Inherent Discussion: How do you interpret it?

[RDU Neil]

Seeing that there are questions on the mechanical application of Inherent in the Steve Long only threads,

 

 

I thought I'd ask in general... how do you all interpret what "inherent" actually means in your games?

 

To me, the existence of "Inherent" vs. "non-inherent" in the game applies a core assumption that powers and such are "separate" from the character somehow, thus can be affected separately from affecting the character. The classic trope of "I've had my powers drained! I'm just a normal human now!"... and Inherent was there for times when that just didn't make sense.

 

e.g.   I am Flying Guy! I can fly because I have the power of flight!  And if my power is drained, I no longer can fly!

 

vs.

 

I am Angel. I can fly because I have wings, and if you drain my flight... wait... what? Do my wings temporarily disappear? Do I flap them but they just don't work? How does that drain work anyway?

 

Like, Inherent vs. non-Inherent is really a way to define the SFX of a character, in a mechanical way.  Essence Woman!, who is normal but imbued with magical essence, and that gives her strength and flying, but if you strip the essence, she is normal.  Ok, that has an internal logic.  But what about mutants... born with powers... how are Cyclops eye-beams something that can be drained, even though they are a natural part of him? Do you have to buy Inherent for all mutant powers?

 

Now this ignores the "inherent equals always on" concept, which I don't believe was part of it, originally... was it? I've always though inherent was a way to buy, say, Growth - Inherent, to make your hill giant character. He doesn't have a "normal" size and gets bigger, he is just naturally 20 feet tall, etc. You can't drain a hill giant and make him a "normal human sized." Just like you shouldn't be able to drain Angel's wings, and suddenly he doesn't have them any more.

 

Like I always hated that Wolverine's "healing factor" was apparently something separate from his natural self, because it could be "turned off" by various plot McGuffins. Wwasn't it simply a natural part of him? How does something magically "turn it off" without changing his body at a molecular level into something else. Could that same thing turn of any normal person's ability to heal, which is essentially saying you've stopped cellular growth and all that implies. Can you drain his "hairiness" or "shortness" and suddenly Logan is tall and svelte? Those are natural aspects of his physical self, just like rapid healing... right?

 

When is a power something separate from "who the character is" (Steve Rogers vs. super serum adding abilities), and when is a power simply "who the character is" i.e. Forge... I'm a really, super-intuitive technological gadget designer... can you drain that?

[Surrealone]

Flight is a great one to work with when answering this question - especially on mutants who take extra limbs to represent wings that allow them to fly (and strike, and do other such things).  Here's why:

• If the winged, flying mutant in question does NOT buy both Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then a mutant like Leech who can suppress the powers of other mutants can suppress the Extra Limbs, the Flight, or both ... and the winged, flying mutant can no longer fly due to a lack of winged limbs & flight.  This is akin to the X-Men movies when Beast approaches Leech and sees his furry blue hand return to normal human form and colouration -- except the suppression would likely look like a retraction of the wings ... and would result in a loss of the ability to fly.
• If, however, the winged, flying mutant in question DID buy both the Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then Leech's suppress would have no effect.

 

This has nothing to do with 'who our winged, flying mutant' is, as that's a personality question.

 

Instead, this has to do with whether the manifestation of one or more powers is 'natural' for the character ... or not.  As an example, if our winged, flying mutant were, instead, a winged, flying angel, I think 'inherent' makes LOTS of sense in the minds of most people, since most people think of angels as winged.  The line becomes a lot more blurry and a matter of the player's choice if this is a mutant instead of an angel.  Toad's tongue, for example, is probably 'inherent' ... along with his goofy eyes and the increased arc of perception that goes with them -- largely because they're naturally core to how he sees and tastes things.  But our winged, flying mutant is less obvious, because his wings aren't tied to senses that should be present -- and so, the character's player should make the call as to whether they should be 'inherent' ... and be prepared to explain why (if they ARE 'inherent') and a GM asks.

 

I have an Invulnerability-themed mutant brick who has 30pts of Power Defense (defined as Immutability) bought within his Unified Power (mutant powers) set ... which is 'inherent', 'hardened', and 'impenetrable' ... because I considered it core to his Invulnerability theme.  i.e. It'd be a gaping Achilles heel if someone with a drain/suppress affecting all mutant powers could just drain away his power defense, as it's the one defense that protects all of his other Invulnerability-themed defenses ... and despite being a mutant, he should have some defense against such drains/suppresses if his schtick is being Invulnerable.  (That Achilles heel just didn't make logical/thematic sense to me given the character concept, so I addressed it ... and 'inherent' was part of how I did so..)

[RDU Neil]

20 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Flight is a great one to work with when answering this question - especially on mutants who take extra limbs to represent wings that allow them to fly (and strike, and do other such things).  Here's why:

• If the winged, flying mutant in question does NOT buy both Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then a mutant like Leech who can suppress the powers of other mutants can suppress the Extra Limbs, the Flight, or both ... and the winged, flying mutant can no longer fly due to a lack of winged limbs & flight.  This is akin to the X-Men movies when Beast approaches Leech and sees his furry blue hand return to normal human form and colouration -- except the suppression would likely look like a retraction of the wings ... and would result in a loss of the ability to fly.
• If, however, the winged, flying mutant in question DID buy both the Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then Leech's suppress would have no effect.

 

This has nothing to do with 'who our winged, flying mutant' is, as that's a personality question.

 

Instead, this has to do with whether the manifestation of one or more powers is 'natural' for the character ... or not.  As an example, if our winged, flying mutant were, instead, a winged, flying angel, I think 'inherent' makes LOTS of sense in the minds of most people, since most people think of angels as winged.  The line becomes a lot more blurry and a matter of the player's choice if this is a mutant instead of an angel.  Toad's tongue, for example, is probably 'inherent' ... along with his goofy eyes and the increased arc of perception that goes with them -- largely because they're core to how he sees and tastes things.  But our winged, flying mutant is less obvious, because his wings aren't tied to senses that should be present -- and so, the character's players should make the call as to whether they should be 'inherent' ... and be prepared to explain why if they ARE inherent and a GM wants to know why.

 

Basically I agree with what you've written here, minor interpretations aside. So what about the "Always On" aspect of Inherent? I would agree (and feel appropriate if I was GM) if almost every mutant was Inherent in their abilities, as they were born with them, and seeing them as something separate that could be "drained from them" didn't make sense. As compared to a person who's abilities are from some outside source layered on top (like Dr. Spectrum, who gets abilities from a stone grafted into him that enhances him, but is an external source that could be justifiably affected separately from his "self.")   But "Always On" would mean that Angel was always flying and Beast is always leaping and Cyclops always blasting (well, ok, we've got that one sort of).

Has the "Always On" aspect of Inherent always been there? Am I misremembering? (I don't have my books with me.)  Because I honestly see the concepts of many super-characters have abilities that are mixed bag of inherent and not, and it adds an entire layer of complexity to have to start defining at that detail.

 

(I will admit that some of the issue here for me is that I've never liked adjustment powers, as they should be SFX based, not targeting a specific game mechanic power. And that things like "Mutation" is a single SFX, since that makes no sense for Wolverine and Cyclops and Scarlet Witch get drained, while it somehow knows that Cap and Spidey aren't Mutants? What? People hate mutants, but guys jacked up on steroids and irradiated freaks are A-OK! What? So many silly inconsistencies in those false differentiations, or poorly defined at least.)

 

Edit: Oh, and does a mutant draining ray temporarily "cure" someone with Down Syndrome, or a genetic predisposition for Alzheimer's?  So many inconsistencies... makes my head ache.

[Surrealone]

4 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Basically I agree with what you've written here, minor interpretations aside. So what about the "Always On" aspect of Inherent? I would agree (and feel appropriate if I was GM) if almost every mutant was Inherent in their abilities, as they were born with them, and seeing them as something separate that could be "drained from them" didn't make sense. As compared to a person who's abilities are from some outside source layered on top (like Dr. Spectrum, who gets abilities from a stone grafted into him that enhances him, but is an external source that could be justifiably affected separately from his "self.")   But "Always On" would mean that Angel was always flying and Beast is always leaping and Cyclops always blasting (well, ok, we've got that one sort of).

Has the "Always On" aspect of Inherent always been there? Am I misremembering? (I don't have my books with me.)  Because I honestly see the concepts of many super-characters have abilities that are mixed bag of inherent and not, and it adds an entire layer of complexity to have to start defining at that detail.

 

(I will admit that some of the issue here for me is that I've never liked adjustment powers, as they should be SFX based, not targeting a specific game mechanic power. And that things like "Mutation" is a single SFX, since that makes no sense for Wolverine and Cyclops and Scarlet Witch get drained, while it somehow knows that Cap and Spidey aren't Mutants? What? People hate mutants, but guys jacked up on steroids and irradiated freaks are A-OK! What? So many silly inconsistencies in those false differentiations, or poorly defined at least.)

Don't be too literal on the Always On portion, because 6e1 p128 states (red emphasis added by me):

"Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent."

 

Let's use our angel example for this.  Our angel buys Extra Limbs (wings) and Flight as 'Inherent'.  That doesn't mean the Angel has to literally be flying all the time, since the GM can adjudicate that the Extra Limbs and Flight function in a similar fashion to being Always on.  i.e. There's no limitation taken for it, but the wings and their ability to produce flight can't be hidden.

 

That's totally the GM's prerogative, and people will adjudicate it very differently based on their personal biases.  If I were the GM, I'd give a limitation for that ... probably (-1/4) ... certainly not (-1/2) ... and only on the Extra Limbs.  I'd give no limitation for it on the Flight since it's not bought to 0 END and isn't technically always on ... but it is tied by SFX to the Extra Limbs ... and that's the reason I'd say it functions in similar fashion to being Always On in this particular case.  'Function' is probably the wrong word, but it's the relationship between the Flight and the Extra Limbs that matters -- to me, anyway.

[RDU Neil]

10 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Don't be too literal on the Always On portion, because 6e1 p128 states (red emphasis added by me):

"Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent."

 

Let's use our angel example for this.  Our angel buys Extra Limbs (wings) and Flight as 'Inherent'.  That doesn't mean the Angel has to literally be flying all the time, since the GM can adjudicate that the Extra Limbs and Flight function in a similar fashion to being Always on.  i.e. There's no limitation taken for it, but the wings and their ability to produce flight can't be hidden.

 

That's totally the GM's prerogative, and people will adjudicate it very differently based on their personal biases.  If I were the GM, I'd give a limitation for that ... probably (-1/4) ... certainly not (-1/2) ... and only on the Extra Limbs.  I'd give no limitation for it on the Flight since it's not bought to 0 END and isn't technically always on ... but it is tied by SFX to the Extra Limbs ... and that's the reason I'd say it functions in similar fashion to being Always On in this particular case.  'Function' is probably the wrong word, but it's the relationship between the Flight and the Extra Limbs that matters -- to me, anyway.

 

I'm very comfortable with nuanced rather than literal interpretations of rules, but you are getting to what I started this thread for... finding out how others might rule... getting opinions on this.

 

Thinking about it, I'm just wondering if "Inherent" vs. "Non-inherent" needs to have a cost associated with them. Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure... but if there are just as many benefits and downsides to Inherent and Non-Inherent, it should just be a qualifier of a sort, maybe. So "I am the Archangel! My wings are part of my holy self! But my might Smite blast is a blessing from She Who Is Above All and would disappear if my connection to HER is severed!"  One power is inherent, the other non-inherent.

 

I'm just wondering if Inherent really is such a benefit as to imply a higher cost. Could be. I'd need books in front of me to reference to figure that out.

[dsatow]

I just view inherent as a 'cannot drain' advantage rather than defining what is or is not covered by the term inherent.  This way, if someone has an Achilles like character who is magically invulnerable, they could just make it inherent and say the magic is so powerful it can't be drained.  This makes it more liberal in use and require more GM monitoring but inherent isn't used too often so I don't see it as much of a big deal (I mostly do general damage Blasts/KA with villains and the drains are more for surprise attacks/flavor).

[Sean Waters]

I would consider Inherent is an advantage that should rarely be used.  It should not be used, for example, to simply make a power undrainable.  I use it almost exclusively when a situation simply does not apply to a character: for example

 

1. RoboDog is a robot dog.  RoboDog does not have lungs or require oxygen.  RoboDog has LS(Does not breathe) that is Inherent.  It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make RoboDog need to breathe.

2. Confusus has a weirdly wired brain that is hard to read because it is complex.  Confusus has Mental Defence (vs Telepathy) that is Inherent.   It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make Confusus' brain less complicated.

 

I'm not so keen on the Angel/flight example because you could define your Drain as a gravity field preventing flight.  That would work, wings or not.  

 

I'm also not keen on defining something as 'so powerful it cannot be drained' because someone might have a really powerful drain.  "My Invulnerability is God Given!", "Well, my Drain is God's Dad Given."

 

Basically if it is not something you do, it is something you are then you can have Inherent, otherwise probably not, at least in my tiny little world.  It does come down, to an extent, to SFX making sense, but the system places mechanics over SFX - there is nothing preventing you buying Inherent for any power other than common sense, which, in practice, rarely stops anyone doing anything they want to do anyway; I do like to ask players why their powers work as they are built though, and if I don't like the answers, I beat them to within an inch of their lives, so that rarely happens twice.

[Surrealone]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

I'm not so keen on the Angel/flight example because you could define your Drain as a gravity field preventing flight.  That would work, wings or not.  

 

I'm also not keen on defining something as 'so powerful it cannot be drained' because someone might have a really powerful drain.  "My Invulnerability is God Given!", "Well, my Drain is God's Dad Given."

Angelic flight could absolutely defy physics/gravity -- in fact, that's rather the nature of angelic flight (i.e. a magical means by which angels can defy gravity; sort of like dragons have wings but don't actually use them to fly, angels could have the same kind of thing going on, where they really only provide stability or somesuch) ... so that rather squashes your concern about a gravity field, I'd think.

 

Your concern about something being 'so powerful it cannot be drained' was also moot on the Invulnerability-themed Inherent Power Defense example ... because only the Inherent Power Defense can't be drained ... i.e. the Invulnerability-themed character always has a defense to drains -- meaning a big enough drain to mutant powers WILL get past it ... but it will only drain the other mutant powers, not the actual mutant Power Defense that shields them.  In fact, that particular character pretty much always takes -some- damage if he's hit with big enough hammers, as that's the very nature of the Invulnerability-themed build. (He's not actually 100% invulnerable, because who wants to play that?!)

[RDU Neil]

14 hours ago, dsatow said:

I just view inherent as a 'cannot drain' advantage rather than defining what is or is not covered by the term inherent.  This way, if someone has an Achilles like character who is magically invulnerable, they could just make it inherent and say the magic is so powerful it can't be drained.  This makes it more liberal in use and require more GM monitoring but inherent isn't used too often so I don't see it as much of a big deal (I mostly do general damage Blasts/KA with villains and the drains are more for surprise attacks/flavor).

 

I similarly find drains and adjustment powers very rarely used over the past 37 years of Hero... but they are useful for dramatic purposes, when appropriate, and usually targeting a specific known character with a known power set "Negative Ion Man will be surprised when he is bathed in my Free Electron ray, which will cancel out his powers!" or some such nonsense.  Usually cutomized drugs or nanites designed to attack a specific person or system, etc. There are just times when it surfaces, more during character construction, and players wondering about how certain abilities or powers play out in the game... just thought I'd see what people thought.

 

For example... a Thing (from the FF) type character. Is his rocky form (the basis for all his powers) something that can be drained, so temporarily he is back to Ben Grimm, or has he become that rocky form, and it is what he is now, and it would require a "transform" to make him Ben again. I personally lean toward the latter, and there was a PC who fit that description for the most part, and that is how we both agreed to play it out, but I never made him buy Inherent on all his powers. Seemed like a lot of cost for something that would very rarely, if ever, come into play.

[Sean Waters]

13 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Angelic flight could absolutely defy physics/gravity -- in fact, that's rather the nature of angelic flight (i.e. a magical means by which angels can defy gravity; sort of like dragons have wings but don't actually use them to fly, angels could have the same kind of thing going on, where they really only provide stability or somesuch) ... so that rather squashes your concern about a gravity field, I'd think.

 

Your concern about something being 'so powerful it cannot be drained' was also moot on the Invulnerability-themed Inherent Power Defense example ... because only the Inherent Power Defense can't be drained ... i.e. the Invulnerability-themed character always has a defense to drains -- meaning a big enough drain to mutant powers WILL get past it ... but it will only drain the other mutant powers, not the actual mutant Power Defense that shields them.  In fact, that particular character pretty much always takes -some- damage if he's hit with big enough hammers, as that's the very nature of the Invulnerability-themed build. (He's not actually 100% invulnerable, because who wants to play that?!)

 

Bear in mind any character with flight will be defying gravity.  The question is whether 'inherent' makes sense for that sort of power (well, the question is how I interpret 'inherent', but we can consider that to be the same thing  ) and I think it does not.  Demonic Angel Power Draining probably works just fine against Angel Flight, but Inherent would mean it does not.  The point is that whatever reason for not being able to drain something you do you can come up with, I can find a counter, except in certain limited circumstances, as outlined above.

 

It was not my concern about something being so powerful it can not be drained - read dsatow's post above.  I'm just making the point there is not an 'ultimate power' in Hero - whatever you want to 'define' then someone can 'define' something even 'better'.

 

I also did not mention Power Defence, and was not thinking of that anyway.

 

The point is that SFX are explanations, what matters is the build.  A build with 'inherent' means it can not be affected by adjustment powers.  Hero characters are assumed to be human PLUS (whatever).  If you want the base character to be something other than that, Inherent may (note MAY) make sense.

[RDU Neil]

19 hours ago, Surrealone said:

If, however, the winged, flying mutant in question DID buy both the Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then Leech's suppress would have no effect.

 

At home and reading the Inherent rules, I came back to this concept. It says "and if applicable have the Limitation Always On." 

 

So... is it as simple as making the "Flight" part 0 END, Persistant... but Always On is NOT applicable here (there is no limitation to the power in this way and it isn't really Always On) and then Inherent is fine.

 

The "if applicable" is essentially GM ruling based on the character concept?  Though in this case, the Inherent "Always On" is maybe replaced with a -1/4 Dependent on Extra Limbs or something? 

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

I would consider Inherent is an advantage that should rarely be used.  It should not be used, for example, to simply make a power undrainable.  I use it almost exclusively when a situation simply does not apply to a character: for example

 

1. RoboDog is a robot dog.  RoboDog does not have lungs or require oxygen.  RoboDog has LS(Does not breathe) that is Inherent.  It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make RoboDog need to breathe.

2. Confusus has a weirdly wired brain that is hard to read because it is complex.  Confusus has Mental Defence (vs Telepathy) that is Inherent.   It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make Confusus' brain less complicated.

 

Two good examples that highlight why I will follow the RAW "always on if applicable" ruling, and not the Rules Board "Always On must be limiting" ruling.  Neither of those powers are limited by being Always On, IMO, but are reasonable to be Inherent.

[RDU Neil]

3 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

Hero characters are assumed to be human PLUS (whatever).  If you want the base character to be something other than that, Inherent may (note MAY) make sense.

 

This is actually a big part of this discussion. I remember haggling over it years ago as 5th was being debated. As Hero became a toolkit for building "any character you wanted" there was a lot of discussion about "Really? Any character?"    Because, as Sean mentioned, what was being assumed was "any baseline human, action adventure based character that may or may not have additional abilities layered on top."

 

My question is, has that every been formally declared? Because I do think it is axiomatic to Hero. (While you can try to play a game where everyone is a sentient virus, or even just non-action based humans like the cool new Jane Austen roll playing game out there, you really aren't being supported by the core rules of Hero, because they weren't built to play that kind of game.) Because if declared, then Inherent really is a way, maybe, to break that axiom... but it is also implying a limitation to the kinds of characters you should play, which is an interesting game design challenge.

[Sean Waters]

 

Quote

So... is it as simple as making the "Flight" part 0 END, Persistant... but Always On is NOT applicable here (there is no limitation to the power in this way and it isn't really Always On) and then Inherent is fine.

 

The "if applicable" is essentially GM ruling based on the character concept?  Though in this case, the Inherent "Always On" is maybe replaced with a -1/4 Dependent on Extra Limbs or something? 

 

Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent. An  Inherent Power is one that reflects a character’s natural state of being.

 

6e1.128

 

So, this is one of those situations where Mr Long and I agree.

 

...it’s a natural, inherent part of the character’s being. As such, it cannot be Aided, Dispelled, Drained, or the like.

 

6.1.334

 

Inherent, you will note, is a Duration Advantage.

 

That means that this Angel in the example, with their Angel Wings can not be aided even by God herself to make their wings more efficient, which seems odd, all things considered.  That makes no sense to me.

 

[Sean Waters]

4 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

This is actually a big part of this discussion. I remember haggling over it years ago as 5th was being debated. As Hero became a toolkit for building "any character you wanted" there was a lot of discussion about "Really? Any character?"    Because, as Sean mentioned, what was being assumed was "any baseline human, action adventure based character that may or may not have additional abilities layered on top."

 

My question is, has that every been formally declared? Because I do think it is axiomatic to Hero. (While you can try to play a game where everyone is a sentient virus, or even just non-action based humans like the cool new Jane Austen roll playing game out there, you really aren't being supported by the core rules of Hero, because they weren't built to play that kind of game.) Because if declared, then Inherent really is a way, maybe, to break that axiom... but it is also implying a limitation to the kinds of characters you should play, which is an interesting game design challenge.

 

In an ideal version of Hero we would not have any 'inherent' assumptions about the characters, but that might be difficult to build because people tend to make natural assumptions.  You would probably have to build some sort of assumptions into the design of the scenario, ven if the rules did not make that assumption automatically.

 

I think...

[Hugh Neilson]

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

[dsatow]

Yeah , I forgot about the no aid portion.  I think most people dwell on the dispel/drain side.

 

[RDU Neil]

17 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

 

 

Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent. An  Inherent Power is one that reflects a character’s natural state of being.

 

6e1.128

 

So, this is one of those situations where Mr Long and I agree.

 

...it’s a natural, inherent part of the character’s being. As such, it cannot be Aided, Dispelled, Drained, or the like.

 

6.1.334

 

Inherent, you will note, is a Duration Advantage.

 

That means that this Angel in the example, with their Angel Wings can not be aided even by God herself to make their wings more efficient, which seems odd, all things considered.  That makes no sense to me.  How does it make sense to you?

 

 

Yes... this does make things more complicated... more in the idea of "What about the base 10 STR" that characters start with? Is that not inherently part of who they are? It can't be aided?

 

We are very quickly in a really weird place here. Mainly based on how Adjustment Powers are working, less so than Inherent in and of itself, or inherently?     Like, if Angelic Strongwoman has Inherent 100 STR, does that mean she can't put on power armor that gives her +30 STR more? No, because that is not an Aid to STR as per the rules. So maybe Aid is the wrong way to go about it? If we want to keep that concept of "base human plus extra on top" then shouldn't any Aid to STR be built with just some version of "STR" that is somehow usable by others? 

 

Or maybe, what really needs to happen is that every ability (Characteristic or Power, I'm assuming Skills and Talents can't be affected by adjustment powers) has to be thought through at the beginning "Is there any situation where the ability could be enhanced or decreased in a way that isn't fundamentally transforming the character into something else?

[RDU Neil]

Building off this idea, lets look at "a character's innate senses" as stated in the book as inherently Inherent. 

 

We do have ways to temporarily disable these senses, but it isn't an adjustment power. It is called Flash. It is an attack that temporarily, but completely, disables an inherent aspect of the character. Do we need to rethink Adjustment powers with this in mind? 

 

What about an attack that temporarily, but completely, enhances an inherent aspect? Most of Hero has both sides to every things, why not this? For every Body rolled on my Reverse Flash attack you get +1 to your Perception roll?  

 

I'm not really advocating this, but I'm pointing out that we are discussing issues of internal game design conflict that are deeper than the mechanical level, and need to be addressed (or just ignored most of the time, as usually happens with inconsistencies) at the axiomatic level where core assumptions are defined. 

 

 

To Hugh's point about legs being Inherent, but Running with them is not, this is again and example of a situation clearly running up against the axiomatic assumptions of the game as well... there are no absolutes, but you are absolutely a baseline human and have legs by assumption, etc.

[Sean Waters]

I think the way I think about it, I think, is that even the 'basic human template' is something that is an addition to the 'zero state' character.  That is why (for example) running can be drained, even though they have legs and (if they have Life Support) then Life Support can be drained because it is something that can be taken away and will have an effect if it is taken away.  Mind you, why should a basic template have limbs?  I don't know.

 

A limb is inherent: what you do with it is not.  You can not aid limbs, you can not drain them.  You can aid or drain what limbs do.

 

To be honest, it is a term of art, which is why what I said above is contradictory.  You will have to decide what makes sense to you, I suppose.

[Ninja-Bear]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

I think inherent on flight (wings) has caused more issues than helped. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I figure inherent are abilities that can't be just "shut off" by others, they're not an addon to the character but part of their very nature.  You have to mangle or somehow harm them to shut off their power.

[sinanju]

I have always hated the trope that superpowers can be drained, transferred and the like, as if they were a brightly colored liquid you can pour from one glass to another. Whether you were born with your powers (Superman, the X-Men, etc) or acquired them in an accident (Spider-Man, the Flash, etc), as far as I'm concerned they're always inherent, as much a part of you as your ability to see or breathe. No advantage/limitation required--or allowed. Just as I can prevent you from seeing by covering your eyes, or gouging them out if I'm feeling particularly nasty, but can't "steal" your power of vision or acquire it for myself (short of very advanced surgery to physically take your eyes and graft them into myself), so too are your superpowers. So a generic "mutant powers drain" is a no-go as a power in any of my campaigns. Ditto for handy, generic power dampeners for use by the authorities.

 

So if you've captured a superstrong villain, you're gonna need some way to restrain him that doesn't depend on simply "taking away" his superhuman strength. A strength-reducing drug cocktail that works on anyone, or keeping him sedated (chemically, psychically or electronically), or simply using bonds strong enough to hold him are your only options.

 

 

[RDU Neil]

40 minutes ago, sinanju said:

I have always hated the trope that superpowers can be drained, transferred and the like, as if they were a brightly colored liquid you can pour from one glass to another. Whether you were born with your powers (Superman, the X-Men, etc) or acquired them in an accident (Spider-Man, the Flash, etc), as far as I'm concerned they're always inherent, as much a part of you as your ability to see or breathe. No advantage/limitation required--or allowed. Just as I can prevent you from seeing by covering your eyes, or gouging them out if I'm feeling particularly nasty, but can't "steal" your power of vision or acquire it for myself (short of very advanced surgery to physically take your eyes and graft them into myself), so too are your superpowers. So a generic "mutant powers drain" is a no-go as a power in any of my campaigns. Ditto for handy, generic power dampeners for use by the authorities.

 

So if you've captured a superstrong villain, you're gonna need some way to restrain him that doesn't depend on simply "taking away" his superhuman strength. A strength-reducing drug cocktail that works on anyone, or keeping him sedated (chemically, psychically or electronically), or simply using bonds strong enough to hold him are your only options.

 

 

 

I agree. Those tropes were solidly "not" part of my world. They never made sense. I do feel that there are certain times when a drain or suppress effect does make sense, but only when a specific ability is understood, perhaps has a commonality, and a specific attack is created... say, injected nanites programmed to collect in the brain and disrupt any psionic abilities... if such abilities were common enough to be studied and understood and the science to create such made sense, etc    The whole "Captain Stronger-Than-Average is a mutant, and is somehow detected and suppressed while Ms. Goes-To-The-Gym-A-Lot with the same stats is somehow ok?

 

In my world, Binder's ex-wife and ex-development partner parlayed their advesive development into Foam-crete TM, and made millions creating an entire line of non-lethal capture/restrain products that were used worldwide by law enforcement and military. Her husband rotted lin jail after a short criminal career (ended in the early '90s)... because he was insane, and she was practical. Heroes with access and Stronghold agents, etc., would regularly be seen using Foam-crete products to restrain downed villains for transport. Nearly all powerful supers who were arrested were also kept in a drugged and electrically stimulated coma until trial, and during incarceration. This lead to a long sub-plots of ACLU law suits against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Even just taking the lightest pass at "Just what do you do with super-criminals?" beggars significant social, legal and technological questions. Love those things in games.

[Sean Waters]

3 hours ago, sinanju said:

I have always hated the trope that superpowers can be drained, transferred and the like, as if they were a brightly colored liquid you can pour from one glass to another. Whether you were born with your powers (Superman, the X-Men, etc) or acquired them in an accident (Spider-Man, the Flash, etc), as far as I'm concerned they're always inherent, as much a part of you as your ability to see or breathe. No advantage/limitation required--or allowed. Just as I can prevent you from seeing by covering your eyes, or gouging them out if I'm feeling particularly nasty, but can't "steal" your power of vision or acquire it for myself (short of very advanced surgery to physically take your eyes and graft them into myself), so too are your superpowers. So a generic "mutant powers drain" is a no-go as a power in any of my campaigns. Ditto for handy, generic power dampeners for use by the authorities.

 

So if you've captured a superstrong villain, you're gonna need some way to restrain him that doesn't depend on simply "taking away" his superhuman strength. A strength-reducing drug cocktail that works on anyone, or keeping him sedated (chemically, psychically or electronically), or simply using bonds strong enough to hold him are your only options.

 

 

 

Aren't Superman's powers drained by Kryptonite?  Can't your ability to breathe be taken away, for example if you are in a vacuum, or get punched in the solar plexus?  Can't your sight be taken away with a blindfold or smoke?  Is a strength-reducing drug cocktail going to work on someone whose strength works by touch telekinesis?

 

So, in this one game I ran superpowers were an interaction between your genetic code and your ability to draw zero point energy from the Universal Matrix (the structure underlying all reality).  Thousands of years ago our planet was dosed with a virus that removed the cell bodies that could channel the zero point energy and replaced them with Mitochondria – sufficient to power the processes of life but not enough to manifest powers by gene interaction.

 

Recently the virtochondria have been reintroduced to some individuals, allowing them to manifest powers.  Their powers can be weakened by anything capable of disrupting their link between the Universal Matrix and their genetic code (or boosted by anything strengthening that link - do not forget an inherent power can not be Aided either).

 

I’ve long argued that all Adjustment powers should be required to have a well defined SFX that explains how they work.

 

You could build a Friction Field that logically reduces all movement, but if another character’s powers are based on negating friction they might be unaffected.

 

You would certainly get a cost break for this, but the point is it would be mandatory to have.