DrakosDJ
July 23rd, 2012, 18:48
First of all if this is the wrong section for this kind of stuff could an admin move it to the appropriate place!
Ok, thanks to the FGII Con (great idea would love to see more of that kind of stuff) I got the opportunity to test the M&M Ruleset in action. For the most part the Ruleset functions great but I had a few observations and suggestions I would like to make. I would like to point out that I am new to this tool as well, this was my first FGII session, so if any of this is just my lack of understanding of the tool please let me know.
Documentation
One of the bigger issues I have found while attempting to use the Ruleset is a general lack of documentation on the features involved in utilizing the ruleset. I'm not talking about general FG II items like rolling the dice or such but items specific about the M&M Ruleset such as:
Entering NPC sheet data. When you are entering data into the NPC sheet it would be nice to have documentation showing how to make the entries correctly to have the rolling automation work.
Documentation on if the system automatically adds in the "base save/resistance" to the DC or if we need to manually. What I mean here is that, in M&M 3e, a damage effect, usually calling for a toughness save, DC is calculated at 15+Rank+Modifiers; whereas a resistance check, generally against a save other than toughness, goes against a DC of 10+Rank+Modifiers. Is that base number (15 or 10) automatically added for us? Through experimentation we know it isn't, but some documentation would have help here.
Use of keywords. A list of parsable keywords would help. It is only through experimentation in entering NPC that we see some of the keywords such as Ranged and Close have an effect and what that effect is. Also, the correct placement of these keywords is important.
If I enter a power as "Force Beams Ranged Damage +7 (+22)", everything works great but if I enter it as "Force Beams Damage +7 (Ranged +22)" it doesn't work. If I don't add the '+' sign then it also breaks. A nice description of the format would help; something like:
<fluff text> [Ranged/Close]<Damage> [+/-]Rank</Min-Max Range> <vs [fortitude/will/dodge/parry/toughness]> ([+/-]DC <vs [fortitude/will/dodge/parry/toughness]>);
Range/Close - indicated the Defense used for the attach Dodge or Parry respectively
Rank - The total attack bonus for the power (your to-hit roll modifier)
DC - The total save DC for the attack. You must include the base value (10 or 15) in this number
Default crit range is 20 to change this follow the DC witlh a / and the range Ex; /19-20
vs - By default the save goes against thoughness, if a different save is required you need to list it here.
So if I was making a melee attack that required a reflex save it would be "Sweeping Stun Close Damage +12 (+27 vs ref)".
Consistency in entries. When entering information into the various sections in an NPC sheet the item separators is inconsistent. In Offense we need to use a ';' to separate entries, but in skills we use a ','. This can cause confusion, especially for people unfamiliar with the tool.
Character Sheet
Although the character sheet is more straight forward when entering character information there is still need for documentation here. Combat Sheet. Primarily, the attacks section could use some directions. Most of the properties of the attacks is straight forward, but once again we don't know if the base DC for the save/resistance check is added for us or needs to be accounted for. Through experimentation we see that once again it needs to be manually entered. This is fine, but some documentation explaining this would help. Skills Sheet. Consistently throughout the character sheetd numeric entry fields for PP costs and Ranks look the same, an oval imput field, except for skill ranks on the skills page.
FunctionalityAs I said, for the most part the sheet works great but I would like to suggest some functionality improvements.
Powers
The heart of any supers game is the powers that define them. With that in mind I think that we can drastically improve the ruleset with some added powers functionality. When entering powers into a character sheet, we are forced to create a group first, then add powers to that group. In M&M, this is not always the case, poweres are not always part of a power group. Speaking of grouping powers, this needs to be expanded. M&M relies heavily on power frameworks when building characters. The two framewords are Arrays and Multiple Effect frameworks.
Arrays are basically a powere with a list of alternate powers. FGII somewhat supports this with the "Alternate Power" flag. I say somewhat because their is no real grouping going on. You never state what power it is an alternate of so no real link is evident. Also, some array powers can be dynamic, allowing multiple powers in the array to be active but at less than maximum effect.
Multiple effect groupings allow you to have a list of related powers grouped together. This comes with some benefits and also disadvantges. The current Ruleset allows this but it could be improved (see below).
The big problem here is that FGII does not allow groups within groups. In M&M 3e, it is a VERY common to have this occure. For example; a battlesuit character will have his powered armor which is a group of different effects; he might have a sensor array (a group of sense powers), Enhanced Strenght, and an arsenal of attacks (represented as an array of attack powers). In M&M 3e, multiple effects and arrays can be part of other arrays and/or multiple effects, sometimes several levels deep. This becomes important when detrerminig active vs inactive powers due to constraints in the Frameworks. This leads me to the next item, method of indicating which powers are active. Unlike many games which have fire and forget abilities, supers games usually have many power durations. Some are always on, some are maintained as a free action each round, Some require more attention and must be maintained via a standard action each round, as well as some fire and forget abilities. This comes to the forefront when powers in an array require some form of maintenance each round. Generally to use a different array power you have to stop maintaining any current one. A method for the Player and GM to track which ones are active at any given time would be helpfull. Affliction. Depending on who you talk to, Affliction, and powers like it that have varrying effects based on the degree of save failure, should have a way to denote what effects happen at what degree of failure. Idealy this would allow the appropriate conditions to be automatically applied when the save is made and the level of success/failure is determined.
Multi-Save Effects. The M&M Ruleset is designed on the premise of Attack roll->Save vs. effect->Result. For most of the system this is adequate, but there are other type of attacks flows possible. For exanple; area attacks are Save(dodge check to reduce DC)->Save vs. effect->Result. The difference here is the instead of the attacker doing an attack roll they just target an area and everyone in it makes a Dodge check to avoid part of the effect reducing the second Save DC by half if the dodge check is successfull. A way to indicate alternate flows to automated checks. I do realize this all could be handled manually, but part of the products allure is automating things, right?
Automation
For me, at least, a huge allure to a Virtual TableTop is automation of the mundane elements of a system that really slow down the action and fun. With this in mind I'd like to suggest: Conditions. Fist off, it would be nice if the conditions in the book were all integrated into the ruleset as pregenerated conditions with the appropriate modifiers.
Following this, I would REALLY love to see the ruleset manage the application/removal of conditions. I did notice that damage conditions from failed toughness saves were being applied, but no other conditions. The GM should be able to do apply/remove conditions manually as well, but automating this would be nice.
The Ruleset could also use more options when defining conditions. It really needs the ability to define a condition as persists until save. Some conditions react differently based on the method of effect that applied it. Example; Dazed condition, if the result of a failed toughness save from damage it only lasts to the end of the targets next round (currently doable), but if applied as the result of a failed affliction save it persists until the target successfully saves against it (done at end of their turn). I've seen this in other rulesets such as 4E. Regeneration and Healing. This is one of the most frequently addressed question on the M&M forums. First of all, every 10 rounds the characters get a free recovery. If a character has regeneration then they get free recoveries more frequently than every 10 rounds. It woiuld be nice if the ruleset mamaged these automatic free recoveries, including regeneration.
Healing can remove damage and conditions when applied. It the Ruleset could have a way to indicate that one character is healing another and apply the benefit properly that would be great.
Wow, this has grown into a evry long post, sorry. It may look like I have nothing but complaints, but rest assured the good outweighed the bad or I just wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Everyone at the game seemed impressed by the template and the developer should be proud. I'm just doing my part to try and help.
Ok, thanks to the FGII Con (great idea would love to see more of that kind of stuff) I got the opportunity to test the M&M Ruleset in action. For the most part the Ruleset functions great but I had a few observations and suggestions I would like to make. I would like to point out that I am new to this tool as well, this was my first FGII session, so if any of this is just my lack of understanding of the tool please let me know.
Documentation
One of the bigger issues I have found while attempting to use the Ruleset is a general lack of documentation on the features involved in utilizing the ruleset. I'm not talking about general FG II items like rolling the dice or such but items specific about the M&M Ruleset such as:
Entering NPC sheet data. When you are entering data into the NPC sheet it would be nice to have documentation showing how to make the entries correctly to have the rolling automation work.
Documentation on if the system automatically adds in the "base save/resistance" to the DC or if we need to manually. What I mean here is that, in M&M 3e, a damage effect, usually calling for a toughness save, DC is calculated at 15+Rank+Modifiers; whereas a resistance check, generally against a save other than toughness, goes against a DC of 10+Rank+Modifiers. Is that base number (15 or 10) automatically added for us? Through experimentation we know it isn't, but some documentation would have help here.
Use of keywords. A list of parsable keywords would help. It is only through experimentation in entering NPC that we see some of the keywords such as Ranged and Close have an effect and what that effect is. Also, the correct placement of these keywords is important.
If I enter a power as "Force Beams Ranged Damage +7 (+22)", everything works great but if I enter it as "Force Beams Damage +7 (Ranged +22)" it doesn't work. If I don't add the '+' sign then it also breaks. A nice description of the format would help; something like:
<fluff text> [Ranged/Close]<Damage> [+/-]Rank</Min-Max Range> <vs [fortitude/will/dodge/parry/toughness]> ([+/-]DC <vs [fortitude/will/dodge/parry/toughness]>);
Range/Close - indicated the Defense used for the attach Dodge or Parry respectively
Rank - The total attack bonus for the power (your to-hit roll modifier)
DC - The total save DC for the attack. You must include the base value (10 or 15) in this number
Default crit range is 20 to change this follow the DC witlh a / and the range Ex; /19-20
vs - By default the save goes against thoughness, if a different save is required you need to list it here.
So if I was making a melee attack that required a reflex save it would be "Sweeping Stun Close Damage +12 (+27 vs ref)".
Consistency in entries. When entering information into the various sections in an NPC sheet the item separators is inconsistent. In Offense we need to use a ';' to separate entries, but in skills we use a ','. This can cause confusion, especially for people unfamiliar with the tool.
Character Sheet
Although the character sheet is more straight forward when entering character information there is still need for documentation here. Combat Sheet. Primarily, the attacks section could use some directions. Most of the properties of the attacks is straight forward, but once again we don't know if the base DC for the save/resistance check is added for us or needs to be accounted for. Through experimentation we see that once again it needs to be manually entered. This is fine, but some documentation explaining this would help. Skills Sheet. Consistently throughout the character sheetd numeric entry fields for PP costs and Ranks look the same, an oval imput field, except for skill ranks on the skills page.
FunctionalityAs I said, for the most part the sheet works great but I would like to suggest some functionality improvements.
Powers
The heart of any supers game is the powers that define them. With that in mind I think that we can drastically improve the ruleset with some added powers functionality. When entering powers into a character sheet, we are forced to create a group first, then add powers to that group. In M&M, this is not always the case, poweres are not always part of a power group. Speaking of grouping powers, this needs to be expanded. M&M relies heavily on power frameworks when building characters. The two framewords are Arrays and Multiple Effect frameworks.
Arrays are basically a powere with a list of alternate powers. FGII somewhat supports this with the "Alternate Power" flag. I say somewhat because their is no real grouping going on. You never state what power it is an alternate of so no real link is evident. Also, some array powers can be dynamic, allowing multiple powers in the array to be active but at less than maximum effect.
Multiple effect groupings allow you to have a list of related powers grouped together. This comes with some benefits and also disadvantges. The current Ruleset allows this but it could be improved (see below).
The big problem here is that FGII does not allow groups within groups. In M&M 3e, it is a VERY common to have this occure. For example; a battlesuit character will have his powered armor which is a group of different effects; he might have a sensor array (a group of sense powers), Enhanced Strenght, and an arsenal of attacks (represented as an array of attack powers). In M&M 3e, multiple effects and arrays can be part of other arrays and/or multiple effects, sometimes several levels deep. This becomes important when detrerminig active vs inactive powers due to constraints in the Frameworks. This leads me to the next item, method of indicating which powers are active. Unlike many games which have fire and forget abilities, supers games usually have many power durations. Some are always on, some are maintained as a free action each round, Some require more attention and must be maintained via a standard action each round, as well as some fire and forget abilities. This comes to the forefront when powers in an array require some form of maintenance each round. Generally to use a different array power you have to stop maintaining any current one. A method for the Player and GM to track which ones are active at any given time would be helpfull. Affliction. Depending on who you talk to, Affliction, and powers like it that have varrying effects based on the degree of save failure, should have a way to denote what effects happen at what degree of failure. Idealy this would allow the appropriate conditions to be automatically applied when the save is made and the level of success/failure is determined.
Multi-Save Effects. The M&M Ruleset is designed on the premise of Attack roll->Save vs. effect->Result. For most of the system this is adequate, but there are other type of attacks flows possible. For exanple; area attacks are Save(dodge check to reduce DC)->Save vs. effect->Result. The difference here is the instead of the attacker doing an attack roll they just target an area and everyone in it makes a Dodge check to avoid part of the effect reducing the second Save DC by half if the dodge check is successfull. A way to indicate alternate flows to automated checks. I do realize this all could be handled manually, but part of the products allure is automating things, right?
Automation
For me, at least, a huge allure to a Virtual TableTop is automation of the mundane elements of a system that really slow down the action and fun. With this in mind I'd like to suggest: Conditions. Fist off, it would be nice if the conditions in the book were all integrated into the ruleset as pregenerated conditions with the appropriate modifiers.
Following this, I would REALLY love to see the ruleset manage the application/removal of conditions. I did notice that damage conditions from failed toughness saves were being applied, but no other conditions. The GM should be able to do apply/remove conditions manually as well, but automating this would be nice.
The Ruleset could also use more options when defining conditions. It really needs the ability to define a condition as persists until save. Some conditions react differently based on the method of effect that applied it. Example; Dazed condition, if the result of a failed toughness save from damage it only lasts to the end of the targets next round (currently doable), but if applied as the result of a failed affliction save it persists until the target successfully saves against it (done at end of their turn). I've seen this in other rulesets such as 4E. Regeneration and Healing. This is one of the most frequently addressed question on the M&M forums. First of all, every 10 rounds the characters get a free recovery. If a character has regeneration then they get free recoveries more frequently than every 10 rounds. It woiuld be nice if the ruleset mamaged these automatic free recoveries, including regeneration.
Healing can remove damage and conditions when applied. It the Ruleset could have a way to indicate that one character is healing another and apply the benefit properly that would be great.
Wow, this has grown into a evry long post, sorry. It may look like I have nothing but complaints, but rest assured the good outweighed the bad or I just wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Everyone at the game seemed impressed by the template and the developer should be proud. I'm just doing my part to try and help.