the attribute, but of the ability to act at all- which I don't like. When I've got a guy with Fire Powers in the party, I don't casually toss out flame resistant monsters, cause it reduces that player to a sitting and staring blankly at the wall role.

And while I haven't crunched the numbers, I'd suspect that giving a increasing cost to taking the Attribute Option multiple times would functionally remove it from the game by making it more expensive than it's worth. Again, part of my problem is in the on/off nature of the option- it either makes sense and will be taken, or it doesn't and won't. I still fail to see a trade off.

Explain how, if I have linked Ranged Combat to Intelligence, you can deprive me of that bonus while I retain the ability to shoot? How if I've linked Durability (This is a 'making a point' example- Durability isn't ever cheaper) to Black Ops you'll take away that bonus. Because these aren't bonus stones from the GP, their just functionally increasing my Abilities Action Number.

Re: Bullseye

Put like that, it almost makes sense. I had forgotten that the Attribute option can't be taken on a Modifier. And hadn't considered just combining two actions.

I would still remove it from my games, however, as it still seems like an all or nothing option. I don't like point multipliers, options and ways of getting the same thing or things significantly cheaper. You'll notice I have issues with Mastery over the exact same thing.

And, in my mind, purchasing the option does go beyond just combining the Attribute plus Ability. It's saying 'These are always combined, yes even then, nothing can actually remove this combination'. Something may lessen or inhibit a character from fully using the Ability- but never leave the Ability functionally while taking away the Attribute.