[Powers] Are Multiplicative Modifiers Fairer?

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

* SPENDS 3 FP TO SUMMON M- * Oh, wait...

I was wondering why I was having a hard time sleeping today.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

I'm mostly with the pervert, for his reasons. The only time I don't use MM is when I think the players involved would prefer the greater simplicity. We have GMd and played in each others' supers games and are probably a pretty good testing ground for this discussion, actually.

It really is a matter of taste. I highly recommend it for supers games. (As well as LogST from "Knowing Your Own Strength.")

Yes, it can be abused. But, anything really can. It helps homogenize, and generally lower, the costs of abilities. For a supers game, that's good. It's not any additional work for the GM, especially if you've set out solid expectations for the game.

Setting Damage, DR and ST caps for the game, up front, will also give you the ability to eyeball less obvious abilities to see if they fit within the power level.

It helps to keep the numbers of limitations on abilities manageable, and rewards players for taking a limitation as opposed to, honestly, punishing them.

But, really, the best way of figuring out if MM are right for you and your group is to give it a shot and play with them. Give it a test. See if it's what you want to use. Run a short arc with a bunch of MM-based supers and see if you like it better than the AM-based version.

Make the same character twice, one with AM, and then again in MM and see which one feels better.

[AlexanderHowl]

Alright, consider the following ability: Burning Attack 1d (Aura, +80%; Backlash, DX-5 and IQ-5, Resisted by HT, -50%; Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Cyclic, 60 1-second cycles, Immersion in Water, +5950%; Delay, +20%; Melee, C, No Parry, -30%; No Signature, +20%; Selective Effect, +20%; Selectivity, +10%; Surge, +20%). In an additive campaign, the cost would be 322 CP (+6340%). In a multiplicative campaign, the cost would be 65 CP (5×.2×65).

Now, what is the effect of the ability? First, it deals a total of 60d of electricity damage over 60 seconds that completely ignores DR. Second, it does so passively, through an aura, so it happens whether the character attacks in melee or suffers a melee attack. Third, the source is undetectable, so a character could easily tap a target and walk away with anyone realizing it was them. Fourth, they can delay the attack, meaning they could be halfway across the world before the target starts to die.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by zoncxs

Example of broken multiplicative.

Super ST (max duration, 30s, -75%; super effort, +300%; PM, -10%)

Normal cost = 31.5 per level

Multi cost = 8 per level

So for 320pts you can get:

ST 20/110. With 5 points to spare.

Or

ST 50/ over 5,000,000

Implying you can't already break >100% enhancements using "limited enhancements"

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Alright, consider the following ability: Burning Attack 1d (Aura, +80%; Backlash, DX-5 and IQ-5, Resisted by HT, -50%; Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Cyclic, 60 1-second cycles, Immersion in Water, +5950%; Delay, +20%; Melee, C, No Parry, -30%; No Signature, +20%; Selective Effect, +20%; Selectivity, +10%; Surge, +20%). In an additive campaign, the cost would be 322 CP (+6340%). In a multiplicative campaign, the cost would be 65 CP (5×.2×65).

Now, what is the effect of the ability? First, it deals a total of 60d of electricity damage over 60 seconds that completely ignores DR. Second, it does so passively, through an aura, so it happens whether the character attacks in melee or suffers a melee attack. Third, the source is undetectable, so a character could easily tap a target and walk away with anyone realizing it was them. Fourth, they can delay the attack, meaning they could be halfway across the world before the target starts to die.

So ?

Yes, you can make cheap and devastating abiliies with MM.
Much cheaper than with Additive.
Nobody is claiming otherwise.

But it doesn't make MM bad or unplayable because the GM have to approve the build. (assuming he did not design them himself).

Also, following the basic principe of 'a limitation that doesn't limit is worth nothing, I would never allow a -50% backlash on a delay, no signature, aura, selective IA ...

Moreover, even if most setting would veto this power, it does perfectly illustrate the benefit of MM :

With additives modifier, this power cost [322] .
Without the backlash and melee only, it would cost ... [326]
Why would anyone take 80% of limitations for a miserable 4 points gain out of 326 ? ???

While with MM, it cost either [326] or [66] : now you have a valid reason to take limitations !

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Alright, consider the following ability: Burning Attack 1d (Aura, +80%; Backlash, DX-5 and IQ-5, Resisted by HT, -50%; Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Cyclic, 60 1-second cycles, Immersion in Water, +5950%; Delay, +20%; Melee, C, No Parry, -30%; No Signature, +20%; Selective Effect, +20%; Selectivity, +10%; Surge, +20%). In an additive campaign, the cost would be 322 CP (+6340%). In a multiplicative campaign, the cost would be 65 CP (5×.2×65).

Now, what is the effect of the ability? First, it deals a total of 60d of electricity damage over 60 seconds that completely ignores DR. Second, it does so passively, through an aura, so it happens whether the character attacks in melee or suffers a melee attack. Third, the source is undetectable, so a character could easily tap a target and walk away with anyone realizing it was them. Fourth, they can delay the attack, meaning they could be halfway across the world before the target starts to die.

Reductio ad absurdum.

"The ability has been considered and rejected for being abusive. It is both outside the scope laid out for the game and outside the spirit of the game. Thank you, return to character generation. Be more mindful of the scope of the game in the future."

The ability is unacceptable in any game I would run Additive or Multiplicative Modifiers don't even enter into the discussion. The point total is superfluous. Congratulations, you've successfully pointed out that every game needs GM oversight. You win one internets.

But, as Celjabba points out your absurdity actually point out in favor of multiplicative modifiers. If you use AM, there is no point in limiting the power as the points you get back are absurdly low, but, with MM they're worth taking.

[AlexanderHowl]

Theme mostly. We take limitations to make abilities interesting rather than overwhelming. And it is the RAW rule that allows for the greatest game balance.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The problem with MM is the you can kill everyone in the world for 50 CP. So, imagine that I have Burning Attack 1d (Area Effect 25, +1,250%; Cosmic, Irresistible Attack, +300%; Cyclic, 30 1-second attacks, Immersion in Water, +2,900%; Emanation, -20%; No Signature, +20%; Preparation Required, 8 hours, -60%; Selective Area, +20%). In an additive system, that ability would add to +4,510% and would cost 231 CP, which is probably low for a global threat power, but it is RAW. In the multiplicative system, that ability would be 5 × 0.2 × 46.9, which ends up being 47 CP, which is a bit low for the ability to start the apocalypse.

That is not a problem with Multiplicative Modifiers. It is a problem with the GM allowing it. It is not a bug that the game has the ability to do this, it is a feature. You are arguing absurdities that no GM would allow in their game. You're assuming that the players get to make their characters in a void and everything is legal.

Oh, look:
DR 6 (Cosmic, Force Field, No Signature, Tough Skin, Accessibility [only against absurd powers]) [10], your power is irrelevant.

[eta]
And, I can cause the apocalypse for less than 50 points without using Multiplicative Modifiers.
Burning Attack 1pt (Partial Dice (1 pt only), Area Effect 25, Cosmic (Irresistible Attack), Extended Duration (x3), No Signature, Persistent, Rapid Fire x300, Rapid Fire: Very Rapid Fire, Selective Area) [42]
[/eta]

You changed your post while I was responding, but to respond to your updated post:

YOU take limitations to make abilities interesting rather than overwhelming. Not everyone does. And you're making another assumption that Additive Modifiers are more balanced than Multiplicative, even though, you yourself, in an attempt to cast aspersions on MM, have proven numerous problems with the Additive process.

If they don't fit with your game, that's great. Don't use Multiplicative Modifiers then. No one is making you. I have years of experience using them, and they're not broken. No matter how much you try to cherry pick your results. MM is also RAW, it's just an alternative rule, like every other rule in GURPS.

The OP's question wasn't "Can I break the game with Multiplicative Modifiers, and how would I go about doing so?" but, "are [they] fairer?" And, the answer, as are most answers in GURPS: it depends on what you're looking for.

If you're playing a supers game, yes. If you're not, then it still depends.

But, like everything in GURPS, it can be abused and requires GM oversight.

[AlexanderHowl]

The question is 'are MM fairer' though, and they are not. People take limitations in the additive system because that it what seems fair to them, not because it will get them a buttload of points back. With MM though, the incentives are always going to unfairly favor the characters with -80% limitations, so it is implicitly not fair.

So, let us look at the following scenario with MM. I have two characters with 375 CP of abilities. One of them takes Burning Attack 15d (Accuracy +10, +50%; Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Increased Range, x50%, +50%) [375]. The other takes Burning Attack 15d (Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Costs, 10 ER, -50%; Melee, C, -30%) [60], ER 15 [45], Regeneration (Extreme, ER Only, +0%) [150], and Warp (Range Limited, 100 miles, -20%; Reliable +10, +50%) [120]. The latter character is vastly more capable than the former character, as they can spend 15 ER between Burning Attack and Warp every turn, teleporting up to 100 miles away to engage opponents instantly with their Burning Attack.

Two similar characters with AM reflect the true utility of the characters. The former character is still 375 CP, but the latter character is now 550 CP, a 175 CP difference between the two models. AM becomes fairer to the players of both characters because the player of the former character does not feel cheated while the player of the latter character has less incentive to stack limitations.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The question is 'are MM fairer' though, and they are not. People take limitations in the additive system because that it what seems fair to them, not because it will get them a buttload of points back. With MM though, the incentives are always going to unfairly favor the characters with -80% limitations, so it is implicitly not fair.

So, let us look at the following scenario with MM. I have two characters with 375 CP of abilities. One of them takes Burning Attack 15d (Accuracy +10, +50%; Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Increased Range, x50%, +50%) [375]. The other takes Burning Attack 15d (Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Costs, 10 ER, -50%; Melee, C, -30%) [60], ER 15 [45], Regeneration (Extreme, ER Only, +0%) [150], and Warp (Range Limited, 100 miles, -20%; Reliable +10, +50%) [120]. The latter character is vastly more capable than the former character, as they can spend 15 ER between Burning Attack and Warp every turn, teleporting up to 100 miles away to engage opponents instantly with their Burning Attack.

Two similar characters with AM reflect the true utility of the characters. The former character is still 375 CP, but the latter character is now 550 CP, a 175 CP difference between the two models. AM becomes fairer to the players of both characters because the player of the former character does not feel cheated while the player of the latter character has less incentive to stack limitations.

Completely disagree.

First of all, MM is a setting switch, not a per-character switch. Assuming otherwise is the height of absurdity, and that seems to be the limit of your ability to discuss the topic. Everything you're trying to post is absurd and not reasonable. From now on, everyone should assume that any absurd power you list you would, unquestioningly allow in any and all of your games. If that's not true, stop using them. Only use examples you would allow.

Two characters using MM are equally capable. I've been using MM in supers games for years, and, experience tells me you're blowing smoke. It's obvious you've never used them or even tried to. Or, you're just a horrible GM because you don't ever try to keep your game balanced.

[eta]
Obviously, you're choosing to simply raise obtuse issues. Sure, if you're not going to take any limitations then an ability is going to be more expensive. But, that's intellectually dishonest and further proof you're making a strawman. Try making some actual characters and not Reductio ad absurdum arguments. Abusive powers in a vacuum just aren't worth anything. They're proving that you don't actually have a valid point and you're just making strawmen to knock down.
[/eta]

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The question is 'are MM fairer' though, and they are not. People take limitations in the additive system because that it what seems fair to them, not because it will get them a buttload of points back. With MM though, the incentives are always going to unfairly favor the characters with -80% limitations, so it is implicitly not fair.

So, let us look at the following scenario with MM. I have two characters with 375 CP of abilities. One of them takes Burning Attack 15d (Accuracy +10, +50%; Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Increased Range, x50%, +50%) [375]. The other takes Burning Attack 15d (Cosmic, Irresistable Attack, +300%; Costs, 10 ER, -50%; Melee, C, -30%) [60], ER 15 [45], Regeneration (Extreme, ER Only, +0%) [150], and Warp (Range Limited, 100 miles, -20%; Reliable +10, +50%) [120]. The latter character is vastly more capable than the former character, as they can spend 15 ER between Burning Attack and Warp every turn, teleporting up to 100 miles away to engage opponents instantly with their Burning Attack.

I note that one flaw with the latter character is that he can't attack without putting himself in arms reach of his foe. Also there's the teleportation nausea issue. I also question whether limited range on your warp is worth 20%. Warp is limited by the skill roll.

But all that is beside the real point which is that all you are saying is that MM makes complicated power designs cheaper. We already know that.