Post by gamedave on Jan 3, 2008 12:54:07 GMT -5
Feats. Huh. What are they good for?
Basically, when trying to create a Feat or, for a GM, adjudicating the same, there are three factors to consider: concept, necessity, and balance.
1) Concept. The Feat must make conceptual sense. This can either be by precedence (most energy blasters can fly and create force fields, even if it doesn't really make much sense, even by comic book logic) or by logic. Be careful with that last one, though; the game should not devolve into a debate between a player trying to justify a Feat and a GM trying to run the game. Players should try to come up with Feat concepts between game sessions and use these boards to propose them (subject to the GM actually having the time to read and respond, of course). If a player proposes a Feat during the game, he should make a simple, clear, and quick proposal; if the GM vetoes it, don't whine or argue, just get on with the game, and discuss it with the GM later, during down-time, after the session, or on the boards.
Also, how central to the concept a Feat is should be a factor to consider. For example, for a energy blasting Galactic Guardian, flight and force field are pretty central - hard to patrol the space lanes without those, and it's firmly established by precedence. On the other hand, using the energy to "charge up" and gain Super-Strength might be logical, and even have some precedent, but it's hardly central to the concept, so a GM is perfectly entitled to veto it, especially when taking into account the other two criteria.
2) Necessity. How necessary is the Feat? This criteria has two factors: how necessary is it to the character, and how necessary is it to the group. Take the "Super-Strength" example above. The blaster already has an effective attack (energy blast) and defenses (force shield). He doesn't need the Super-Strength Feat to be effective. Moreover, if there's already a party member with Super-Strength, and another who is already planning on Feating it, and for whom it is more central to the character concept, it isn't necessary to the group. On the other hand, if no one else in the group has Super-Strength, or a concept that lends itself easily to gaining it, the GM should probably allow it.
On the other hand, take a character that starts out with Telepathy, no offensive powers, and no combat abilities. Let's say that there's already a character or two in the group that have attack forms that inflict Mental Damage, and a couple of others with ranged attacks. Mind Blast is clearly not necessary to the group, and may infringe on other characters' established niches. But, what else is a telepath going to do in combat? In this case, some form of offensive power is clearly necessary to the character, so Mind Blast should be allowed.
So, do you need a Feat to be effective in common adventuring situations? Would the Feat fill an empty niche in the party? If the answer to either of these is "yes", it is a Feat that should probably be allowed. If the answer, particularly to the second, is "no", the GM should seriously consider before allowing it. If you only need a Feat to be effective or fill a niche in a particular, unusual situation, that is what Stunts are for.
3) Balance. This is a big one. HA!R is a pretty wide-open game system, and it's easy for power combos to get out of hand quickly. Players need to realize that part of the GM's job is to make the game fun for everybody. If you're infringing on someone else's niche, that makes the game less fun for them. If you are massively more powerful and more effective in a wide variety of situations that everyone else, again, that makes the game less fun for everyone else. First, everyone likes to be the star at least sometimes.
Second, over-powered characters often create the "Glitter Boy Paradox" (named after the ridiculously over-powered character class in the Rifts RPG). In order to challenge the Glitter Boy, the GM may be forced to throw opponents against the party that no one else can seriously threaten, and that can obliterate anyone else with ease. That's no fun for everyone else. Or the GM may need to contrive circumstances to deny the Glitter Boy the opportunity to use his kewl powerz. That's often tough on the GM, and frustrating for the Glitter Boy. The easiest solution is just not to allow a Glitter Boy into the game in the first place.
SUMMARY: Just because a Feat makes sense and there's a precedent for it, doesn't mean a GM should allow it, or that a player should feel "nerfed" if a GM vetoes it. Basically, what all the above comes down to, is, no, Jeremy, you can't have Tremor Sense and Earth Healing.
Basically, when trying to create a Feat or, for a GM, adjudicating the same, there are three factors to consider: concept, necessity, and balance.
1) Concept. The Feat must make conceptual sense. This can either be by precedence (most energy blasters can fly and create force fields, even if it doesn't really make much sense, even by comic book logic) or by logic. Be careful with that last one, though; the game should not devolve into a debate between a player trying to justify a Feat and a GM trying to run the game. Players should try to come up with Feat concepts between game sessions and use these boards to propose them (subject to the GM actually having the time to read and respond, of course). If a player proposes a Feat during the game, he should make a simple, clear, and quick proposal; if the GM vetoes it, don't whine or argue, just get on with the game, and discuss it with the GM later, during down-time, after the session, or on the boards.
Also, how central to the concept a Feat is should be a factor to consider. For example, for a energy blasting Galactic Guardian, flight and force field are pretty central - hard to patrol the space lanes without those, and it's firmly established by precedence. On the other hand, using the energy to "charge up" and gain Super-Strength might be logical, and even have some precedent, but it's hardly central to the concept, so a GM is perfectly entitled to veto it, especially when taking into account the other two criteria.
2) Necessity. How necessary is the Feat? This criteria has two factors: how necessary is it to the character, and how necessary is it to the group. Take the "Super-Strength" example above. The blaster already has an effective attack (energy blast) and defenses (force shield). He doesn't need the Super-Strength Feat to be effective. Moreover, if there's already a party member with Super-Strength, and another who is already planning on Feating it, and for whom it is more central to the character concept, it isn't necessary to the group. On the other hand, if no one else in the group has Super-Strength, or a concept that lends itself easily to gaining it, the GM should probably allow it.
On the other hand, take a character that starts out with Telepathy, no offensive powers, and no combat abilities. Let's say that there's already a character or two in the group that have attack forms that inflict Mental Damage, and a couple of others with ranged attacks. Mind Blast is clearly not necessary to the group, and may infringe on other characters' established niches. But, what else is a telepath going to do in combat? In this case, some form of offensive power is clearly necessary to the character, so Mind Blast should be allowed.
So, do you need a Feat to be effective in common adventuring situations? Would the Feat fill an empty niche in the party? If the answer to either of these is "yes", it is a Feat that should probably be allowed. If the answer, particularly to the second, is "no", the GM should seriously consider before allowing it. If you only need a Feat to be effective or fill a niche in a particular, unusual situation, that is what Stunts are for.
3) Balance. This is a big one. HA!R is a pretty wide-open game system, and it's easy for power combos to get out of hand quickly. Players need to realize that part of the GM's job is to make the game fun for everybody. If you're infringing on someone else's niche, that makes the game less fun for them. If you are massively more powerful and more effective in a wide variety of situations that everyone else, again, that makes the game less fun for everyone else. First, everyone likes to be the star at least sometimes.
Second, over-powered characters often create the "Glitter Boy Paradox" (named after the ridiculously over-powered character class in the Rifts RPG). In order to challenge the Glitter Boy, the GM may be forced to throw opponents against the party that no one else can seriously threaten, and that can obliterate anyone else with ease. That's no fun for everyone else. Or the GM may need to contrive circumstances to deny the Glitter Boy the opportunity to use his kewl powerz. That's often tough on the GM, and frustrating for the Glitter Boy. The easiest solution is just not to allow a Glitter Boy into the game in the first place.
SUMMARY: Just because a Feat makes sense and there's a precedent for it, doesn't mean a GM should allow it, or that a player should feel "nerfed" if a GM vetoes it. Basically, what all the above comes down to, is, no, Jeremy, you can't have Tremor Sense and Earth Healing.