Point of Order

[Hugh Neilson]

In my mind, FREd has five categories of power construct. These are as follows:

 

1. Normal construct (no special caveats)

 

2. Caution SIgn (consider carefully)

 

3. Stop Sign (consider even more carefully)

 

4. "Requires GM Permission"

 

5. Outright illegal

 

Ordering of 1-3 and 5 I'm comfortable with. However, when you use #4, where do you intend this appear on the GM radar screen? I've always read it as something like "Technically this is legal, and we don't want to shut out the concept entirely because that culd shut down a valid construct, but any proposed ability should be scrutinized with extreme care", so worse than Stop Sign and better than "Never Allowed". Is that the intended interpretation? If not, what is?

[Steve Long]

This isn't a rules question, but some sort of design philosophy/GMing sort of thing. So, I've moved it so that anyone who's interested can discuss it.

 

My only comment is that the definition of Caution and Stop Sign powers (5E 68) indicates that GM permission is required for them, essentially. I wouldn't consider your category #4 as a separate, distinct grouping. But YMMV and RMMD.

[Intrope]

I'd consider #4 true of all constructs. Just because it uses 'safe' powers doesn't mean it's a safe construct. After all, in a standard Champs game 16d6 EB probably shouldn't be allows (too big!) but it's a fully legal, #1 power.

 

Essentially, anything a player builds really ought to be 'with GM's approval'. The yield/stop markers are just there to mark things which are especially likely to be trouble.

 

Naturally, GM's shouldn't power trip on their players; let'em build cool things! (as long as they don't just munch out!)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Intrope

I'd consider #4 true of all constructs.

 

I agree with your comments, but I'm getting at items in FREd which specifically indicate "cannot be purchased without GM permission". Two examples are special powers in a framework (which I've commonly handwaved in a Supers game), and more than +2 Stun Multiple on a KA (which I have not).

 

Conversely, all powers in an EC must cost END - as opposed to requiring GM permission to have powers which cost no END. [This is also something I generally handwave, as it strikes me as arbitrary that an EC can have Healing bought to 0 END, but no Aid unless it Costs END).

[BoneDaddy]

WooHoo, an ethics question! Aristotle said (in ancient Grreek, so I paraphrase) that where the law ends, equity begins, and that no law can govern equity. What Ary meant is, the rules are designed to be fair, but sometimes there are things that are outside the rules, but still fair (equitable, ethics and legal types call it). The GM permission is equity.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Conversely, all powers in an EC must cost END - as opposed to requiring GM permission to have powers which cost no END.

No, this is also an "OK if the GM permits" thing. Check out the last paragraph in the first column on page 204.

[Steve Long]

but sometimes there are things that are outside the rules, but still fair

 

Likewise, there are some things that are within the rules, but can be recognized as being things the GM shouldn't allow. The nature of modelling reality (and para-reality!) with numbers is such that no system is ever going to be perfect. The price you pay for using a flexible, points-based system is that you have to take some care with how you use it. It's like having a car and the privilege to drive -- if you don't drive maturely and responsibly, Bad Things may happen.

 

And for situations where a gamer doesn't act with the maturity and responsibility he should, or there's a disagreement about how properly he's acted, our polis designates authority to the GM.