Realigning Power Defense

[zornwil]

One aspect of PowDef that I find "broken", if we are speaking from a more philosophical standpoint, is that it is bought for a character for ALL of their traits (characteristics, powers) at once while unlike STUN or BODY it does not apply to the holistic character but rather to constituent parts. PowDef represents how "glued" the traits are to a character - not anything about the overall character, even if we discuss Transform as Transform really (mechanically) is about targetting BOD.

Another aspect of PowDef is the confusion on what it means as compared to other defense forms. I think this is a byproduct of it being applied to a character as opposed to the parts of a character. If we become clear that PowDef is "how hard is it to take away/alter your parts," then even if we still have a fog around the SFX of it until that is defined per-instance, at least we understand that it isn't, in concept, universal equally to all of a character's part - it's just implemented that way for ease. An ease in execution which creates this confusion over what PowDef really is.

Further, Inherent is a real show-stopper in HERO philosophy - I would argue it's an outright mistake. It's one of the relatively rare instances of an absolute power. It is invulnerability for a power/trait against Adjustment powers. Right there, book-legal, even though "absolutes aren't allowed in HERO."

And Inherent is applied, of course, per characteristic/power, unlike PowDef, another conceptual disconnect.

IF we want to keep the system more or less the same in points/balance and mechanics in regard to Adjustment Powers (I don't, but that's another story), one option is to realign PowDef and make it like the Adjustment Powers but try to keep cost consistent. I would say that you purchase PowDef PER POWER/CHAR BUT that you also may apply to PowDef, like Adjustment Powers, the Advantages for applying it to more powers/chars based on SFX. Now, if we want to keep balance the same, that means basically we need to recost PowDef to be cheaper and for its cost to be more or less the same when it is applied to all of a character's traits.

So we could say that 1 CP = 3 PowDef applicable to any one SFX. Unlike attacks, because Pow Def is always invoked one power/char at a time (I guess you could argue against that when multiple powers/chars are attacked at a time, it depends on whether you view those as multiple discrete-but-linked attacks...), we don't have to define it for a certain number of powers. Then we use the Pow Adj Advantage Multiple Special Effects:

+1/4 - 2 SFX
+1 - 4 SFX
+2 - all SFX (which means that 1 CP = 1 Pow Def for the entire character)

The above values might not scale well enough and we might have to break from what Multiple Special Effects Advantage values are for attacks versus Pow Def, but at least it becomes consistent and more clearly aligned to what Adjustment Powers do, attack the char/power, not the character.

There are also a couple mechanical advantages here that I see. One is that characters who purchase multiple SFX are disadvantaged compared to those with 1 or 2 SFX. To me, that seems to make sense - the multiple SFX characters are implicitly purchasing a better value, hedging their bets against Adjustments powers, in mechanical effect. So they suffer a bit under this scheme compared to their more susceptible counterparts, as it should be in a points-balanced system. Note that we aren't making those characters pay more - we're making those with fewer SFX pay less. The other mechanical advantage is that it becomes more apparent as to scaling PowDef for one particular suite of powers.

One complication is that SFX don't really relate to basic characteristics. One could either rule that the "non-SFX" abilities of a character are grouped with the character's primary SFX or you could call those their own separate SFX and force a purchase of a +1/4 Adv if the desire is to cover a bunch of SFX-related abilities along with the core non-SFX abilities. I'm not sure which is better.

Personally, I would also recost Pow Def, making it somewhat more expensive to purchase for a character overall, so maybe 1 CP = 2 Pow Def above, or even 1 per 1. I think that makes Adjustments and Defenses for those more interesting, but that may or may not suit balance.

Of course you can retain Inherent as well in this schema. I would argue against doing so, based on recent conversations and thoughts on it, but that's another matter.

[Cancer]

You have a point about Power Defense, but without a blanket power like that, then the guy with a Variable Effect Drain cannot be stopped. He just pokes at you, one stat at a time, until he finds one where you didn't buy the requisite defense. Instant broken system. I *like* PowDef for that reason: it suppresses munchkinesque broken powers quite handily.

Viewed from a physical-world perspective, ED is a goofy catchall sort of thing also. The actual physically effective defenses against sonics, visible lasers, lightning strike, gamma radiation, and microwave beams are quite different, but we're free to lump all those together as SFX and buy ED Armor that works against them all.

The distinction between ED and PowDef is that the abstraction layer happens at a different place. ED and EB make a clear effect diad. PowDef is the counter to several different Adjustment Powers, which says the abstraction is drawn at a different level there.

[Supreme Serpent]

I agree Power Defense is a weird, out of place construct.

The solution is to get rid of Adjustment Powers. :straight:

Really. If Pow Def didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. Trying to tie it to SFX should IMO work in reverse (ie Limit it if it only protects X abilities or vs. X SFX).

[tesuji]

IMX i have had better results for adjustment powers in general buy buying them as +1/2 NNDs. most of the adjustment power sfx dont make as much sense in concept, IMO, vs some vague undefined "power defense" as they do if you simply define the circumstances where they fail outright and let the rest just happen.

then again, i too dont like power defense as written and rarely use it in any unlimited form. I prefer it to be SFX dependent by default, but you can handle that now by merely insisting the lims be applied.

overall tho, were i to rewrite the HERO game, I would change adjustment powers to be NND-ish by default, and fairly much eliminate power defense as an entity.

[AmadanNaBriona]

This was central to my assertion many moons ago that compiling a fairly comprehensive list of SFX as a guide/default/baseline would be a GOOD IDEA (tm). I'm not big on Power Defence as written, because it really is very broad & vague, and I have some issues with Adjustment powers as well... both can suffer a weird disconnect between intent and function.

The base idea looks good Zorn. Keep tinkering :thumbup:

[Robyn]

Trying to tie it to SFX should IMO work in reverse (ie Limit it if it only protects X abilities or vs. X SFX).

I agree in theory, though I think that - given how Advantages and Limitations are cumulative with each other - some cost comparisons would be useful to see how Power Defense works out done each way.

[sbarron]

Trying to tie it to SFX should IMO work in reverse (ie Limit it if it only protects X abilities or vs. X SFX).This is my thinking on it. If you want Power Defense only to protect certain things, then limit it.

[zornwil]

You have a point about Power Defense, but without a blanket power like that, then the guy with a Variable Effect Drain cannot be stopped. He just pokes at you, one stat at a time, until he finds one where you didn't buy the requisite defense. Instant broken system. I *like* PowDef for that reason: it suppresses munchkinesque broken powers quite handily.

Viewed from a physical-world perspective, ED is a goofy catchall sort of thing also. The actual physically effective defenses against sonics, visible lasers, lightning strike, gamma radiation, and microwave beams are quite different, but we're free to lump all those together as SFX and buy ED Armor that works against them all.

The distinction between ED and PowDef is that the abstraction layer happens at a different place. ED and EB make a clear effect diad. PowDef is the counter to several different Adjustment Powers, which says the abstraction is drawn at a different level there.
I think you're missing the point. A character can buy PowDef under this system for all his chars/powers for the same cost as now - a +2 Advantage to do so simply makes the cost 1 CP per 1 PowDef for all stats.

However, I don't really agree with that, but I"m deliberately remaining HERO-consistent.

[zornwil]

IMX i have had better results for adjustment powers in general buy buying them as +1/2 NNDs. most of the adjustment power sfx dont make as much sense in concept, IMO, vs some vague undefined "power defense" as they do if you simply define the circumstances where they fail outright and let the rest just happen.

then again, i too dont like power defense as written and rarely use it in any unlimited form. I prefer it to be SFX dependent by default, but you can handle that now by merely insisting the lims be applied.

overall tho, were i to rewrite the HERO game, I would change adjustment powers to be NND-ish by default, and fairly much eliminate power defense as an entity.
I might do that. I think Adjustment Powers need a complete overhaul, anyway.

For now, in my games, I substitute Supernatural Defense for PowDef, and of course if an Adjustment Power is not "supernatural" (you could easily use the term metaphysical instead), then you simply change it to Phys, Ener, Ment, or NND or whatever.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm with the "limit it to apply to only certain SFX". If it applies to only one SFX, a -2 limitation gets the same result as your proposal, Zornwil.

If we start limiting to SFX by default, we get one of two effects. Either everyone buys the "all SFX" advantage, and we're back where we started from, or it becomes an arm's race to find the SFX that no one thinks to include in their reduced list of SFX to which the defense applies.

I also agree that Power Defense is an amalgamation of many disparate types of defense, but that ED is as well, as posted above. It's funny how downgrading power defense is often proposed, but no one wants to split the much more commonly applicable ED into Flame defense, Cold defense, Radiation defense, Lightning Defense, etc. etc. etc.

[zornwil]

I'm with the "limit it to apply to only certain SFX". If it applies to only one SFX, a -2 limitation gets the same result as your proposal, Zornwil.

If we start limiting to SFX by default, we get one of two effects. Either everyone buys the "all SFX" advantage, and we're back where we started from, or it becomes an arm's race to find the SFX that no one thinks to include in their reduced list of SFX to which the defense applies.

I also agree that Power Defense is an amalgamation of many disparate types of defense, but that ED is as well, as posted above. It's funny how downgrading power defense is often proposed, but no one wants to split the much more commonly applicable ED into Flame defense, Cold defense, Radiation defense, Lightning Defense, etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, I understand your and SBarron's point, but my attempt here is to make it much clearer to players they are purchasing PowDef for their ABILITIES, not for their intrinsic character per se.

Since I'm trying to be consistent, I'm deliberately allowing/encouraging us to be "back where we started from" in this incremental approach. But please note, the side benefit is that Pow Def is cheaper for characters who stick to 1 or 2 SFX. Which I think balances with Adjustment Powers.

[Supreme Serpent]

Since I'm trying to be consistent, I'm deliberately allowing/encouraging us to be "back where we started from" in this incremental approach. But please note, the side benefit is that Pow Def is cheaper for characters who stick to 1 or 2 SFX. Which I think balances with Adjustment Powers.


...but it already IS cheaper to do it that way, isn't it? Is there some restriction keeping people from putting a "Only to protect fire powers" Limitation on their Power Defense? Since your method comes out to the same end cost, how is it really a big departure from what's already available? :confused:

[archermoo]

Further, Inherent is a real show-stopper in HERO philosophy - I would argue it's an outright mistake. It's one of the relatively rare instances of an absolute power. It is invulnerability for a power/trait against Adjustment powers. Right there, book-legal, even though "absolutes aren't allowed in HERO."

Just a comment on this side issue:

I don't see Inherent as being a problem. It gives you, with the refs permission, the ability to say "This power is as much a part of my character as my eyes are". You cannot drain someone's normal sight either. Does that count as an absolute in Hero that shouldn't be allowed?

[tesuji]

Just a comment on this side issue:

I don't see Inherent as being a problem. It gives you, with the refs permission, the ability to say "This power is as much a part of my character as my eyes are". You cannot drain someone's normal sight either. Does that count as an absolute in Hero that shouldn't be allowed?

Bad analogy... i can ATTACK your normal sight, just with the power flash, and there is no "all stop" vs flash attacks like there is vs adjustment powers.

[zornwil]

...but it already IS cheaper to do it that way, isn't it? Is there some restriction keeping people from putting a "Only to protect fire powers" Limitation on their Power Defense? Since your method comes out to the same end cost, how is it really a big departure from what's already available? :confused:
1 - it clarifies that you are purchasing it for powers/chars, not "the character"

2 - it allows PCs with extremely tight SFX a (IMHO) reasonable benefit

[OddHat]

Bad analogy... i can ATTACK your normal sight, just with the power flash, and there is no "all stop" vs flash attacks like there is vs adjustment powers.

And you can cut out a target's eyes, either using the disabling rules or as the SFX of a transform. Same with any body part.

[zornwil]

Just a comment on this side issue:

I don't see Inherent as being a problem. It gives you, with the refs permission, the ability to say "This power is as much a part of my character as my eyes are". You cannot drain someone's normal sight either. Does that count as an absolute in Hero that shouldn't be allowed?
I understand that but I do not see why we need an absolute here. May as well introduce Invulnerability SFX-based into the system. Why is Inherent needed? It has a handy utility to it, but I don't see why we need to clutter the book with a power just as easily managed per game, and one that introduces a potentially unpleasant balance challenge if we beleive Adjustment powers are part of the gaming aspect.

But this has been discussed elsewhere and is a divergence from the thread which does not propose a change to Inherent.

[OddHat]

Using the logic of Inherent, you could buy a +1/4 advantage to your Body or Stun and declare yourself Invulnerable. Groovy. :)

Zornwil, I owe you rep.

[archermoo]

Using the logic of Inherent, you could buy a +1/4 advantage to your Body or Stun and declare yourself Invulnerable. Groovy. :)

Zornwil, I owe you rep.

Well, with a sufficient stretch, you could. At least invulnerable to having your body or stun Adjusted, since that is all inherent does.

And as to the eyes being cut out, or blinded with a flash, etc, very true. And if I have wings as inherent flight, my wings can be cut off or restrained. Inherent doesn't say "this power cannot be effected at all", it says "Adjustment powers don't work on this power". If you bought IR vision Inherent it could still be flashed by a Sight Group or IR Vision flash, and would still go away if your eyes were cut out.

And Zornwil, sorry for the derail, but I was just responding to statements you made in your initial post.

[OddHat]

Well, with a sufficient stretch, you could. At least invulnerable to having your body or stun Adjusted, since that is all inherent does.

If I can use a 1/4 advantage to make part of my character invulnerable to one category of powers (Adjustment Powers), why not another? Say, Attack Powers? If balance isn't a factor in one category, why is it a factor in another?


And as to the eyes being cut out, or blinded with a flash, etc, very true. And if I have wings as inherent flight, my wings can be cut off or restrained. Inherent doesn't say "this power cannot be effected at all", it says "Adjustment powers don't work on this power". If you bought IR vision Inherent it could still be flashed by a Sight Group or IR Vision flash, and would still go away if your eyes were cut out.

When the SFX of a transform is "I cut off his wings", the character with Inherent Flight is immune to the adjustment power even though he wouldn't be immune to (for example) a targeted killing attack that did the same thing.

I've thought a bit about just dumping adjustment powers in favor of EBs with a +1/4 advantage "Alternate Stat Targeted". The "EB Versus Stat" goes up against standard PD or ED unless purchased as an NND or AVLD. Calculate "Stun" and "Body" normally. "Stun" is the number of Active points you lose but regain at a rate of REC per turn. "Body" that gets through reflects a loss of active points has to be healed at REC/10 per day (faster with Healing).

Want to use a nerve strike that weakens your foe? EB vs STR (+1/4). Want Power Damping Gas? EB NND versus Power or Category of Powers (as per the advantage currently used for adjustment powers).

Healing is purchased as REC usable by others, Succor or Aid as X points of the power or stat in question usable by others, advantages and limits added as appropriate.

Haven't play tested it, but it feels easier to fit into appropriate SFX for me than the current system.

[sinanju]

I agree Power Defense is a weird, out of place construct.

The solution is to get rid of Adjustment Powers. :straight:



Actually, I sort of agree. I think adjustment powers of some sorts can be justified, but mostly I don't like them. I've never liked stories in the comics where superpowers are almost like liquids, which can be easily poured from one container into another and back again.

I realize that this accurately models the comics--but I've never liked it. If I were to run another Champions game, I think a house rule would be that all powers are assumed to "Inherent"--just like your stats or your normal complement of 2 arms and 2 legs.

[archermoo]

If I can use a 1/4 advantage to make part of my character invulnerable to one category of powers (Adjustment Powers), why not another? Say, Attack Powers? If balance isn't a factor in one category, why is it a factor in another?

For the same reason I can't use Drain vs your normal sight. But, in deference to this not being the NGD (:)), and Zorwill having asked for this not to get discussed in this thread, we should probably take it elsewhere to discuss it further.

[archermoo]

Actually, I sort of agree. I think adjustment powers of some sorts can be justified, but mostly I don't like them. I've never liked stories in the comics where superpowers are almost like liquids, which can be easily poured from one container into another and back again.

I realize that this accurately models the comics--but I've never liked it. If I were to run another Champions game, I think a house rule would be that all powers are assumed to "Inherent"--just like your stats or your normal complement of 2 arms and 2 legs.

I will say that I've never liked Adjustment powers much, and rarely build characters based on them. And even then, Aid is the one I'm most likely to use.

[steamteck]

Actually, I sort of agree. I think adjustment powers of some sorts can be justified, but mostly I don't like them. I've never liked stories in the comics where superpowers are almost like liquids, which can be easily poured from one container into another and back again.

I realize that this accurately models the comics--but I've never liked it. If I were to run another Champions game, I think a house rule would be that all powers are assumed to "Inherent"--just like your stats or your normal complement of 2 arms and 2 legs.


I agree of course we've had this discussion before. Although I do use aid with certain limitations for healing or even gaining strength by touching certain materials I just don't suck peoples powers out. Drain their batteries maybe though. I really don't have any problem with power defense as is but them again doen't come up much for me.

[AmadanNaBriona]

The point about Inherent providing absolute Defense against Adjustment powers is quite a vaild concern, in my book.

Oddhat nailed it with the "Transform as the power, SFX is a targeting attack" wing-chop example. An eye gouge is another.
(BTW, Oddhat... I really like the core idea you just laid out. You should flesh it out and post it again in its own thread)

Another thing about the current universal and cheap Power Def. It's not fair. Its way to cheap (as is Inherent) for the cot of the Attacks it defends. If a character with no special senses wants to have 5 points of Flash Def that actually defends against ALL flashes that could effect him, he spends 20 points (Sight, Hearing, Touch, & Smell/Taste groups). Don't ask me about the SFX... a suite of Flash DEF like this would be almost as illogical as broad spectrum Power DEF to my mind. 20 points invested in Power DEF, not requiring diversification into any "groups" it defends, renders it a VERY effective defence against a lot of Adjustment powers, so much so that I've seldom ever even used it at that level unless I'm going for an invunerability angle. It stops 50 points worth of Drain or Major transform COLD, and renders almost any reasonable transform virtually useless.

This is one of those core assumptions that I think really needs to be revisited.

[archermoo]

The point about Inherent providing absolute Defense against Adjustment powers is quite a vaild concern, in my book.

Oddhat nailed it with the "Transform as the power, SFX is a targeting attack" wing-chop example. An eye gouge is another.
(BTW, Oddhat... I really like the core idea you just laid out. You should flesh it out and post it again in its own thread)

Another thing about the current universal and cheap Power Def. It's not fair. Its way to cheap (as is Inherent) for the cot of the Attacks it defends. If a character with no special senses wants to have 5 points of Flash Def that actually defends against ALL flashes that could effect him, he spends 20 points (Sight, Hearing, Touch, & Smell/Taste groups). Don't ask me about the SFX... a suite of Flash DEF like this would be almost as illogical as broad spectrum Power DEF to my mind. 20 points invested in Power DEF, not requiring diversification into any "groups" it defends, renders it a VERY effective defence against a lot of Adjustment powers, so much so that I've seldom ever even used it at that level unless I'm going for an invunerability angle. It stops 50 points worth of Drain or Major transform COLD, and renders almost any reasonable transform virtually useless.

This is one of those core assumptions that I think really needs to be revisited.

I'll note that Transform isn't an Adjustment power. It is a Standard/Attack power, so isn't effected by Inherent. Though Power Defense does indeed work against it.

On the whole PD thing, I think the idea that in general Power Defense should generally require being limited to specific Powers/Stats/SFX is a pretty good idea. But I don't think it needs more than a mention of such in the rulebook, rather than a wholesale changing of the mechanic.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I'll note that Transform isn't an Adjustment power. It is a Standard/Attack power, so isn't effected by Inherent. Though Power Defense does indeed work against it.

On the whole PD thing, I think the idea that in general Power Defense should generally require being limited to specific Powers/Stats/SFX is a pretty good idea. But I don't think it needs more than a mention of such in the rulebook, rather than a wholesale changing of the mechanic.

I really think it deserves more than a mention. Everything as it stands works just fine, IMHO, as long as you have a codified-for-your-campaign list of SFX in groups with subgroups, just like Sense groups, and use these groups for Adjustment powers (and Transform... I never caught that before, BTW... thanx) and Power Def, with a fairly comprehensive list laid out as a useable example. There are only a couple of places where my Realisim and Dramatics circuts get crosswired and short out (the others are Size/Scale and Find Weakness).

Adjustment powers are incredibly SFX dependent, and I'd like to see a less offhand approach to the whole thing.

[archermoo]

I really think it deserves more than a mention. Everything as it stands works just fine, IMHO, as long as you have a codified-for-your-campaign list of SFX in groups with subgroups, just like Sense groups, and use these groups for Adjustment powers (and Transform... I never caught that before, BTW... thanx) and Power Def, with a fairly comprehensive list laid out as a useable example. There are only a couple of places where my Realisim and Dramatics circuts get crosswired and short out (the others are Size/Scale and Find Weakness).

Adjustment powers are incredibly SFX dependent, and I'd like to see a less offhand approach to the whole thing.

I certainly agree with that. It has always been my opinion that Adjustment powers should be based on SFX, not on Power. So when I run, that's basically how it works. I don't have a written down list of groups and sub-groups, but Adjustment powers have to have very specific descriptions of how and why they work, and if it doesn't make sense for for instance a particular Drain to work against a particular Energy Blast, then it won't. And I try to make sure people realize that.

[zornwil]

Well, with a sufficient stretch, you could. At least invulnerable to having your body or stun Adjusted, since that is all inherent does.

And as to the eyes being cut out, or blinded with a flash, etc, very true. And if I have wings as inherent flight, my wings can be cut off or restrained. Inherent doesn't say "this power cannot be effected at all", it says "Adjustment powers don't work on this power". If you bought IR vision Inherent it could still be flashed by a Sight Group or IR Vision flash, and would still go away if your eyes were cut out.

And Zornwil, sorry for the derail, but I was just responding to statements you made in your initial post.
I didn't mean to dismiss or anything, I know I brought it up, no need for apology. I was just wanting to avoid getting wrapped up in that on my own part just because there was a whole recent argument on it and I would just be repetitive.

[zornwil]

Well, with a sufficient stretch, you could. At least invulnerable to having your body or stun Adjusted, since that is all inherent does.

And as to the eyes being cut out, or blinded with a flash, etc, very true. And if I have wings as inherent flight, my wings can be cut off or restrained. Inherent doesn't say "this power cannot be effected at all", it says "Adjustment powers don't work on this power". If you bought IR vision Inherent it could still be flashed by a Sight Group or IR Vision flash, and would still go away if your eyes were cut out.

And Zornwil, sorry for the derail, but I was just responding to statements you made in your initial post.
PS - if the wings aren't a focus, I don't see how they could be cut off.

[zornwil]

For the same reason I can't use Drain vs your normal sight. But, in deference to this not being the NGD (:)), and Zorwill having asked for this not to get discussed in this thread, we should probably take it elsewhere to discuss it further.
Nah, I'm sorry, I was just speaking for myself, please go ahead, truly! :) I would be interested to read. Just not into it myself.

[zornwil]

Actually, I sort of agree. I think adjustment powers of some sorts can be justified, but mostly I don't like them. I've never liked stories in the comics where superpowers are almost like liquids, which can be easily poured from one container into another and back again.

I realize that this accurately models the comics--but I've never liked it. If I were to run another Champions game, I think a house rule would be that all powers are assumed to "Inherent"--just like your stats or your normal complement of 2 arms and 2 legs.
I have mixed feelings. I see Adj. powers as troubled, but I like the essential notion. In my prior campaign one of the PCs was an en energy-sucking dark elemental, who sucked BOD to feed his dark energy blast. (Oddly, despite that, he was the most heroic/"white" of the PC group, and not just as a relative statement, he was a straight-up good guy except for this one dark facet.) It was fun to watch and worked well.

By the way, I did not allow drained BOD to kill, but to render one into a coma, basically, though this depended a lot on their essential nature.

[OddHat]

PS - if the wings aren't a focus, I don't see how they could be cut off.

From a mechanics point of view, if the hit location and disabling rules are not in effect, you can not lose a limb or specific organ in Hero. A normal can shove a pocket knife directly into his own eye, twirl it around, and keep his sight. From a story point of view, I put this in the same category as other HERO Murphy's Rules and ignore it. Once a character isn't resisting, assuming you have reasonable means, you can do what you like to him.

[sinanju]

I agree of course we've had this discussion before. Although I do use aid with certain limitations for healing or even gaining strength by touching certain materials I just don't suck peoples powers out. Drain their batteries maybe though. I really don't have any problem with power defense as is but them again doen't come up much for me.

Yeah, I don't mind adjustment powers in some circumstances. If your touch drains the life from someone, a Drain power might be appropriate. What I object to specifically is some gadget/power that lets you suck the "Spider-Powers" out of Spider-Man, or turn Superman into mere mortal Clark Kent until they can figure out how to reverse that. Or worse, they then give those powers to someone else. Gah.

I think "taking away someone's powers" ought to be on a par with taking away his vision or his arms. Yeah, a bad guy can gouge your eyes out with a spoon--but that's a maiming attack that can't be neatly and easily reversed.

But, as you say, we've talked about this before.

[Robyn]

PS - if the wings aren't a focus, I don't see how they could be cut off.

In the same way as your arm could be cut off, even if you didn't buy it as a Focus.

[Lucius]

Using the logic of Inherent, you could buy a +1/4 advantage to your Body or Stun and declare yourself Invulnerable. Groovy. :)

Zornwil, I owe you rep.

I can't believe it!!

Yet another way to do "the property of being 'immune to most physical and energy attacks, including ones such as Drains and No Normal Defense attacks' (whatever word we end up applying to it, and whatever SFX justify it)"

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary notes that we're still avoiding the "I" word

[Robyn]

The palindromedary notes that we're still avoiding the "I" word

Rearranging the letters in your alphabet soup again?

You've traded in one "I" word for another: Inherent.

[Sean Waters]

Funny old game, Hero.

I was wondering about all of this, you know, adjustment powers and appropriate defences and I came to a couple for conclusions:

1. A lot of problems with adjustment powers are solved by applying proper game logic in the construction stage. Yes, you can drain strength, but how do you do it? Does it work against mechanical and biological strength and what if the strength is bought as 'touch telekinesis' - what is your drain actualy doing? Answer this question fully (and apply the appropriate advantages and limitations) and the power becomes much easier to administer and you may only rarely need power defence at all.

2. Adjustment powers are needed - or some other power is needed - or you cannot change someone's powers and characteristics except BODY and STUN except throught he use of the transformation power. Drugs that weaken are common enough in real life that they need to be mirrored in Hero. We could get rid of adjustment powers and have an advantage on normal and killing aatcks allowing the power to target other characteristics, but I'm not sure I see the need.

3. I have no problem with 'inherent' per se, but I'd need to know WHY the power/whatever can't be adjusted (see 1. above). I actually AM made of steel, so you can't drain my armour seems about right. OTOH any power that stopped the character being made of steel should logically remove the armour, so that would need to be reflected in the build.

4. Power defence should also be well defined: is your power defence a layer of electrical insulation? If so anything that has sfx that meant that their power worked through electricity would be effected. Proper definition solves problems. Power defence (all sfx +2) only v powers that work through electricity -2, cost = 3 active, 1 real per point fo power defence.

[zornwil]

From a mechanics point of view, if the hit location and disabling rules are not in effect, you can not lose a limb or specific organ in Hero. A normal can shove a pocket knife directly into his own eye, twirl it around, and keep his sight. From a story point of view, I put this in the same category as other HERO Murphy's Rules and ignore it. Once a character isn't resisting, assuming you have reasonable means, you can do what you like to him.
To me, the core of HERO in most cases is that if you purchase a power and it is NOT a Focus, you typically can't have it removed. I agree with out-of-combat and plot-related sorts of removals, which still would normally follow some path to allow for an eventual return of the item, but generally if you pay the points, you shouldn't lose the ability - except by Adjustment powers!

I can understand GMs putting an Inherent ability in their games or simply disallowing Adjustment powers, but if we have an Adjustment subsystem, for the life of me I don't understand why we treat it differently from the rest of the system and give players a trump card over it that is absolute.

Yes, I'm back to the Inherent argument which I said I didn't want to pursue originally, but, hey, I can change my mind, I'm entitled. :)

[zornwil]

In the same way as your arm could be cut off, even if you didn't buy it as a Focus.
Ah, but now we're talking about POINTS!

And points = control. I pay no points for my arm...so I don't control it. It is an environmental issue which allows for GM/play group discretion. Naturally enough, of course, you can say that prior sentence about anything in one sense, but in the real sense of "we're playing by the rules," a character's body and SFX interactions are part of the GM's discretionary area whereas the powers a player PAYS for are under his control, essentially. I'm not discounting reasonable fudge in either direction - a good GM respects his play group's desires, and a good player respects where the GM wants to take the story, so there's give-and-take. But the rules provide the guidelines under which reasonablity is frameworked, and this framework indicates that if you pay for something (and have no mitigating Limitations such as Focus or Indepedent or so on) that you have a general expectation of availability ongoing.

[zornwil]

Funny old game, Hero.

I was wondering about all of this, you know, adjustment powers and appropriate defences and I came to a couple for conclusions:

EDIT/PS to what I wrote below - you came to more than a couple... :D


1. A lot of problems with adjustment powers are solved by applying proper game logic in the construction stage. Yes, you can drain strength, but how do you do it? Does it work against mechanical and biological strength and what if the strength is bought as 'touch telekinesis' - what is your drain actualy doing? Answer this question fully (and apply the appropriate advantages and limitations) and the power becomes much easier to administer and you may only rarely need power defence at all.

Yes, absolutely. Very well stated and reasonably succinct - this would be an excellent phrase to put into the rulebook itself under the Adjustment powers section. However, I can't rep you yet.


2. Adjustment powers are needed - or some other power is needed - or you cannot change someone's powers and characteristics except BODY and STUN except throught he use of the transformation power. Drugs that weaken are common enough in real life that they need to be mirrored in Hero. We could get rid of adjustment powers and have an advantage on normal and killing aatcks allowing the power to target other characteristics, but I'm not sure I see the need.

Hmmm, I never thought of that option, but I sort of like it. It sounds a bit more elegant to me in some ways. But then I can imagine some issues off the top of my head, too. Still, might be worthy of its own discussion. I think I'll start a thread, will credit you of course.


3. I have no problem with 'inherent' per se, but I'd need to know WHY the power/whatever can't be adjusted (see 1. above). I actually AM made of steel, so you can't drain my armour seems about right. OTOH any power that stopped the character being made of steel should logically remove the armour, so that would need to be reflected in the build.

I take a somewhat reverse angle - I'd rather know why the Adjustment power should or should not be able to do something, and that rests largely on the offense, or at least is equally important.

I'd LIKE to think that Adjustment powers' costs reflect their likelihood that there will be some circumstances they won't work due to SFX confluence given they are SO SFX bound. However, I doubt that. If the cost is reflective we have nothing to fix aside from eliminating the Inherent absolute. If it is not, it should be.

Besides, really, again, I just don't see why one set of mechanics is so divergent from another set. I could just as easily see my prior paragraph being a house rule, anyway, and the system being a bit more rigorous, treating Adj. powers no differently than others.

What disturbs me in general is the continual addition of rules without a clarity as to there being a larger problem it addresses. What is the problem to begin with? Of course, most designers (not just Steve) simply don't address this, causing frustration and lack of understanding of the rules they write. It bugs me...a lot...I can understand not wanting to take up the space in a rulebook to explain these things but in this day and age the web is a great outlet, and there's other options, too. I, for one, and I know there are others, would pay for an addendum book to any relatively complex system that explains the philosophy behind the decisions. It's so much easier to understand something once that is laid out.


4. Power defence should also be well defined: is your power defence a layer of electrical insulation? If so anything that has sfx that meant that their power worked through electricity would be effected. Proper definition solves problems. Power defence (all sfx +2) only v powers that work through electricity -2, cost = 3 active, 1 real per point fo power defence.

Although I essentially agree, why should it be different than ED or PD or MD? In essence, we just say with the others, respectively, "I can take energy, I'm touch," "I'm really durable," and "I'm mentally resistant," There isn't much more to it, in my experience, and certainly I only rarely see explanations of additional PD/ED/MD on character sheets - although I grant the difference is these are given derived chars. To your point, PowD is a true power with no characteristics basis, much like Flash Defense, and for which (speaking of Flash Def here) we do indeed traditionally assign SFX - which is why I essentially agree. But I do marvel at the disconnect - if I pile on 20 PD or ED onto a character in a powered game or 5 PD or ED in a heroic game, nobody is pretty much going to ask why, unless it's clearly at odds with some other concept on the sheet.

[Sean Waters]

On the question of inherent abilities, I only really see it as an issue for things you have paid points for.

You pay the points and take the advantage then you get a power that cannot be adjusted (but can be removed or damaged in other ways).

Now it may be difficult to think of a reason why a particular power is not adjustable, given the enormous variety of sfx out there, but if you can come up with a reason then I see no problems with buying the advantage. I've argued as much before - my view is that the negative view of inherent probably stems more from bad examples than it being a bad idea per se.

As to inherent (in the non-Hero sense) abilities, like sight and legs, who knows how they were bought, or whether they were bought with the inherent advantage? Personally I can't imagine a sfx that drains limbs, or eyes, except possibly some sort of esoteric magic effect or a rogue auto-doc :)

Hero is not really set up to define those things: they are sfx of multiple powers and characteristics: running swimming strength dexterity for limbs, for example. The way to adjust them would be with the pseudo-adjustment power: transform.

Now, sliding back towards topic, I have seen it argued that we don't need power defence at all if adjustment powers are properly defined.

If I want to hit you with a Dex drain defined as an electrical jolt that sends pulses through your muscles causing them to spasm then it is obvious that anyone immune to an electrical attack would be immune to the drain. Well fair enough, but what does 'immune to the electrical attack' mean: you have some rED? You have some defences specifically defined as electrical insulators (Professor Pervert in his all-rubber costume)?

I think that power defence has a place - it adds granularity to defences - but I also think that theer are so many possible sfx out there that it becomes an advanatge to define your attack as a pretty unusual one, so that an appropriate sfx based power defence is likely to be unavailable (unless the GM has actually read your character sheet).

One solution would be to make players pick from a limited range of sfx in a particular campaign, which at least puts limits on the guesswork, or at least have broad categories (physical (e.g. nerve strikes etc) energy (e.g. electrical jolts, freezing etc) mental (e.g. psionic overload) chemical (e.g. poisonous gasses))

I do beleive a good solid campaign ruling and a reasonably thorough examination of cause and effect in character building solves almost every problem.

[Mister E]

1. I like Zornwil's original idea on this thread as I have always limited Power DEF by sfx anyhow (unless I'm modeling some kind of universally/cosmically superior character). Anything less is extraordinarily simplistic. Making single sfx Power DEF cheaper is a small bonus; but I think it's more interesting that Zorn's idea doles out Power DEF in lumps of 3 (just a thought... 3.5 rounded down might be better). In the end, I think I prefer having stock defenses that are universal vs. all sfx. The intended forced focus on sfx is not so much a system issue as it is a finished game issue.

2. I've never used the Inherent advantage, as I've never been able to justify it. Every time I see its presence in a build (no matter how canon) it has always rankled me. The concept of some quality being inherent to a character is a matter of sfx, and has no further bearing. A character's soul (if there is such a thing) could be considered inherent... yet that can be removed, manipulated, and/or destroyed as well. The only exception I can conceive of justifying the usage of the Inherent advantage, is GM fiat (and in that respect, I have no problem withit … except that it hardly needs to be a rule in the book at that point).

3. As far as Energy DEF is concerned, I think its day in the sun is past. One single Defense protecting the character from STUN/BODY trauma is all you need. Special exceptions can easily be represented with limitations. Idea: since Zornwil’s new Power DEF idea is commonly associated with a specific sfx, why not make it a universal defense that protects characters from ALL Attack Powers with the appropriate sfx, and which can be added to other defenses?

4. I don’t agree with most of the arguments that are based on the risks/dangers of min-maxing and power-gaming: Such as players building attacks that circumvent the sfx of specific defenses. Presumably, anyone that is playing HERO is able to discuss such issues with the game’s designer (the GM). If the GM permits, there shouldn’t be an problem (within reason, of course).


I've thought a bit about just dumping adjustment powers in favor of EBs with a +1/4 advantage "Alternate Stat Targeted". The "EB Versus Stat" goes up against standard PD or ED unless purchased as an NND or AVLD. Calculate "Stun" and "Body" normally. "Stun" is the number of Active points you lose but regain at a rate of REC per turn. "Body" that gets through reflects a loss of active points has to be healed at REC/10 per day (faster with Healing).

Want to use a nerve strike that weakens your foe? EB vs STR (+1/4). Want Power Damping Gas? EB NND versus Power or Category of Powers (as per the advantage currently used for adjustment powers).

Healing is purchased as REC usable by others, Succor or Aid as X points of the power or stat in question usable by others, advantages and limits added as appropriate.

Haven't play tested it, but it feels easier to fit into appropriate SFX for me than the current system.

This is the route I would like the game to go in general, with the EB as the base template for the whole system. One argument… I don’t think targeting an enemy’s STR (or most stats) should cost more than targeting its health/BODY/STUN… but that is just a cost issue.

I especially like the REC suggestion for healing.


I've never liked stories in the comics where superpowers are almost like liquids, which can be easily poured from one container into another and back again.

Very nice description. :) I actually do dig this conception. It’s so… magical.


Yeah, I don't mind adjustment powers in some circumstances. If your touch drains the life from someone, a Drain power might be appropriate. What I object to specifically is some gadget/power that lets you suck the "Spider-Powers" out of Spider-Man, or turn Superman into mere mortal Clark Kent until they can figure out how to reverse that. Or worse, they then give those powers to someone else. Gah.

This is one of the reasons I usually make superheroes that can be broken down to a base framework character lacking superpowers. It really isn’t all that different from draining life… :p


1. A lot of problems with adjustment powers are solved by applying proper game logic in the construction stage. Yes, you can drain strength, but how do you do it? Does it work against mechanical and biological strength and what if the strength is bought as 'touch telekinesis' - what is your drain actually doing? Answer this question fully (and apply the appropriate advantages and limitations) and the power becomes much easier to administer and you may only rarely need power defense at all.

Very nice. :)

[zornwil]

On the question of inherent abilities, I only really see it as an issue for things you have paid points for.

You pay the points and take the advantage then you get a power that cannot be adjusted (but can be removed or damaged in other ways).

Now it may be difficult to think of a reason why a particular power is not adjustable, given the enormous variety of sfx out there, but if you can come up with a reason then I see no problems with buying the advantage.

I would stop here - then why can't the same be said for other absolutes in HERO?


As to inherent (in the non-Hero sense) abilities, like sight and legs, who knows how they were bought, or whether they were bought with the inherent advantage? Personally I can't imagine a sfx that drains limbs,

Entangle, Hit Locations/Impairment

SFX - a device that targets the non-trunk of a human, simply; a mental mutation that renders useless "that which is a direct physical threat"


or eyes, except possibly some sort of esoteric magic effect or a rogue auto-doc :)

Darkness, Images, Hit Locations/Impairment

SFX - targeting ocular nerves, simply, or a bombarding of light imagery that refocuses the eye


Hero is not really set up to define those things: they are sfx of multiple powers and characteristics: running swimming strength dexterity for limbs, for example. The way to adjust them would be with the pseudo-adjustment power: transform.

Somewhat disagreed, as per above.

However, again, this is a control/points issue, really, at its core, and the system avoids defining "common sense" and "normal" environmental things, leaving those to GM and play group.


Now, sliding back towards topic, I have seen it argued that we don't need power defence at all if adjustment powers are properly defined.

If I want to hit you with a Dex drain defined as an electrical jolt that sends pulses through your muscles causing them to spasm then it is obvious that anyone immune to an electrical attack would be immune to the drain. Well fair enough, but what does 'immune to the electrical attack' mean: you have some rED? You have some defences specifically defined as electrical insulators (Professor Pervert in his all-rubber costume)?

I think that power defence has a place - it adds granularity to defences - but I also think that theer are so many possible sfx out there that it becomes an advanatge to define your attack as a pretty unusual one, so that an appropriate sfx based power defence is likely to be unavailable (unless the GM has actually read your character sheet).

One solution would be to make players pick from a limited range of sfx in a particular campaign, which at least puts limits on the guesswork, or at least have broad categories (physical (e.g. nerve strikes etc) energy (e.g. electrical jolts, freezing etc) mental (e.g. psionic overload) chemical (e.g. poisonous gasses))

I do beleive a good solid campaign ruling and a reasonably thorough examination of cause and effect in character building solves almost every problem.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to drop PowD (unless of course we rework Adj. powers entirely, as OH suggests).

As aforementioned, I have found it much more convenient to tag Adj. powers as by default Supernatural and replace PowD with Supernatural Def. One can of course change an Adj. power to target ED or the like or be NND/AVLD. Of course, this also made it necessary, so to speak, to create Supernatural Blast and the like (Supernaturally-Advantaged Attacks, etc.), but I've seen no issues in doing so and players have universally responded in the neutral-to-positive range, absolutely no negative reactions.

[archermoo]

PS - if the wings aren't a focus, I don't see how they could be cut off.

The same way you can cut someone's hands off or poke their eyes out, even though they are not focuses.

[archermoo]

Ah, but now we're talking about POINTS!

And points = control. I pay no points for my arm...so I don't control it. It is an environmental issue which allows for GM/play group discretion. Naturally enough, of course, you can say that prior sentence about anything in one sense, but in the real sense of "we're playing by the rules," a character's body and SFX interactions are part of the GM's discretionary area whereas the powers a player PAYS for are under his control, essentially. I'm not discounting reasonable fudge in either direction - a good GM respects his play group's desires, and a good player respects where the GM wants to take the story, so there's give-and-take. But the rules provide the guidelines under which reasonablity is frameworked, and this framework indicates that if you pay for something (and have no mitigating Limitations such as Focus or Indepedent or so on) that you have a general expectation of availability ongoing.

I disagree that points=control. Spending the points on something gives you access to that power/ability/skill/whatever. It doesn't necessarily give you control over it, just the ability to use it.

[zornwil]

1. I like Zornwil's original idea on this thread as I have always limited Power DEF by sfx anyhow (unless I'm modeling some kind of universally/cosmically superior character). Anything less is extraordinarily simplistic. Making single sfx Power DEF cheaper is a small bonus; but I think it's more interesting that Zorn's idea doles out Power DEF in lumps of 3 (just a thought... 3.5 rounded down might be better). In the end, I think I prefer having stock defenses that are universal vs. all sfx. The intended forced focus on sfx is not so much a system issue as it is a finished game issue.

I think you are clear, but just to be sure, the PowD defends what it protects "universally", the SFX basis is what SFX the PowD actually defends, not what SFX the PowD has. I hasten to add, as Sean has pointed out and as should be common sense, PowD should have a defined SFX as to how it functions, like any power. But that's another layer.

For example:

Power Defense - protects all my Ice Powers (1 SFX), 1 CP => 3 PowD for all ice powers; the rationale/SFX for the PowD itself is "my ice is so amazingly dense and thick that it's hard to take away, and the very source of it is my dense blood-ice in my veins, you can't dissolve it at all easily"


2. I've never used the Inherent advantage, as I've never been able to justify it. Every time I see its presence in a build (no matter how canon) it has always rankled me. The concept of some quality being inherent to a character is a matter of sfx, and has no further bearing. A character's soul (if there is such a thing) could be considered inherent... yet that can be removed, manipulated, and/or destroyed as well. The only exception I can conceive of justifying the usage of the Inherent advantage, is GM fiat (and in that respect, I have no problem withit … except that it hardly needs to be a rule in the book at that point).

Right, it, to me, is precisely the same conundrum as Invulnerability - each GM feels a little differently about how it should be implemented IF it should be at all, and many GMs are completely opposed.

To me, any options for "Inherent" are best left to genre and setting books.


3. As far as Energy DEF is concerned, I think its day in the sun is past. One single Defense protecting the character from STUN/BODY trauma is all you need. Special exceptions can easily be represented with limitations. Idea: since Zornwil’s new Power DEF idea is commonly associated with a specific sfx, why not make it a universal defense that protects characters from ALL Attack Powers with the appropriate sfx, and which can be added to other defenses?

Now, this is the most interesting perspective, and I think it begs something even larger - a rewrite (even if it doesn't involve a lot of change to most mechanics) to the system to make it wrap around SFX. You are begging the issue (discussed elsewhere in the past, actually as I'm aware as one of the productive offshoots of an invulnerability discussion) that we should really eliminate SFX as embedded in the system but make the system SFX-aware.

So I build "Blast" with the SFX of "Punching hand' an SFX limitation "Inhibited by any defense that applies against physical barriers" and I build "Defense": with the SFX of "Big wall" and an SFX limitation "Only prohibits physical-type attacks," I have pretty much what I have today. But I could have built "Defense" with a simple SFX "I'm really amazingly tough" and no specific SFX limitation, and this would be much more expensive since it applies to "everything" but given our SFX there can be interactions which would get around it still, perhaps having to design something specific as with an NND.

What gets tricky and requires more thought is how to be sure we can fairly create values around these - but this problem already exists in the system anyway.


4. I don’t agree with most of the arguments that are based on the risks/dangers of min-maxing and power-gaming: Such as players building attacks that circumvent the sfx of specific defenses. Presumably, anyone that is playing HERO is able to discuss such issues with the game’s designer (the GM). If the GM permits, there shouldn’t be an problem (within reason, of course).

Many modern game designs demonstrate this approach works fine. It DOES require a mature gaming group. But why are we so afraid to design RPGs that do? I am not afraid to. No one should be.


This is the route I would like the game to go in general, with the EB as the base template for the whole system. One argument… I don’t think targeting an enemy’s STR (or most stats) should cost more than targeting its health/BODY/STUN… but that is just a cost issue.

I especially like the REC suggestion for healing.



Very nice description. :) I actually do dig this conception. It’s so… magical.



This is one of the reasons I usually make superheroes that can be broken down to a base framework character lacking superpowers. It really isn’t all that different from draining life… :p



Very nice. :)

[zornwil]

I would be mighty annoyed at having paid for a power and having taken it away so easily. Entangled, drained, etc., or if as a GM you indicated "it doesn't matter if you use Focus, so long as I think you have a focus, I treat it as such," then fine.

[zornwil]

I disagree that points=control. Spending the points on something gives you access to that power/ability/skill/whatever. It doesn't necessarily give you control over it, just the ability to use it.
So as GM you define any Limitation and apply it whenever you choose?

If not, why are the points not a form of control?

(PS - edited to remove the word "can define any Limitation.." since after all anyone "can" but in practice, do you?)

[tesuji]

So as GM you define any Limitation and apply it whenever you choose?

If not, why are the points not a form of control?

(PS - edited to remove the word "can define any Limitation.." since after all anyone "can" but in practice, do you?)

Again with the extreme... i would wager he doesn't do what you ask, nor does he slavishly follow every point spent on the character sheet as his limits... but spends 99% of his GMing and gaming well in the middle, away from those extremes.

I might suggest a better word is "influence" not "control."

if you buy your flight with no focus lim, that does not mean you CONTROL whether or not that power gets taken away or necessarily how often even. you may encounter "drains" or "conditions" that make the flight either unusable or unwise. Heck your SFX leaves fiery trail" might well be the reason you do not use flight for a session... leaky gassy smell covers most of NYC.

On the other hand, if you do take focus jetpack lim or restrainable wings, you provide additional flavoired scenes which can be used to justify such a denial for a scenario and likely INFLUENCE the Gm to include more such "cannot fly tonight" challenges to your character in the form of restrained wings or broken jetpacks.

then again, the exact same thing could be accomplished by "non-point" means, so is it really the points or the choices and preferences? if you write into your character "UFO buff" and don't take points for it as a psycho lim, you might still inluence the Gm to serve up those flavor stories.

points are just one way to show the Gm your preferences and expectations, which should influence his choices but not necessarily control his choices.

[archermoo]

So as GM you define any Limitation and apply it whenever you choose?

If not, why are the points not a form of control?

(PS - edited to remove the word "can define any Limitation.." since after all anyone "can" but in practice, do you?)

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

If you are referring to me as a GM defining and applying a Limitation of "Wings can be cut off", no. The player defines how their power and SFX work. In this case, they defined their flight has their character having physical, functioning wings. Wings are limbs. Part of the way that reality works is that limbs can be cut off. Since I see no reason to ignore such things, if a character says they can fly because they have physical, functioning wings, those wings can be cut off. Just the side effects of the SFX that they chose.

Not everything in the world has to be purchased with game mechanics. A sufficiently sharp implement will be able to remove wings. Or for that matter hands, or even legs or heads.

[zornwil]

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

If you are referring to me as a GM defining and applying a Limitation of "Wings can be cut off", no. The player defines how their power and SFX work. In this case, they defined their flight has their character having physical, functioning wings. Wings are limbs. Part of the way that reality works is that limbs can be cut off. Since I see no reason to ignore such things, if a character says they can fly because they have physical, functioning wings, those wings can be cut off. Just the side effects of the SFX that they chose.

Again, when they define it that way, do you point out that they are having an OAF and should generally take the limitation? If not, why not? If they do not take the Limitation, does this influence how you manage their ability or not? Again, if not, why not?

My point here is very simple. If I pay points for something and tell you that I do NOT want it treated as a Focus (e.g., Thor's hammer, no matter what I do, it returns to me), then I expect that aside from some particular rare plot thing or such, that you will not remove it from me, that it will not be taken away, at least not in the manner a normal piece of equipment or a Focus would be. If I do not pay the points (as with regular equipment), I have no such expectation, or if I cede the points via a Limitation, I am handing you increased control over that aspect of this item.


Not everything in the world has to be purchased with game mechanics. A sufficiently sharp implement will be able to remove wings. Or for that matter hands, or even legs or heads.

Of course not, but we're talking about the wings here which are purchased with game mechanics.

[zornwil]

Again with the extreme... i would wager he doesn't do what you ask, nor does he slavishly follow every point spent on the character sheet as his limits... but spends 99% of his GMing and gaming well in the middle, away from those extremes.

I might suggest a better word is "influence" not "control."

if you buy your flight with no focus lim, that does not mean you CONTROL whether or not that power gets taken away

Shrug, as far as I have understood the mechanics, I indeed do expect that I control whether it is removed like a piece of equipment. I have declared "this part of my story is inviolate, or if it is violated it must be something rare and important to another story the GM wishes to tell." The rules do seem to back this up, as otherwise a Focus would have no limitation value if it made no such difference.


or necessarily how often even. you may encounter "drains" or "conditions" that make the flight either unusable or unwise.

Of course I have no control over that. But the rules again are clear. Adjustment powers are stated and a defense for them is stated. Unwise is left entirely to the stories concocted; "unusable" would be debatable indeed. If I pay for wings and every session I can't use them, indeed I would argue my control factor is violated completely and unacceptably. But otherwise of course there is ample room in the rules' discussion of SFX to make me realize that of course there will be (relatively uncommon) circumstances where I will not be able to use it. By the same expectation, I fully expect that the occasion of such instances will be less than what a +1/4 limitation would warrant.


Heck your SFX leaves fiery trail" might well be the reason you do not use flight for a session... leaky gassy smell covers most of NYC.

On the other hand, if you do take focus jetpack lim or restrainable wings, you provide additional flavoired scenes which can be used to justify such a denial for a scenario and likely INFLUENCE the Gm to include more such "cannot fly tonight" challenges to your character in the form of restrained wings or broken jetpacks.

Not simply influence. I have ceded that level of control I would have otherwise had. Within the guidelines as given by the rules, the GM is invited to mess with the power - and only in that way.


then again, the exact same thing could be accomplished by "non-point" means, so is it really the points or the choices and preferences? if you write into your character "UFO buff" and don't take points for it as a psycho lim, you might still inluence the Gm to serve up those flavor stories.

Where no points are employed, the GM has control over how he may use such factors, at least generally. There's also an implied cooperative aspect, to me. Certainly the player can fairly easily revise the "UFO buff" later without anything but discussion. Unlike a Disad on his sheet.


points are just one way to show the Gm your preferences and expectations, which should influence his choices but not necessarily control his choices.

I'm not referring to choices. I can certainly never choose to use the wings at all as the GM can certainly choose never to exercise the controls he has.

Just because one has control does not mean one exercises it, and it certainly doesn't mean one exercises it whimsically. But it does mean that there are boundaries and expectations set.

[archermoo]

Again, when they define it that way, do you point out that they are having an OAF and should generally take the limitation? If not, why not? If they do not take the Limitation, does this influence how you manage their ability or not? Again, if not, why not?

My point here is very simple. If I pay points for something and tell you that I do NOT want it treated as a Focus (e.g., Thor's hammer, no matter what I do, it returns to me), then I expect that aside from some particular rare plot thing or such, that you will not remove it from me, that it will not be taken away, at least not in the manner a normal piece of equipment or a Focus would be. If I do not pay the points (as with regular equipment), I have no such expectation, or if I cede the points via a Limitation, I am handing you increased control over that aspect of this item.

Something that must be surgically removed (like the wings I am talking about) does not qualify as a focus, so it couldn't be purchased as such. An accessible focus must be able to be removed in combat. And inaccessable focus must be able to be removed with a single turn of effort out of combat. If it is harder than that to remove it, it doesn't qualify as a focus.

Also I would say someone hacking off a limb does not fall into the same category as a normal piece of equipment or a Focus being taken from you.


Of course not, but we're talking about the wings here which are purchased with game mechanics.

I don't see that there is a difference. Other than the fact that since everyone is assumed to have eyes and hands and legs you aren't expected to "pay" for them. If it helps, look at them as required purchases that you are given dedicated points for that cannot be spent on anything else. And they aren't even required purchases. You can take disadvantages to "get back" the points that are automatically spent on them.

I guess the difference in POV is that I don't consider points to be some sort of currency that I purchase abilities that I now "own". They are an abstract concept that describe the theoretical abstract value of an ability. You define your character with the abilities that you want them to have, and make sure that the overall value of the abilities doesn't excede the campaign maximum.

[zornwil]

Something that must be surgically removed (like the wings I am talking about) does not qualify as a focus, so it couldn't be purchased as such. An accessible focus must be able to be removed in combat. And inaccessable focus must be able to be removed with a single turn of effort out of combat. If it is harder than that to remove it, it doesn't qualify as a focus.

Also I would say someone hacking off a limb does not fall into the same category as a normal piece of equipment or a Focus being taken from you.

Okay, a misunderstanding - I thought you were referring to combat or any other moment, not some sort of difficult thing. In that case I agree. And I assert that the player has control and you do not, short of you abrogating that expectation - and I'm not saying you cannot do that, but that if you do, the player has every right to expect you had a darn good reason, as compared to it being a common/routine occurrence.


I don't see that there is a difference. Other than the fact that since everyone is assumed to have eyes and hands and legs you aren't expected to "pay" for them. If it helps, look at them as required purchases that you are given dedicated points for that cannot be spent on anything else. And they aren't even required purchases. You can take disadvantages to "get back" the points that are automatically spent on them.

I guess the difference in POV is that I don't consider points to be some sort of currency that I purchase abilities that I now "own". They are an abstract concept that describe the theoretical abstract value of an ability. You define your character with the abilities that you want them to have, and make sure that the overall value of the abilities doesn't excede the campaign maximum.

I would assert the very term "define" = a form of clear control. Once the GM and player agree the points are assigned to this particular effect, the player expects to be able to do that and if he is deprived of it for anything beyond some reasonably expected duration/circumstance, he is going to expect that either he gets the points back in some form for something he CAN do or some limitation is on the power to indicate the form in which you can routinely assert direct restrictions on his use.

I was going to write something else but then I had to go to a meeting in a hurry and lost my train of thought!