Limitations Issues

[GamePhil]

I'd like to see the Independant Limitation re-worked or possibly eliminated. Right now, the Independant Limitation, along with a few other abilities, create an odd disconnect with the game world. They disassociate points from a character, but points generally have no meaning in the game world. I think it would be better applied the majority of the time to GM given awards, rather than being used to build things that "stand on their own" otherwise. The vast majority of standalone powers could be bought in other ways, and probably should be.

So, if the GM awards a Contact, that could be bought as Independant, because it can be lost, but if the character buys a Contact, if the contact is lost the points are refunded. A captured Death Ray is Independant and can be taken away at whim. And so on. This may not be worth a Limitation, it would just be noted on the character sheet of the character possessing the reward.

Another thing I don't mind is the reward of "unspent" points to be put toward special projects. The typical example is the materials and trinkets that go into making a magical item, but it could also be favors and moneys that go into building a base (or a starship, those things get expensive), or the various resources to build a new gadget, or some form of "research points" spent to develop a new spell, all mainly in Heroic games. In these cases, the points are being used to represent how close the character is to reaching a goal, so they can have in-game meaning.

One possible use of personal points spent to buy an Independant Power is research for a Heroic game. In a game in which spells are not purchased individually but are the equivalent of a pistol in a modern Heroic level game (if you have the skills and the materials, you can cast the spell), a new spell might be added to the overall list by buying it Independant, defined as putting those points into the world's pool of magic. Likewise, you might invent a new laser pistol by doing the same. You'd see a return in having first crack at the new spell/gizmo, and might get some temporary Wealth or Reputation. The points are removed from the character and made part of the world. Likewise, some forms of lasting legacy could use such a system.

What I'd like it not used for is making an "ordinary" magic sword in a High Fantasy game, or a spell scroll, or like that. Possibly in a low-magic world or someplace where it just really takes a lot out of you.

Clear as mud, I'm sure.

[Opal]

Independent seems to fill a need for rewards that are sepparate from the character - an idea that's common in games with a treasure-hunting theme, where PCs collect wealth or special items to make themselves more powerful, instead of or in addition to gaining experience and improving themselves.

Since Hero strives to be ultimately generic, having such a mechanism isn't completely unreasonable. If a GM wants treasure hunting and the sorts of reversals of fortune that can be engineered by placing and/or taking away important items, Independant can be part of that.

It gives players the option of starting with such items, and gives such players an initial boost in power (that, eventually, will go away as the points are lost, and/or other players acquire independent points in play). It also allows players to refrain from that.

Independent can also be helpful in any game where you have some equipment or other source of power that is generally available, for similar reasons. It allows a character to start with such a power that he otherwise might not qualify for, or to start with a slightly customized version.


The original Star Hero had a similar limitation, Replaceable, that gave characters a discount for powers that were somewhat redundant along side the equipment generally available in the game. IIRC, the example was that if anyone who wanted one could pretty easily get a lasergun, the alien with laser-beam eyes wouldn't be getting the full benefit of the points invested in it, so should get a limitation.

If it came down to player preference, letting some players throw points away on more powerful Independent items, while others kept thier points by paying for items that were merely 'replaceable' could work.

[Sean Waters]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great. If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

It has a real place in character and game realisation.

[Sean Waters]

Okay, this has annoyed me for years, and I'm going to say something now.

The whole point of Requires A Skill Roll is that the Power doesn't work some of the time. If you want it to work all the time, don't buy RSR. It's that simple.

Not sure anyone is suggesting that a mechanic like RSR is not useful for the game, but it just doesn't cost the right amount: compare to activation rolls which do much the same thing.

In a FH game where spells might have from -0 to -6 (or maybe even more) on the roll, to be able to use a decent spell even 50% of the time you need a 16- roll, and you only get a -1/2 limitation.

A -1/2 as an activation roll would get you a 14- roll.

Also the more points you invest in the power the more of a limitation it becomes.

Finally (as has been pointed out) it means that some skills have to be bought to very high level - far more than any other skill - to be useful.

One option would be to simply replace RSR with activation roll, but that doesn't quite do it, as it would be nice to simulate using a spell at a lower level in order to make it easier to cast. I do think that the limitation needs carelfully looking at though, either in terms of the limitation valuie or the mechanic - or both.

[Sean Waters]

Burnout. I think this should cost the same as the base activation roll. Sure it is useful to be guaranteed one use, but that is more than balanced by potentially losing the power altogether after that.

[Sean Waters]

Can we have a limitation that simulates recharge and heat build up, please?

Basically (recharge) you have to wait a period before using the power again (you can't use extra time as written as this prevents any other attack actions while you are waiting. It could easily be based on extra time though).

Heat build up might allow one or more attacks but each would have a 'heat' cost and once it reaches a certain level means the power cannot be used (or maybe that it aquires a different limtiation like side effects, or jammed). You can do this with END Reserve - sort of - but you are then paying extra points to limit the power.

[Doc Democracy]

Can we have a limitation that simulates recharge and heat build up, please?

Basically (recharge) you have to wait a period before using the power again (you can't use extra time as written as this prevents any other attack actions while you are waiting. It could easily be based on extra time though).

Heat build up might allow one or more attacks but each would have a 'heat' cost and once it reaches a certain level means the power cannot be used (or maybe that it aquires a different limtiation like side effects, or jammed). You can do this with END Reserve - sort of - but you are then paying extra points to limit the power.

I'd always done this using charges (easily recoverable - just wait a bit and you get it back). It is all a matter of presentation as far as players go.

I tell them that they have a charge unit that powers their laser. They can use the laser as often as they wish but if they use it all the time that it will overheat. I work it that the charges take 30 seconds to recover (for example) but if they use all of the charges then it takes an hour for the first charge to recover and then 30 seconds as usual.

Never had a player complain about it.


Doc

[GamePhil]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great.

I'd much prefer that to be a character-defining moment with a Irreplacable Focus than have an artificial Limitation that only relates to the game system. I can take such a focus away just as easily, forcing the player to go to the trouble of retrieving it or begin to plan out where to spend those points.

Mean? Maybe. But not as mean as taking the points away if he fails to retrieve it, or if it is destroyed.

If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

Which is one of the primary things I was arguing it is good for. My main concern is that it no longer be the default means for creating magic items in Fantasy games, but rather an alternative solution. If someone wants to spend points that may eventually be lost to get some oomph out of that magic sword, I say let him, but he should not have to do it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great.

Like Gamephil said, that sounds like an unbreakable and irreplacable focus. To me, Independent means you don't necessarily get the opportunity to retrieve it, and it can break or otherwise be permanently lost. To me, Focus says "I want the GM to make this power unavailable to me for periods of time during the campaign" while Independent says "It is your job to permanently eliminate those character points at some point in the campaign".

If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

Yes, you can. Without Independent. It's gear you didn't pay points for so it can be taken away at any time.

[Sean Waters]

I'd always done this using charges (easily recoverable - just wait a bit and you get it back). It is all a matter of presentation as far as players go.

I tell them that they have a charge unit that powers their laser. They can use the laser as often as they wish but if they use it all the time that it will overheat. I work it that the charges take 30 seconds to recover (for example) but if they use all of the charges then it takes an hour for the first charge to recover and then 30 seconds as usual.

Never had a player complain about it.


Doc

My problem is this: what if you want to have a gun that can only shoot every other phase? It is one thing to have a 30 second recharge - most combats are over before then. If you want a recharge significantly before then though, you are really chancing it with that build. Also you don;t need to do anything to recover the charge - the mechanic speifically allows for chrges to be ruled NOT recoverable (for instance your recoverable chareg arrows could have gotten lost in the woods or snapped).

p287 specifically says that recoverable charges should not generally be used to simulate charges that recover faster than per day.

A seperate limitation just seems cleaner.

[Sean Waters]

Like Gamephil said, that sounds like an unbreakable and irreplacable focus. To me, Independent means you don't necessarily get the opportunity to retrieve it, and it can break or otherwise be permanently lost. To me, Focus says "I want the GM to make this power unavailable to me for periods of time during the campaign" while Independent says "It is your job to permanently eliminate those character points at some point in the campaign".

OK, but either way Independent is still useful. It can, for instance, be used to give a significant temporary power boost to characters that they will not have access to after the current scenario, and do it without the arbitrary 'deus ex' I was talking about. Moreover, the deal with foci is that they are generally available. I think the whole 'indestructible irreplaceable' should go. to be replaced by Independent It would make the focus limtiation far more logical and consistent.

In any event it is not necessarily that the GM HAS to take it away at some point, it isn't their job to permanently remove the character points. The PC can pay off the limitaiton over time, thus allowing faster development in the short term where that is desireable, or sometimes the threat of loss, or the quest to retreive are enough to justify the cost break.

Yes, you can. Without Independent. It's gear you didn't pay points for so it can be taken away at any time.

That might be appropriate in a heroic game. I'm really not sure what the resistance to thsi limitation is based on.

[BobGreenwade]

Some of the discussion on Requires a Skill Roll makes me wonder if it might not be better off rolled together with Activation Roll. Many of the options for either Limitation could then be applied to the other (such as Burnout, or Active Point penalties), saving space while at the same time expanding build options.

[GamePhil]

That might be appropriate in a heroic game. I'm really not sure what the resistance to thsi limitation is based on.

Independent has had a stranglehold on the creation of magic items since 1st Edition FH. Although there are many methods of simulating and restricting the creation of magic items, the artificial need to force PCs to sacrifice points to do it is still around. It should be one alternative, for example in a game where that type of sacrifice is required, not the go-to method.

It is a metagame construct. If it is kept, and I am not actually arguing for not including it, I would like a better explanation of what losing "points" can mean within the game world. I think it has a place in making a "contribution to the world", and Independent points I think have use in keeping track of how close to certain goals the character might be. Otherwise, though, I don't like it's use much, as it gives artificial meaning to a game concept.

[Chris Goodwin]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great. If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

Sure, but all you have to do is say no. I mean, don't have Wiz-Mart stores in your fantasy worlds where people can go to pick up six packs of magic wands; if you do have these, the problem is not with the mechanics.

If the player loses his non-Independent magic item, for which he has paid points, you can tell him, either you can retrieve your item, quest for or commission another one, or otherwise re-spend the points, but the latter will go slowly, as if you were spending experience (and the second won't be a walk in the park either). There's nothing about Independent that forces him to make the choice either way, except for the part about the points being spent and gone; they're gone whether he gets that item back or another one that may be less or more powerful.

That might be appropriate in a heroic game. I'm really not sure what the resistance to thsi limitation is based on.

The notion of points that go away when you spend them works if you're treating points as some kind of currency that characters exchange for goods and/or services. But it's not, even though we talk about "buying" stuff with them. They're a measure of how powerful the character is. They're a yardstick rather than a checking account. Philosophically the difference is huge, and when you try to treat them as currency you run into a big disconnect with how the rest of the system works.

A 150 point character who has bought a 35 point magic item out of his initial points is really a 115 point character with a 35 point item, and if he loses the item he's a 115 point character who is 35 over on his Disadvantages. Essentially, by being a 75 point base character with 75 points worth of Disadvantages, he's "allowed" to have up to 150 points of power.

This is all why Independent needs to go away and never return.

[Doc Democracy]

My problem is this: what if you want to have a gun that can only shoot every other phase?

Hmm. Well that would be an extra time kind of thing, or a limitation on the power that it could not fire on consecutive phases.

It is one thing to have a 30 second recharge - most combats are over before then. If you want a recharge significantly before then though, you are really chancing it with that build.

Well eight charges recovering in 30 seconds allows a SPD 4 character to fire for two full rounds out of three before the first charge comes back. That's not bad.

It would be up to the GM to decide how limited the power was by the recoverable charges.

Also you don;t need to do anything to recover the charge - the mechanic speifically allows for chrges to be ruled NOT recoverable (for instance your recoverable chareg arrows could have gotten lost in the woods or snapped).

As for the ease of recovery - I might even consider going three steps down the chart or even more depending on how quickly the charges would recover but this method works for me.

[quote=Sean Waters;1557407] p287 specifically says that recoverable charges should not generally be used to simulate charges that recover faster than per day.

5ER I suppose - I have not yet upgraded and in FREd on page 187 it says that charges can ordinarily only be recovered when the combat has ended. My system tends to work that way.

A seperate limitation just seems cleaner.

But it would have to introduce a bureacracy of its own to
count the 'heat' build up. Why introduce another bureaucracy when we have a readily available one?


Doc