So, I've been looking at how we tend to look at the rules. We know that this is a game based on a lot of negotiation and reasonable assumption.

What is missing from the assumptions of a GM controlling the game and presenting it fairly isn't actually in the rules itself and in the interest of honest observation exposes the game's greatest weakness: Inherent balance is missing.

Why, what ever do you mean?
Well, mainly lateral balance (how one character compares to the next) in our random system, illustrated by combat balance.
Watch this, and you'll see what I mean:

Lets assume we have 2 characters who each get one power and no buffed stats.
They're first level.
They both weigh 175 pounds and have stats of 10 across the board: They're average.

Each of them has rolled randomly and arrived at a power.
The first guy gets Natural Weaponry: +3 To hit, + 6 damage. We'll call him Catman.
The second guy gets Power Blast. We'll call him Blaster.

If we begin a combat and they both roll 0 on the dice, they both get an action on phase segments 20 and 5. Lets assume they can both attack for those two actions.

Natural Weaponry isn't a defense and attacks as "HTH".
Power Blast is both a defense and an attack type.

Neither character has a defensive advantage due to range or evasion calculations.
Both guys are -1 to hit due to level gap.
Including the characters Natural Weaponry mod, Catman needs a 7, a 35% chance of success.
Blaster needs a 15 or less to hit for Power Blast, or a 75% chance of success.

If Catman hits, he has a damage potential of 1d4+6, for an average of 8.5 points per hit.
If Blaster hits, he has a damage potential of 1d20, for an average of 10.5 points damage per hit.

They're both going to have 4 Basic Hits, 4 Hit points and 40 Power.

Catman will inflict [.35 (hit probability) x 8.5 (average damage) x 2 (attacks this round)=] 6.15 average damage per turn.

Blaster will inflict [.75 (hit probability) x 10.5 (average damage) x 2 (attacks this round)=] 15.75 average damage per turn.

In this match-up, it's not a contest at all. If averages hold true, Catman's combat clock will run out much sooner than Blaster's combat clock. Even though Blaster could use his power as a defense, he has no reason to further reduce the chances against him to allow Catman's clock to be prolonged.

This is why the combat table as cool as it is, seems so out of whack. This is why random character generation can be so unfair.

While it's totally cool when the player feels like they've made a great character, it sucks hard when they see a better character materialize for someone else and then in practice it bears out.

I am working to evaluate how powers compare to each other with the method of determining how they impact the combat clock of a character. Let me tell you - it's a big undertaking. And I think it's the key to making the Revised Edition come to the modern age without making what comes before incompatible.

You can also make changes to powers, to make them more "balanced". If "Catman's" abilities are stacking up to the other players, then let his Natural Weaponry provide some sort of defensive abilities, say a working like a modified version of Heightened Defense.

That's what I've always loved about V&V, GMs are actually encouraged to modify powers, rules, etc. or throw them out completely if need be to fit the situation.

the difference is :
- in V&V the characters are played (so in the same team someone who plays a weaker character can feel a bit scammed )
- Thor and Ant man aren't played, they are real 

John wrote on Jul 20^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:


And, for what it's worth, the attached panel from Avengers #2 shows Thor's positive reaction to just one of Ant-Man's "miraculous" powers ...

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 20^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Especially with young players who can be really jealous of each others characters

dsumner wrote on Jul 20^th, 2014 at 9:12am:


This is what I like too, but there's not even a baseline for new GMs to gauge what works.  (I already think competent GMs have already house ruled this game to death )

Most of us are insulated and somewhat numb to this topic here. We've been seeing and negotiating the material for a long time. I think the lack of structure is a second language for us, things being unbalanced don't bother us so much as deciding how sweet we make our tea with arbitrary senses. (Pours sugar until... stop, that's good right there?)

I'm thinking about the future and promoting this game to a new crowd and doing real marketing and competing against modern product. I know if my current players (experienced people!) are raising issues it could be a sign of difficult times ahead.

At any rate, anything that anyone thinks might help is welcome. I'm not looking to change the Revised Edition, just trying to sense out some balance in it. Thanks.

I see where AK is coming from. For V&V to thrive and grow, maybe just to even survive, you have to look at where the new blood will come from. Most of them will come from some form of D&D, which tend to be more lists of what the feats and spells let you do, wihout the 'work with the GM backside to improve and develop more comparable characters'. 

A group coming from that mindset will end uo with some folks complaining they got scrwewd and their character sucks. Just because of dice rolls. That is one reason my group came up with the aforementioned 'pick your powers between the table you chose and the skills table'.

If the game had some kind of way to help this balancing built in, it would only improve the game and help new people while not affecting experienced players.

Ranger wrote on Jul 21^st, 2014 at 3:40am:

Let's not paint this conversation in to point shaving and generic powers. That's totally not what I said. More to that point: To the uninitiated, they see a game with no underlying foundation that over the top it looks like an accounting exercise. Most people see that and like my wife, say, "That is a lot of work."

EDIT: And Balance is about the combat clock: How long a character can survive against a threat of the same level. Adjust from there. /EDIT

Quote:

This is exactly correct. And the point of this thread is that in today's market, savvy players who are used to more structure need more than the GM to say "because I said so" with no teaching the GM the basis behind their decisions and also the ability to be confident and convincing with those decisions.

That typically comes with a grasp of rules that have that invested structure - due to the way most games develop.

It's the same thing as a musician who is a wonder savant and learns by ear being far more rare than someone who want to study music yet has little in raw talent. 

You have to be either a frequent generation flyer of this game or talented enough to mask to deficiencies.

I'm trying to find a way to frame a viewer to the rules to give them a foundation of balance for the newcomer, not create a point-based generic system to replace the game. 

When I first started playing V&V  my first two players rolled up characters.  One was a Batman type with 30 hits. He could start fires with his mind, regenerate, and see the future when he slept.


The second guy was a killer robot with over 400 hits,  could lift tons, had automatic weapons built it, armor, and so many freakin sensors it was insane.

The robot learned to download his programing to other bodies and could never die. 

The first guy died after many adventures.


That was 20 years ago and we still stalk about those stories.    Dreadnaught could have destroyed Prometheus in one attack.   BUT they enhanced each other.   Prometheus sought out clues and took out the master minds behind each adventure while Dreadnaught took out EVERYTHING else.    The imbalance made it possible for each player to lean toward different aspects of the story.    They functioned very well together, and were very effective.  Had they been balanced, this dynamic dichotomy would not have happened.

appreciate that insight PB. Thanks.

Quote:


I could have killed him with just movement points 

That's actually not a bad way to do it Ranger.  Go for the multi-powers on the few table, the more separate powers on the many table.  It could even be presented that way as an option to help balance out some things.

Still won't be perfect, but the only perfect way is to just work it out with the GM.  This could help GM's who don't feel confident or understand the rules.

In our game, we've gone a step towards what it sounds like 3.0 will be like (from the little we saw a few years ago).  We roll randomly for the first four powers (using Imaginos' system of applying the number rolled to one of the charts but having the option of using that same roll towards the Skills chart), and then we allow 1-2 more powers that are picked at the same corresponding power as 1-2 weaknesses (so if the player wants 6 powers, with the last two chosen ones really powerful, then he has to take 1-2 really potent weaknesses).

Yeah, definitely one consequence of doing this means that villains (and other NPCs) need to be given a bit more 'oomph'.

One wouldn't have to do 4-6 powers. but I think 3 is probably the minimum you'd want to have.

I think that Changeling and Terra had fewer than three powers as well in that iconic Different Worlds article. I would hate to see titanic characters like these deemed unplayable.

Majestic wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2014 at 9:02pm:


That's exactly why I always thought it was cool that you could start out with maybe one or two powers.

Since even a character with only one power gets three to choose from, I don't see how anyone could get stuck with only Speed Bonus, but whatever... We do not have to agree on this.