Mind Control limitation question

[Marcus]

Thank you, Sir. 
 

I often struggle with the limitation values where they are ‘exclusionary’ limitations.  Only vs Fire, -1/2, being the most extreme example, but they are numerous.

 

At the same time, points totals and GM intervention are a thing. If Captain Fireproof has 70 ED, only vs Fire, -1/2, then he and the GM have agreed that it will be 2/3 as useful as 70 ED, no limitations.  2/3 of the energy damage he takes is fire, or maybe ‘lava diving’ is a thing that will come up constantly.

 

If it isn't 2/3 as useful as the unlimited power, then change the value until it is. 
 

I find if you apply that analysis to a lot of the ‘thats all its worth?’ limitations, things get fixed right quick.  (Or I get ED vs Everything But Fire as -2 and cackle my way though most villain books.  Well, until I run into Firewing, but for -2, I cant complain.

 

AS to the original question - Id have to know more about the campaign.  If Our Hero is on a team with Honey Badger, Rampage!, and The Unlikely Bulk, I *might* give that only -1.  (Otoh, I might also lower the value those blokes get on their Angry Complications, since they hang out with Mr Not Angry). 
 

But to me this starts at -2 and I could easily see assigning -4, because Id likely give a player at most -1/2 and likely only -1/4 for Mind Control that cant be used to create calm.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Marcus

[LoneWolf]

Is the limitation only to stop enraged and berserks or only to calm down?  Personally, I would be reluctant to allow a limitation on mind control to be limited to stopping enraged and berserks but have no problem with it calming people down.  As a general rule a power should be able to be described without using any game terms unless that game term is also a commonly used phrase and being used as the commonly used phrase.  From what I can see the terms enraged and berserk is using the game definition not the common usage. If your character (not the player) cannot describe a power to another character without using game terms the power should not be allowed.  

 

Only to calm someone down is not worth a -2 limitation much less a -4.   A -4 limitation is a single charge that never recovers.   A -2 is a single charge.   Only to calm down is going to be able to be used more than once in the campaign and could be used multiple times in a session.  Only to calm down could be used to prevent someone from panicking and running into danger or prevent a fight before it starts.  
 

[Marcus]

At your table, what is the limitation ‘Mind Control, cannot be used to calm people down’ worth?

[Matt Holck]

22 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

It is very subjective.  +20 is "target will perform an action he is normally against doing."  +10 is "wouldn't mind doing".  Overcoming panic feels like something they'd WANT to do.  To be sure, working past the panic is a factor.  The question is...how large a factor.  Same with berserk...and the target's other Psych Lims clearly come into play.

 

I start from the basis that someone panicking *wants* to be reassured, and wants to calm down.  So I'm starting from Ego +0...and the question becomes, how much of a penalty does being panicked add.  There's no absolute answer here;  it's a question for the GM and player to resolve.  AND, it talks about what the value of the limitation for this should be.  Because a -1 limitation is a big one.  

Points for severity could points be stacked against the mind control points 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

At your table, what is the limitation ‘Mind Control, cannot be used to calm people down’ worth?

 

That is a pretty small limitation, maybe -¼

[unclevlad]

Yes, but I also don't buy that "can't be used to do X" and "can only do X" are necessarily reciprocal.

[Marcus]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Yes, but I also don't buy that "can't be used to do X" and "can only do X" are necessarily reciprocal.

I agree with you, to a point.  X may have sufficient penumbra about its capabilities such that there is overlap between the tools provided by ‘X’ and ‘Not X’.  As an extreme example, ‘Only for Multiform’ is not a very great limitation on a VPP (As each form could easily buy any desired power/skill/etc).  And a GM who interprets ‘Calming Emotions’ broadly enough - “The Guard doesn't care enough to keep you from taking the keys.” might well cause ‘Calming Emotions’ to cast a very broad shadow of capability.

 

For all that said, I think the reciprocal will remain where I start my reasoning.  I often find the values assigned to such limitations to be quite mean-spirited and serve to discourage a lot of cool/narrow/tricksy/flavor approaches on PCs, because one ends up manifestly not getting what one is paying for.  NPC builds are frequently misleading, I feel, as they use points as description without concern for running out or utility, rather than as a resource that presumably has value and limits.

 

Which I suppose leads us back to ‘It is up to the GM to make sure that the players get about what they paid for’.  If player A took ‘Only to calm emotions (-1/4)’ and player B took it (-2), Player A’s limitation would be interpreted very differently at my table than player B’s!  For the OP, Id still set it at - (a lot), but if it is as useful at your table as, say, Mind Lass’s OIF Amulet Mind Control, -1/2 is appropriate.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Marcus

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Yes, but I also don't buy that "can't be used to do X" and "can only do X" are necessarily reciprocal.

 

Well, not only that, but what's the base?  What I mean by that is where do you start your reciprocation and by what amount?  Is +1 the reverse of -¼?  is +2 the opposite of -2?

[LoneWolf]

17 hours ago, Marcus said:

I agree with you, to a point.  X may have sufficient penumbra about its capabilities such that there is overlap between the tools provided by ‘X’ and ‘Not X’.  As an extreme example, ‘Only for Multiform’ is not a very great limitation on a VPP (As each form could easily buy any desired power/skill/etc).  And a GM who interprets ‘Calming Emotions’ broadly enough - “The Guard doesn't care enough to keep you from taking the keys.” might well cause ‘Calming Emotions’ to cast a very broad shadow of capability.

 

For all that said, I think the reciprocal will remain where I start my reasoning.  I often find the values assigned to such limitations to be quite mean-spirited and serve to discourage a lot of cool/narrow/tricksy/flavor approaches on PCs, because one ends up manifestly not getting what one is paying for.  NPC builds are frequently misleading, I feel, as they use points as description without concern for running out or utility, rather than as a resource that presumably has value and limits.

 

Which I suppose leads us back to ‘It is up to the GM to make sure that the players get about what they paid for’.  If player A took ‘Only to calm emotions (-1/4)’ and player B took it (-2), Player A’s limitation would be interpreted very differently at my table than player B’s!  For the OP, Id still set it at - (a lot), but if it is as useful at your table as, say, Mind Lass’s OIF Amulet Mind Control, -1/2 is appropriate.

 

That is not always the case.  What you have to do is to look at how limiting the restriction is and what you can do with it.   There are multiple ways you can get a person to do what you want them to.  If someone is enraged or berserk, I can use other commands besides clam down to prevent them from attacking.  I could simply order them not to attack and if I get a high enough roll, they don’t attack despite being berserk.  If I can achieve the result, I want without using that command the restriction of not being able to use that command is less restrictive and therefore is worth less. 

 

Often only being able to do, or not being able to something is more restrictive than opposite. Take the situation where there are a hundred cars and 1 of them is pink.  Not being able to attack the pink car means I still have 99 targets to choose from.  If I can only attack the pink car I have only a single target I can attack.  Not being able to attack the pink car hardly limits me at all and should be worth little to no limitation.  Only being able to attack pink cars on the other hand incredibly restrictive and should be result in a much higher limitation.  

 

The command calm down might not even prevent the character from attacking his target even if it achieves EGO +30.  If the enraged character would normally attack the target removing the enraged or berserk, they can still do so.  In fact, in some cases, it may even work against the target.   When a character is enraged or berserk, they do not always choose the best attack option.     
 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well, not only that, but what's the base?  What I mean by that is where do you start your reciprocation and by what amount?  Is +1 the reverse of -¼?  is +2 the opposite of -2?

 

The sum of the cost of "can only do x" and "can do anything but x" should equal the cost of "the unlimited ability". 

 

If the power retains half its benefit either way, we have two -1 limitations.  60 AP = 30 RP + 30 RP

 

If it retains enough value for a -1/2 limitation, then losing everything else should be a -2 limitation. 60 AP = 40 RP + 20 RP

 

If what is removed is almost trivial (-1/4) then only retaining that is almost valueless (-4).  48 RP + 12 RP = 60 RP

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If it retains enough value for a -1/2 limitation, then losing everything else should be a -2 limitation. 

 

But... that's my question.  How do you come up with these values?  Why is -½ the opposite of -2?  What is the basis for choosing one compared to the other?

[Marcus]

-1/2 is here the reflex of -2 because the sum of the cost of two powers, with those limitations, is equal to the cost of the power without any limitations.  60 ED Not vs Fire (-1/2) = 40 Points.  60 ED Only vs Fire (-2) = 20 points.  40+20=60, the same as the cost of 60ED.  Similarly, -1/4 matches to -4 for the same reason.  60 points with a -1/4 is 48.  With a -4, 12.  Sum?  60.

 

This is not an argument as to what the proper value of ‘ED Only vs Fire’ should be.  It is an argument that -whatever- the value of ED Only vs Fire may be, the sum of the costs of ED (Not vs Fire) and ED (Only vs Fire) should match the cost of ED (No limitation). In some games ED vs fire may be worth more, or less, but its like pie.  The whole pie is equal to the sum of the parts.

 

Or another way to write it:

(A-B)+B=A, where A is ‘ED’ and B is ‘ED vs Fire’

Edited October 12, 2023 by Marcus
Clarification

[Gauntlet]

Could it be that we are making this just a bit more complicated then it needs to be?

[Hugh Neilson]

43 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

Could it be that we are making this just a bit more complicated then it needs to be?

 

"The whole equals the sum of the parts" is too complicated?

 

I do recall one early in-rules suggestion to simplify the game was elimination of both END and limitations, so I suppose, in not doing so, we are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[LoneWolf]

@Marcus your premise is mistaken and is trying to apply a mathematical formula in a manner it should not.  This is backed up by the examples in the rule book.  In the 6E V1 P383 it gives examples of the limited power limitation.  Only works in Darkness is listed as a -1/2 limitation, Does not work in Darkness is listed as a -1/4 limitation.   6E V1 P382 gives some guidelines on the limited power limitation -1/4 limitation is limited about a fourth of the time,  -1/2 is limited about a third of the time,  -1 the character is limited about half the time, -1 ½ the character is limited over half the time, and finally -2 the character almost never gets to use the power.   The last set is what you should be using not some mathematical formula that ignores the examples in the books.      

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

-1/2 is here the reflex of -2 because the sum of the cost of two powers, with those limitations, is equal to the cost of the power without any limitations.  60 ED Not vs Fire (-1/2) = 40 Points.  60 ED Only vs Fire (-2) = 20 points.  40+20=60, the same as the cost of 60ED.

 

I agree that its getting excessively complicated but I don't find this a compelling argument for equivalence or reciprocation

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

@Marcus your premise is mistaken and is trying to apply a mathematical formula in a manner it should not.  This is backed up by the examples in the rule book.  In the 6E V1 P383 it gives examples of the limited power limitation.  Only works in Darkness is listed as a -1/2 limitation, Does not work in Darkness is listed as a -1/4 limitation.   6E V1 P382 gives some guidelines on the limited power limitation -1/4 limitation is limited about a fourth of the time,  -1/2 is limited about a third of the time,  -1 the character is limited about half the time, -1 ½ the character is limited over half the time, and finally -2 the character almost never gets to use the power.   The last set is what you should be using not some mathematical formula that ignores the examples in the books.      

 

I thought this was a discussion board - that's what it says at the top of the page - not the "blindly apply whatever the rule books say and don't question the RAW" board. 

 

Activating 11- is a -1 limitation, but the power works 62.5% of the time.  8- is -2, but the power still works a quarter of the time.  I believe it is reasonable for the limitation to save more points than strict likelihood of activating would dictate because the character cannot anticipate when the power will, or will not, work to mitigate the impact of the limitation.

 

16 charges is still a limitation since it comes bundled with 0 END for free.  Tack on Costs END and it's really -1/2.  Do people really run through 16 charges that rapidly?

 

Those gradations are not always easy to apply. This Mind Control is a good example - if "calm down" can still achieve half or so things that full Mind Control would, then a -1 limitation is reasonable.  If it can only achieve a quarter of what full Mind Control could accomplish, then -1 is inappropriate.  I find that a lot of us, and the RAW, can be pretty tight-fisted around limitations, and overcharge for advantages. I prefer to seek a model where pricing is, at least roughly, commensurate with utility.  If only 10% of energy damage comes from fire, then ED: Fire Only is massively overpriced with a -1/2 limitation, and ED - not fire is only worth a -1/4 limitation.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I agree that its getting excessively complicated but I don't find this a compelling argument for equivalence or reciprocation

 

To my mind, that says "I don't believe it's worthwhile to pursue characters getting what they pay for and paying for what they get".

Edited October 13, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[LoneWolf]

@Hugh Neilson My point is that a -2 limitation should mean the power is incredibly restricted.  Only to calm down to me is not enough to justify a -2 limitation.   I was also responding to a mathematical formula being used to justify a value of a limitation that does not actually limit the power as much as the formula says.  Each custom limitation should be evaluated by itself based on how much it limits the power.  Using a mathematical formula to get an idea is ok, but you still have to look at how much the limitation restricts the power.  I used the examples from the book to illustrate that point.  

 

I can see a lot of uses for only to calm down besides stopping enraged and berserks.  It could be used on a person who is nervous about doing something allowing them to avoid penalties to certain activities.  It could be used to get people to listen to other people when they are trying to explain things the person does not want to hear.  It could prevent people from panicking during a fire and exit in a calm and orderly manner.  It could prevent a fight before it even got started.  
 

[Tech]

I'll talk it over with another GM but I'm going to suggest -1 1/4, based on our campaign. Thanks all.

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

@Hugh Neilson My point is that a -2 limitation should mean the power is incredibly restricted.  Only to calm down to me is not enough to justify a -2 limitation.   I was also responding to a mathematical formula being used to justify a value of a limitation that does not actually limit the power as much as the formula says.  Each custom limitation should be evaluated by itself based on how much it limits the power.  Using a mathematical formula to get an idea is ok, but you still have to look at how much the limitation restricts the power.  I used the examples from the book to illustrate that point.  

 

I can see a lot of uses for only to calm down besides stopping enraged and berserks.  It could be used on a person who is nervous about doing something allowing them to avoid penalties to certain activities.  It could be used to get people to listen to other people when they are trying to explain things the person does not want to hear.  It could prevent people from panicking during a fire and exit in a calm and orderly manner.  It could prevent a fight before it even got started.  
 

 

I would expect the analysis to come from both sides

- "what is retained?" - what can it be used for?

 - "what is lost?" - what could normal Mind Control be used for, that this cannot?

 

Answering these questions helps the player/GM frames out what the limitation actually means, and reduces friction in play, rather than discovering in mid-combat that the player and GM have very different interpretations of what the limitation actually means.

 

Does the player envision:

 

"OK, the hysterical crowd is calmed down; they are still all rushing the exit from the burning building because, calm or panicked, they are still in danger and are more concerned for their safety than anyone else's"; or

 

"OK, the hysterical crowd is calmed down; the form orderly lines and file quietly to the exit without pushing, shoving or trying to get out more quickly than the people in front of them."?

 

Those are both valid interpretations.  One version seems much more useful than the other, based on this one limited example.

 

I don't believe that "only to calm down the target" is necessarily a reciprocal to "not to calm the target down" - there are likely things that either power could accomplish, and either would have to pay for that overlap.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 10/12/2023 at 5:12 PM, LoneWolf said:

 6E V1 P382 gives some guidelines on the limited power limitation -1/4 limitation is limited about a fourth of the time,  -1/2 is limited about a third of the time,  -1 the character is limited about half the time, -1 ½ the character is limited over half the time, and finally -2 the character almost never gets to use the power.   The last set is what you should be using not some mathematical formula that ignores the examples in the books.      

 

Now let's apply that to actual limitations that appear in-game.  Will a power that "Only works in Darkness" be fully accessible to the character 2/3 of the time? I can believe that a power that "does not work in darkness" will be available 75% or more of the time.

 

We've discussed "only versus fire" a lot above.  Are two-thirds of attacks that target energy defense Fire, supporting -1/2?  Even if half are, that indicates a -1 limitation.

 

If "fire only" is -1/2, what about "only fire and electricity"?  Is that -1/4 (75% of the time it's useful - baloney!) or do you pay 10 points for +15 ED only vs fire and 10 points for +15 ED only vs electricity?  That's paying for what you get??

 

Many of the limitations in the book remind me of the constant d20 commentary about abilities being too situational to be worth a feat, a class skill, a whatever. Lowballed limitations makes the ability too pricy for its limited utility, and we pay far more than the value of what we get.  It really reminds me of the Golden Age of Gaming - you know, where everything players tried to do had to be carefully scrutinized, because players were always trying to pull a fast one on their adversarial GM - if in doubt, say no or at least make it more expensive.  There's a lot of that in the 6e rules - make the advantage as expensive as any possible use could be, and price the limitation as low as it could possibly limit; no, make it even lower than that just to be safe.

[unclevlad]

We also see that with VPP limitations.  Only fire powers is given the same value as only adjustment powers?  What is a "fire power" anyway, what can I fit into that SFX?  Adjustments...they're nice, they're great, but they're also fairly hard to work with, especially for attacks.  There is a defense power, but it's fairly pricey.  Only Attacks is only -1/4?  No movement, no defenses?  OK, well, some of this might be that you might well buy your defenses and movement as fixed powers, and you're doing so specifically to take that limited powers cost reducer.  

 

I might agree with that, if it was new in 6E...the 2nd biggest change from 5E to 6E was decoupling pool size from control cost on VPPs, IMO...but it's true in 5E too.  If you wanted a VPP big enough to cover attack and defense at once, you were gonna pay through the nose for the control cost, OR you were gonna need serious limitations on everything.

 

To be sure:  the flip side kicks in with things like "I can build any NND I want to build."  Because...by the rules, if your VPP isn't limited in SFX...you can.  Even if it's attacks only.  We went over that in some depth.  The rules need to support any concept...but what they don't do well is discuss how to construct balanced limitations on powers and SFX together.  And VPP is the STOP framework, for good reason.

 

Last quick point...Hugh's point about rules lawyering players vs. adversarial GMs is unfortunately baked into Hero.  It's implicit in the system where players can pick their advantages to maximize their gain, and their limitations to maximize their cost saving while minimizing their downsides.  It's baked into a LOT of examples...perhaps mostly for Fantasy Hero, but sometimes for supers...where even the authors toss out what, IMO, are meaningless limitations purely to get the costs down.  We see it here...using Transform as a semi-universal power construction approach to do things, because quite often it's the cheapest...and the rules make it the easiest.  Or sometimes with Damage Over Time, where you pile on massive advantages onto a tiny power because a +10 modifier hardly hurts when you're talking a 2 point power.  I'm not trying to call out anyone...just point out the temptation to do it is always there, and it's very hard not to be affected by it, in some form or another.

[Marcus]

I am deeply enjoying this conversation, but perhaps one of us should consider starting its own thread on ‘pricing limitations’ or even ‘Costs in Hero’?  I forget how thats handled here, because its a good discussion but weve come a long way from the OP’s topic.

 

I think VPPs have to be addressed carefully - compared not only to the unlimited VPP on one side, but also to a single power.  A VPP, Energy Blast Only, Cosmic, beats the pants off of a variable advantage variable sfx energy blast of the same magnitude.  I think the problem here is more with the variable advantage and variable sfx advantages (you just dont get anything like what you paid for), but its a thing to consider.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

We also see that with VPP limitations.  Only fire powers is given the same value as only adjustment powers?  What is a "fire power" anyway, what can I fit into that SFX?  Adjustments...they're nice, they're great, but they're also fairly hard to work with, especially for attacks.  There is a defense power, but it's fairly pricey.  Only Attacks is only -1/4?  No movement, no defenses?  OK, well, some of this might be that you might well buy your defenses and movement as fixed powers, and you're doing so specifically to take that limited powers cost reducer. 

 

For VPPs, I expect the player to be able to define what kinds of abilities the VPP can incorporate, and provide examples of what it cannot generate.  For slots, a lot depends on how easy it is to change the slots.  "Not in darkness" would be a lot more valid on a pool that requires days and lab facilities to change than in a Cosmic pool.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Last quick point...Hugh's point about rules lawyering players vs. adversarial GMs is unfortunately baked into Hero.  It's implicit in the system where players can pick their advantages to maximize their gain, and their limitations to maximize their cost saving while minimizing their downsides.  It's baked into a LOT of examples...perhaps mostly for Fantasy Hero, but sometimes for supers...where even the authors toss out what, IMO, are meaningless limitations purely to get the costs down.  We see it here...using Transform as a semi-universal power construction approach to do things, because quite often it's the cheapest...and the rules make it the easiest.  Or sometimes with Damage Over Time, where you pile on massive advantages onto a tiny power because a +10 modifier hardly hurts when you're talking a 2 point power.  I'm not trying to call out anyone...just point out the temptation to do it is always there, and it's very hard not to be affected by it, in some form or another.

 

The rules could do a much better job of opening with the expectation that players and the GM are mature individuals wanting to play an engaging game, and not point-whoring rules lawyers. It could then present ranges of advantages and limitations which work to assess the impact on the ability from that perspective.  Recognize exactly what the temptations are and address resisting them in the best interests of everyone at the gaming table.

[unclevlad]

23 minutes ago, Marcus said:

I think VPPs have to be addressed carefully - compared not only to the unlimited VPP on one side, but also to a single power.  A VPP, Energy Blast Only, Cosmic, beats the pants off of a variable advantage variable sfx energy blast of the same magnitude.  I think the problem here is more with the variable advantage and variable sfx advantages (you just dont get anything like what you paid for), but its a thing to consider.

 

Even if Energy Blast is given a fairly high limitation like -1, which is notably larger than the rules allow, a 60 active/control cosmic VPP costs 60 (size) + 30 x3 / 2, or 45 for the control cost.  Yes, it's better than Variable SFX...but at a serious cost.

 

I think both Variable SFX, and the pricing on VPPs generally, show Hugh's point that the rules take the very pessimistic view, here, towards flexibility.  It's viewed as dangerous in and of itself, so it's made rather expensive.